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 access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: 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 3: All right, good Friday and morning, welcome to a Counterpoints
Speaker 3: takeover of this Friday show. Just some programming notes stick
Speaker 3: around for the very end if you're a premium subscriber.
Speaker 3: If you're not a premiumbscriber. Premium subscriber, it'll cut off
Speaker 3: about halfway through. You're going to miss a lot of
Speaker 3: good stuff. You know, we give so much of this
Speaker 3: show away, We give so much milk away. We got
Speaker 3: to figure out ways to make you buy this cow.
Speaker 3: And so we're going to have Matt Stoller and James
Speaker 3: Lee in the back end of it, Matt Stoller talking
Speaker 3: about the definition of oligarchy, James Lee doing an interview
Speaker 3: with a former layman trader about the private equity bubble,
Speaker 3: which I actually think is one of the maybe the
Speaker 3: biggest issue facing the economy right now, is the potential
Speaker 3: collapse of private equity, which could just rip through everything
Speaker 3: and give us another you know, two thousand and eight,
Speaker 3: two thousand and nine. We're also going to talk in
Speaker 3: the back half of the show about the latest developments
Speaker 3: in Israel and wanted to talk about one piece of
Speaker 3: that before we moved to domestic news, and then we'll
Speaker 3: pick more of that up. Actually, a producer, Mac who
Speaker 3: has the YouTube channel Good Politic Guy, picked up on
Speaker 3: this earlier this week. I only noticed it recently, but
Speaker 3: Besilol Smotrich, the Finance Minister, Israel's finance minister, gave a
Speaker 3: speech this week where he said that he had where
Speaker 3: he basically says he won an internal battle and Israel
Speaker 3: is now because he has won this batattle deliberately targeting
Speaker 3: civilians and the civilian infrastructure of hamas in Gaza, no
Speaker 3: longer just focusing on the military, but going after civilians.
Speaker 3: That is a crime against humanity. It's against international law.
Speaker 3: You cannot target civilians, even if they work in the government.
Speaker 3: If anybody told you that it was legal to kill
Speaker 3: two Israeli members of the embassy here in Washington, d C.
Speaker 3: Because there's a war going on, they are they're lying
Speaker 3: to you that that is a crime against humanity. You
Speaker 3: cannot kill civilian members of the government. Uh, the IDF
Speaker 3: is finally conducting a campaign against the civilian rule of
Speaker 3: Hamas and not just focusing on the military infrastructure we
Speaker 3: are eliminating. We are eliminating ministers, officials, money changers, and
Speaker 3: elements of the economic and governmental system. So we'll talk
Speaker 3: more about that, what that, what that means about this
Speaker 3: next phase of the Israeli attack on on Gaza In
Speaker 3: the back half of the show, Emily any any quick
Speaker 3: reaction to that.
Speaker 4: As well, at least have a lot to discuss when
Speaker 4: we get to that portion of the show, which again
Speaker 4: is for premium subscribers. You can head over to Breaking
Speaker 4: Points dot com to get access to the back half
Speaker 4: of these Friday shows. Usually it's more of a party
Speaker 4: Who've got Crystal, sometimes Saga, but now it's like today,
Speaker 4: it's rising Fridays like circa four years ago.
Speaker 3: That's right, that's right, that's right. Yeah, you're definitely not
Speaker 3: going to Ryan.
Speaker 4: Also, we have in the front of the show We're
Speaker 4: going to be talking about Trump's crypto dinner, which happened
Speaker 4: last night, and the reports are trickling in about exactly
Speaker 4: how that went.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: The claim is now that the big beautiful bill cuts
Speaker 4: the deficit, which is incredible.
Speaker 5: So we will break all of that down too.
Speaker 3: Yeah, not true. We'll have some updates on immigration policy.
Speaker 3: Trump telling a four hundred year old university, the top
Speaker 3: university in the world, that it can no longer accept
Speaker 3: foreign students. They cited no rationale, no legal rationale for that.
Speaker 3: So that's gonna that's gonna head to court. But you know,
Speaker 3: the fight with Harvard is kicking up, and I desperately,
Speaker 3: you know, hate Trump for making me defend Harvard, you know,
Speaker 3: one of the worst institutions in the world. But uh,
Speaker 3: come on, what are you doing? What on earth are
Speaker 3: you doing? The the though, the white immigrant, the Denmark guy,
Speaker 3: and Mississippi's kind of making waves on on the on
Speaker 3: the right, and and you know, across the spectrum. This guy.
Speaker 3: We'll talk about this guy who's been in the country
Speaker 3: since twenty thirteen, was doing everything right. Went to a
Speaker 3: immigration hearing. Uh, father of four married to an American citizen. Uh,
Speaker 3: you know on on his you know do did nothing
Speaker 3: wrong except I think they missed one one filing or something.
Speaker 3: Arrested down in Mississippi by Ice Agency's in detention. Now. Trump,
Speaker 3: now that the talk market has recovered, he's doing his
Speaker 3: best to smash it again. He's threatening a twenty five
Speaker 3: percent tariff on Apple, fifty percent tariff on the EU
Speaker 3: and also the old tariffs are still in place. He's
Speaker 3: going after media matters. Democrats are proposing a whole bunch
Speaker 3: of a whole bunch of different changes that we can
Speaker 3: that we'll talk about going forward. This interesting, interesting story
Speaker 3: in the Bulwark.
Speaker 4: Even everything you just said, the fact that it's happening
Speaker 4: all at once, it gave me a.
Speaker 5: Little bit of whiplash.
Speaker 4: I was like, Wow, you told me ten years ago
Speaker 4: that that would just be the casual rundown of a
Speaker 4: Friday show.
Speaker 5: Wow, Okay, there we are.
Speaker 4: But it is all happening at once, and everyone give
Speaker 4: me a little patience.
Speaker 5: This morning.
Speaker 4: I moved yesterday and had all kinds of tech fun
Speaker 4: this morning. So if there's weirdness in the audio and
Speaker 4: if I'm at an odd angle, just we're working on it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, your computer's buses, So is it hard for you
Speaker 3: to put up elements.
Speaker 4: Crying and it looks like because you're on an i boomer,
Speaker 4: I'm on an iPad, so we will.
Speaker 3: Well, you're a computer broke and you still made it on.
Speaker 5: Here, that's right, the one thing that broke.
Speaker 3: Yes, at least that's not boomer at all. Okay, so
Speaker 3: let's uh let's start here, uh with Caroline Levitt talking
Speaker 3: about the talking about this crypto dinner last night, which
Speaker 3: is you know, it's hard, it's hard to remain shocked anymore.
Speaker 3: But this is truly a a a shocking level, brazed
Speaker 3: and braised, brazen level of corruption. So let me let
Speaker 3: me share this, uh this, Caroline Levitt.
Speaker 6: Here on the dinner tonight, you mentioned this is not
Speaker 6: a White House dinner, but the president is and the
Speaker 6: Trump family is making money off of this. So can
Speaker 6: you just explain how is this not the president using
Speaker 6: the office to enrich themselvel.
Speaker 7: All of the president's assets are in a blind trust
Speaker 7: which is managed by his children, And I would argue
Speaker 7: one of the many reasons that the American people re
Speaker 7: elected this president back to this office is because he
Speaker 7: was a very successful businessman before giving it up to
Speaker 7: publicly serve our country.
Speaker 5: Did she say a blind trust managed by his j ok.
Speaker 3: That was comical? That was comical. A blind trust managed
Speaker 3: by his children? That is? That is indeed what h
Speaker 3: what she said?
Speaker 5: Does that mean? That could mean a lot of different things,
Speaker 5: by the way, it could mean.
Speaker 4: That they are the people who are the like actual
Speaker 4: they're they're making the trades and stuff. Or it could
Speaker 4: mean that they're managing the people who are handling the investments.
Speaker 4: But it sounds like they're the ones that are handling
Speaker 4: the investments from that quote, Yeah, not not so blind?
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, yes, yes, I'm sure his yes, because we're like,
Speaker 3: give us the money, give us your money, we'll manage
Speaker 3: it for you. And they're doing all and they're doing
Speaker 3: all their deals around the world, Like how does that?
Speaker 3: How does that? How does that not make it worse?
Speaker 3: Like that feels a little bit. I guess it's worse
Speaker 3: than like one of those answers where you're like, oh, wow,
Speaker 3: this was really bad. When I heard the questions, it's
Speaker 3: worse now that I've heard the answer. So for folks
Speaker 3: not following this, this crypto dinner, if you what, in
Speaker 3: order to get into this dinner, you had to buy
Speaker 3: Trump's mean coin, and the top two hundred holders of
Speaker 3: Trump's mean coin would then get access to Trump, and
Speaker 3: I think the top fifteen or thirty would get this
Speaker 3: like VIP access. Now, the way that crypto works is
Speaker 3: it's there's some transparency in being able to follow the coin.
Speaker 3: And more than fifty percent of the of the of
Speaker 3: the people who bought into the top two hundred, and
Speaker 3: more than fifty percent bought in the top thirty did
Speaker 3: so through exchanges that only allow foreigners to participate in them.
Speaker 3: So we knew for a fact going in that this
Speaker 3: was a bunch of peace people from outside of the
Speaker 3: country who were going, we're giving money directly to Donald
Speaker 3: Trump to enrich him for access to him. Now, the
Speaker 3: question then, is they just want it like they just
Speaker 3: want a selfie, or they are they actually trying to
Speaker 3: move policy, because then you're at the level of bribery,
Speaker 3: and so the New York Times has, Uh.
Speaker 4: It's incredible, it's exactly respect but incredible nonetheless.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah. Several of the dinner guests and interviews with
Speaker 3: The New York Times said that they attended the event
Speaker 3: with the explicit intent of influencing mister Trump and US
Speaker 3: financial regulations. Sang Rock Oh, a Korean crypto executive, arrived
Speaker 3: at the dinner with a collection of red baseball caps
Speaker 3: and blazoned with the words make Crypto great Again that
Speaker 3: he planned to hand out at the event. He said
Speaker 3: he had flown all the way from Soul to attend
Speaker 3: a dinner. Quote. It's kind of a fundraiser for mister Trump,
Speaker 3: mister O said in an interview at his hotel in Virginia,
Speaker 3: and he'll always be good to his sponsors. The dinner
Speaker 3: was designed to fuel more sales. The organizers framed it
Speaker 3: as a contest. The top two hundred and twenty buyers
Speaker 3: would dine with mister Trump at his golf club, while
Speaker 3: the top twenty five would attend a more intimate gathering
Speaker 3: with the president before dinner and go on a tour
Speaker 3: of the White House. So you can't believe anything I say.
Speaker 3: I said two hundred and thirty just open bribery, and anyway,
Speaker 3: that's not The New York Times that's mister Hannah and
Speaker 3: Aniya there. So yeah, so they paid money to Trump
Speaker 3: a fundraiser for Trump, not Trump's campaign, which is the
Speaker 3: way that we've legalized bribery in the United States, but
Speaker 3: directly to Trump, which is the old school illegal kind
Speaker 3: of bribery. Is there has anybody attempted a steel man
Speaker 3: of why this is not just flagrant?
Speaker 5: I think Carolin speaking of Caroline Lovitt, I think.
Speaker 3: Oh, because it's a blind His money's in a blind.
Speaker 3: Hrowsn't he doesn't know if all this money that's being
Speaker 3: given by him actually benefits him or not, because his
Speaker 3: kids might lose it.
Speaker 4: On well, of when she was talking last week about
Speaker 4: the cutter jet and she said, the notion that Donald
Speaker 4: Trump would be influenced by anything like that is insane.
Speaker 4: And I actually really think that's the only steel man
Speaker 4: that you could possibly come up with.
Speaker 5: Well meaning that well, even with.
Speaker 4: The tariffs, at least for a couple of weeks, he
Speaker 4: was willing to give a middle finger to all the
Speaker 4: Wall Street guys that were messing with him like that's
Speaker 4: I don't think it's a good argument, but I think
Speaker 4: it's the best version of the argument that it's all
Speaker 4: on the up and up, because Trump is just someone
Speaker 4: who's uniquely resistant to the influence of money and politics,
Speaker 4: which is how a lot of people see him. On
Speaker 4: the other hand, that's not how the people who were
Speaker 4: dishing out millions of dollars to who have dished out
Speaker 4: millions of dollars to Trump, see him. And that's in
Speaker 4: this I mean you see that in this rundown itself.
Speaker 4: I think the estimate is about forty percent of Trump's
Speaker 4: net worth is now tied up and the coin in crypto,
Speaker 4: which is astounding because that's only happened over the course
Speaker 4: of the last five months. This a man who spent
Speaker 4: how many.
Speaker 5: Years toiling away in the Trench's New York real estate.
Speaker 5: So it is just to see ryan two things.
Speaker 4: On the one hand, the people who are activists in
Speaker 4: crypto world do fundamentally want to change the global economy,
Speaker 4: bottom line. That's why they're active activists in crypto world.
Speaker 4: And on the other hand, what they're doing here is
Speaker 4: so nakedly corrupt that you just it's head spinning. And
Speaker 4: so you have activists and corruption combined in one beautiful dinner,
Speaker 4: one big, beautiful dinner.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and this is a good example of it. This
Speaker 3: is a piece in the Wall Street Journal headlined a
Speaker 3: crypto billionaire who feared to rest in the US returns
Speaker 3: for dinner with Trump. It's about this guy, Justin's son,
Speaker 3: who run a crypto network that is very popular with
Speaker 3: what they what the Wall Street Journal calls the criminal underbelly.
Speaker 3: And this this is a top use of crypto as
Speaker 3: being trying to trying to move money outside of the
Speaker 3: banking system if you are involved in things that the
Speaker 3: banking system is going to flag as as potentially illegal, uh,
Speaker 3: drug trafficking, human trafficking, uh, money money laundering, you know,
Speaker 3: the you know, the the under underworld stuff. And so
Speaker 3: this guy was, uh, you know, persona non grata until recently,
Speaker 3: and now he has you know, used this money to
Speaker 3: buy and if if you are Sam Bankman freed, uh,
Speaker 3: you have to be feeling like the biggest moron on
Speaker 3: the planet. Like you you put all of your money
Speaker 3: into Democrats and then Democrats went and tried to regulate
Speaker 3: crypto and then locked you up. Like your move, moron
Speaker 3: was to put your money into on the Republican side.
Speaker 5: He was what he did fairly, Yeah, it was it
Speaker 5: was like sixty forty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was spread he was spreading it around. He
Speaker 3: gave a bunch of McConnell, right, Yeah, he was definitely
Speaker 3: spreading it around. Yeah, but he was a little more.
Speaker 4: No, he was, and he was he was sort of
Speaker 4: culturally aligning himself the left, which is again very interesting too,
Speaker 4: Like he was because at the time how quickly culture changes.
Speaker 5: Now, at the time, the idea of.
Speaker 4: You know, the the what do they call it, it's
Speaker 4: like so out of vogue now, the effect of altruism
Speaker 4: that was really that's right and sort of left wing
Speaker 4: progressive business circles to the extent that makes sense, sort
Speaker 4: of like the center left circles. And so he thought
Speaker 4: he could pitch crypto as effective altruism instead. You're right,
Speaker 4: it should have just been you know, piracy and take
Speaker 4: it to the libertarian right.
Speaker 5: Just leave it at that.
Speaker 3: And while we're while we're on the topic of corruption,
Speaker 3: pro Public has this news story that what is a
Speaker 3: dozen top congressional aids and executive brank branch officials sold
Speaker 3: huge amounts of stock just before Liberation Day. Now in
Speaker 3: their defense, uh, Donald Trump went to Congress with his
Speaker 3: in his State of the Union and announced that he
Speaker 3: was going to do his Liberation Day. And as Jeff
Speaker 3: Stein kept complaining about Wall Street guys like we've been
Speaker 3: saying he's going to do this, he has said it
Speaker 3: out loud. He has said it out loud repeatedly. So
Speaker 3: what I think it It goes to a fundamental corruption
Speaker 3: in the system that these officials hold. That's those shares
Speaker 3: at all. Like, if you're a public official, you should,
Speaker 3: to me, you should not have public any kind of
Speaker 3: public servant, any stocks. Yeah, public servant, yes, exactly, yes, yes,
Speaker 3: serving serving the public. Put you know, your money should
Speaker 3: be in an actual blind trust, not run by It's insane.
Speaker 4: I mean, but the thing is it doesn't matter, and
Speaker 4: I don't even know I mean it it matters. It
Speaker 4: doesn't matter for Trump because I guess what's the best
Speaker 4: explanation of this. It's always been baked into Trump and
Speaker 4: there's no other politician like it.
Speaker 5: I mean, this is the.
Speaker 4: Man who actually based a not insignificant portion of his
Speaker 4: twenty twenty campaign on Biden family corruption. The twenty sixteen
Speaker 4: campaigns was not insignificantly based on Clinton corruption, and.
Speaker 3: That was also about insecure use of messaging. Like there
Speaker 3: the personal emails were said to be the greatest, like
Speaker 3: national security castrophe. Let's get an update on that.
Speaker 5: How's and foreign influence?
Speaker 3: How's that going? How's how's the Trump administration handled.
Speaker 4: When it was really particulars about foreign and pebbling, both
Speaker 4: with the Clinton Foundation and with the Biden operation. And
Speaker 4: I think Hanani described I think he described one of
Speaker 4: the pictures from the Times articles like a United Nations
Speaker 4: of corruption because it was people from so many different
Speaker 4: countries who were racing to be involved in the dinner.
Speaker 4: While again Trump is this is the sitting president of
Speaker 4: the United States. So Trump is not like yeah, it's
Speaker 4: the only difference between Trump and Hunter Biden whatever is
Speaker 4: Trump has Caroline Levitt go out there and just say
Speaker 4: to everyone, well, yeah, people can give him money.
Speaker 5: It doesn't mean it's going to change his mind.
Speaker 4: Like he's he's taking all of this, you know, he's
Speaker 4: he's doing all these events. Doesn't mean it's going to
Speaker 4: change his mind. Whereas with the Bidens, it would be well,
Speaker 4: everything is legal, you know everything that nothing is. It's
Speaker 4: nothing to see here. Everything is perfectly in compliance. They're
Speaker 4: just like screw it, you know, like it doesn't don't
Speaker 4: even worry about that. The question fundamentally is whether it's
Speaker 4: changing Trump's mind. It's not so look somewhere else. Did
Speaker 4: you see Tucker By the way, Tucker, sorry, maybe Sean
Speaker 4: Ryan was on Tucker Carlson Show this week and brought
Speaker 4: it up. Brought up I think they were in the
Speaker 4: context of last week's trip to the Middle East, and
Speaker 4: Tucker was like, sure, looks corrupt. And if you're a
Speaker 4: consistent sort of supporter of Donald Trump's, because he is
Speaker 4: a very effective critic of the swamp in Washington, d C.
Speaker 4: There's only one way to be consistent.
Speaker 5: It would be to see that as outrage.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, it's corrupt. The only defense of it is
Speaker 3: that people who like Trump like Trump and that is cool.
Speaker 3: They don't care.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, the argument is that doing outweighs the personal enrichment.
Speaker 4: But of course, again, it makes it look like the
Speaker 4: United States is for sale, and the United States has
Speaker 4: been for sale in many different ways over many, many years.
Speaker 5: But there's something about.
Speaker 3: Right, all they have is what about.
Speaker 5: And there's something also about the sort of pretense of.
Speaker 4: It's not even just a pretense, it's an ambition that
Speaker 4: as you sort of respect the will of voters, that
Speaker 4: they respect our laws that they say, hey, we don't
Speaker 4: have a spoils system. It's something we're very opposed to
Speaker 4: as like average Americans, we don't like it when the
Speaker 4: people who are elected abuse their office for the sake
Speaker 4: of personal enrichment.
Speaker 5: But the I mean it just.
Speaker 4: That's out the window and who knows what happens afterwards
Speaker 4: because of that.
Speaker 3: And maybe we disagree on this Harvard, this Harvard issue,
Speaker 3: let's move on to that one. So let me let
Speaker 3: me put this up. So Trump administration sent a letter
Speaker 3: to Harvard saying that in the headline in the Times
Speaker 3: as Trump administration says it is halting Harvard's ability to
Speaker 3: enroll international students. That's that's what they did. They sent
Speaker 3: a letter to Harvard saying, you are no longer eligible
Speaker 3: to enroll foreign students. They're what twenty twenty seven percent
Speaker 3: like some Yes, twenty seven percent of the student body
Speaker 3: six thousand, eight hundred international students attended Harvard in the
Speaker 3: in the last school year. It had been it had
Speaker 3: been nineteen point seven percent in twenty ten to twenty eleven,
Speaker 3: so it's slightly increasing number. And so they're telling Harvard
Speaker 3: forget it, like you can't do this anymore now as
Speaker 3: people have who've you know, looked closely at the letters
Speaker 3: that it doesn't have don't cite any law, doesn't cite
Speaker 3: any authority under which they're going to single out Harvard.
Speaker 3: She's BONDI said out Now, this tended to send a
Speaker 3: message to the rest of No song Nome said, is
Speaker 3: intended to send a message to the rest of the
Speaker 3: universities that they better not fight the administration. So, you know,
Speaker 3: presumably who knows, presumably the Supreme Court or whoever rules
Speaker 3: on this will knock this down. We could talk about
Speaker 3: that that whether or not that's the case, but also
Speaker 3: the merits of it. I guess the argument on behalf
Speaker 3: of it is that, hey, it's an American university. It
Speaker 3: should be a it should be there for Americans. The
Speaker 3: argument for it is that the United States doesn't make
Speaker 3: much anymore, but we are still the innovation center of
Speaker 3: the world. China is challenging us, but we're we are
Speaker 3: We're still at minimum competitive with them, if not, if
Speaker 3: not better. And the reason for that is that other
Speaker 3: countries aren't just competing against the top graduates of American
Speaker 3: high schools, but of the best and brightest from all
Speaker 3: around the world who come to the United States to
Speaker 3: go to the best university system in the world. Many
Speaker 3: of those students then become permanent residents and become citizens
Speaker 3: and stay here. They found companies like Google here that
Speaker 3: you know, put us in the in the forefront of
Speaker 3: this kind of innovation economy. The ones who then reached,
Speaker 3: who don't stay here and return to their capitals or
Speaker 3: to their big metropols, develop an affinity for the United
Speaker 3: States and give us another advantage when it comes to
Speaker 3: kind of soft power around the world, because they had
Speaker 3: a good time while they were here, and they have
Speaker 3: a lot of friends here, and they understand our country
Speaker 3: in a way that Americans don't, for instance, understand China.
Speaker 3: I was talking to a Pakistani guy who was here
Speaker 3: in the United States a week or two ago, and
Speaker 3: he was talking and he travels to China lot. He's uh,
Speaker 3: he's in He's in London a lot. And he was
Speaker 3: saying that this the advantage to him that the United
Speaker 3: States has is that he doesn't feel like he is
Speaker 3: a foreigner here. But he doesn't feel like a foreigner
Speaker 3: like he he comes to the United States, he feels
Speaker 3: at home. He's welcomed despite all of this Trump rhetoric
Speaker 3: and the attacks on immigrants and such. You look around
Speaker 3: and we're a genuinely diverse, pluralistic, multicultural countries that you
Speaker 3: go to China, he so you immediately feel like a
Speaker 3: foreigner and and that's not that's not the sing a
Speaker 3: lot of China. That's that's the case for so many
Speaker 3: other countries. You just feel out of place. And that
Speaker 3: gives us this this advantage without which we're then competing
Speaker 3: in you know, textile mills and like just just manufacturing.
Speaker 3: And we don't have that capacity right now. So if
Speaker 3: we get so, if we cut off our head, like
Speaker 3: the body is going to die too, would be my argument.
Speaker 3: What's your take on the value of well, these elite
Speaker 3: colleges and foreign studiyah.
Speaker 4: I mean, so they're a couple of the couple different
Speaker 4: parts of that. The first part is the question you
Speaker 4: just were discussing, which is the value of foreign attendance
Speaker 4: at elite colleges and universities, and then the others the
Speaker 4: value of this policy if we break it down that way,
Speaker 4: I think probably if you look through some of the
Speaker 4: highest achieving Americans in the last you know, fifty plus years.
Speaker 4: A lot of them probably came to the United States
Speaker 4: because they were exceptional students and you know, got to
Speaker 4: Harvard or wherever and the sake of their merit and
Speaker 4: made incredible companies and careers in the United States because
Speaker 4: they love the United States. And as we talk about,
Speaker 4: often immigrants to the United States are often the best
Speaker 4: Americans because they love.
Speaker 5: The US so much.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they necessarily take it for granted in the way
Speaker 4: because they come from places where you.
Speaker 5: Don't have as much freedom, you don't have as much prosperity.
Speaker 4: So I don't think it's wise to shut that off
Speaker 4: completely because some of the most brilliant people from around
Speaker 4: the world. In fact, it's a real benefit to the
Speaker 4: United States that still today. If you are high achieving
Speaker 4: in any other part of the world, you're not going
Speaker 4: to Chinese universities. You're trying to go to Harvard and
Speaker 4: Yale in Princeton wherever else, and actually even some of
Speaker 4: our big.
Speaker 5: Flagship state schools. So I think that's actually.
Speaker 4: Creates a The United States becomes a magnet for the
Speaker 4: best talent in the entire world. How we then integrate
Speaker 4: that talent into the United States is another question. That
Speaker 4: number twenty seven percent enrollment of foreign students at Harvard,
Speaker 4: which is the pride of America's higher education system, seems
Speaker 4: exorbitantly high. That seems like it is actually you know,
Speaker 4: this is a publicly funded university funded by US taxpayers.
Speaker 4: That seems like it probably is closing the door to
Speaker 4: too many American students. So I think it makes sense
Speaker 4: to have a conversation about that. On the other hand,
Speaker 4: policy wise, this is another sort of creative attempt or
Speaker 4: an attempt to create a new novel avenue to the
Speaker 4: They're like bushwhacking their way to like screwing with elite institutions.
Speaker 4: And I'm I have the letter in front of me
Speaker 4: just to get what Christynoam is saying out there.
Speaker 5: They are saying.
Speaker 4: They sent a letter in April to Harvard where they quote,
Speaker 4: requested records pertaining a non immigrant students enrolled at Harvard University,
Speaker 4: including information regarding misconduct and other offenses that would render
Speaker 4: foreign students inadmissible or removable. They said twice they got
Speaker 4: insufficient response. They say, as a courtesy that Harvard was
Speaker 4: not legally entitled to, DHS afforded them another opportunity to comply.
Speaker 4: Harvard again provided an insufficient response, so.
Speaker 3: Right, and they're asking for like five years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, within seventy two hours, they have like six demands
Speaker 4: yeah that include that. And they also are saying that
Speaker 4: this is under the auspices of a revocation of the
Speaker 4: Student and Exchange Visitor program, which DHS apparently I didn't
Speaker 4: know this, right, but DHS apparently administers. So that's why
Speaker 4: it's coming from CHRISTINOAM and DHS, and it is part
Speaker 4: of this administration wide effort to again like bush whack
Speaker 4: their way through uncharted territory, to screw with elite institutions
Speaker 4: via all kinds of different mechanisms, creative mechanisms. And so
Speaker 4: as much as I want to screw with elite institutions,
Speaker 4: it's just sounds completely silly. It doesn't seem entirely lawless.
Speaker 4: They do admit the program, but it seems like, I mean,
Speaker 4: it seems maybe silly is the best word. It seems
Speaker 4: like kind of a joke, yea.
Speaker 3: And yeah, in the sense that they are the law.
Speaker 3: It's not lawless, but they're not citing any particular authority
Speaker 3: that they have as the administers administrators of this program
Speaker 3: to just kind of arbitrarily target them because they're not
Speaker 3: turning over footage of protesters. It's like, what it's like,
Speaker 3: get out of here, Like who are you? DHS? Like,
Speaker 3: and I want I missed the the free speech right.
Speaker 3: That would be like, wait a minute, you want the government.
Speaker 3: The DHS wants a private institution to turn over five
Speaker 3: years of video footage of speech, the.
Speaker 4: Heavily funded private institution, a heavily tax payer funded private institution.
Speaker 3: That's fine. Still, it's still we're all tax payer fund
Speaker 3: on some level.
Speaker 5: That's thing Obama.
Speaker 3: You didn't build that, even if it's public, even if
Speaker 3: it's public, even if they went to the University of
Speaker 3: Michigan as for five years of footage of protests, like
Speaker 3: it is First Amendment. The right to peaceably assemble right
Speaker 3: there in the First Amendment, not just speech. Peaceful assembly
Speaker 3: is right there in the Constitution. It's one of the
Speaker 3: key things that we're so proud of that makes us
Speaker 3: a free country. DHS demanding that and if they don't
Speaker 3: turn it over, they're gonna basically try to destroy them
Speaker 3: is just a fundamental threat to civil liberties in this country. Now,
Speaker 3: everything I have said is an argument as an American
Speaker 3: for the United States of America. I think for a
Speaker 3: person in the world, you could argue, go ahead, good,
Speaker 3: it's actually it will be better for the world. If
Speaker 3: the United States commits suicide, it will be better for
Speaker 3: these other countries. If the United States is not creating
Speaker 3: a gravitational pull that creates this brain drain out of
Speaker 3: all of these other countries. If the United States is
Speaker 3: weaker and is interfering less in the democratic governance of
Speaker 3: other countries, that's probably a good thing. Now for people
Speaker 3: in the United States, their quality of life will go
Speaker 3: way down. This country itself will spiral, but the rest
Speaker 3: of the world may actually do better. So in that sense,
Speaker 3: you know, I guess go ahead, Christine.
Speaker 4: No, yeah, I mean, look that twenties again, twenty seven
Speaker 4: percent just seems it's probably.
Speaker 3: What although it's probably low, Like if you think about it,
Speaker 3: if this is you know, there's three hundred million people
Speaker 3: in the United States. There's eight nine billion around the world,
Speaker 3: maybe ten all competing for spots in the best college,
Speaker 3: and you American students are getting them. Somebody's putting yeah, I.
Speaker 4: Mean the public learning of the institution is one hundred
Speaker 4: percent of American but.
Speaker 3: The yeah, right, but the private the far, and that's
Speaker 3: what I was just going to say.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's what I was just it's it's I wonder
Speaker 4: how much of that is actually merit and versus you know,
Speaker 4: the rich chikhs, you know, buying their kids into Harvard
Speaker 4: or wherever else. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me
Speaker 4: to have a conversation about that. Also, these schools do
Speaker 4: have legitimate problems with espionage that they kind of opened
Speaker 4: in or welcomed in for a long time. They seem
Speaker 4: like they're all kind of cracking down on it now,
Speaker 4: but whether it's Cutter or China, there's been all kinds
Speaker 4: of stuff happening at it's these igue institutions. It's hard
Speaker 4: to tell whether this letter is specifically.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and the federal CHUDG has already blocked it.
Speaker 4: Well that's why I think so when you said it's
Speaker 4: a serious threat to higher education, it's like in I
Speaker 4: look at that on paper and I'm like, yes, that's true.
Speaker 5: But then I look in practice and I'm.
Speaker 4: Like, yeah, I know some of these people. Spend time
Speaker 4: with some of these people, and they're just trolling with
Speaker 4: a lot of this stuff. And it's not funny if
Speaker 4: you're Harvard but the only point that I would make
Speaker 4: is just and again, this is it. It's controversial and
Speaker 4: not entirely fair. But the only thing I would say is,
Speaker 4: I don't know how serious they are about going through
Speaker 4: with a lot of this stuff.
Speaker 5: It doesn't it doesn't make it right. I just think
Speaker 5: that they're they're throwing, like.
Speaker 4: Jackson pollocking the whole administration, like they're throwing everything at
Speaker 4: the wall and trying to make a beautiful portrait out
Speaker 4: of their mess.
Speaker 5: And yeah, it's it's It doesn't Again, it doesn't make
Speaker 5: it right.
Speaker 4: It doesn't mean that it's not gonna have implications, But
Speaker 4: just to like explain it from their perspective and explain
Speaker 4: why it doesn't feel like a grave threat to me
Speaker 4: is partially just because I'm like, I don't think they're
Speaker 4: going to go through with it. I think they're just
Speaker 4: doing this to scare the universities and appliance with other
Speaker 4: things that they are more serious about, and some of
Speaker 4: those will be I mean, the endowment tax that's in
Speaker 4: the big beautiful bill is significant. That actually is a
Speaker 4: huge deal if you're Harvard or any of these schools.
Speaker 4: So some of the stuff is completely serious. Some of
Speaker 4: it feels like, Okay, we're you know, just creating these
Speaker 4: funny like legal ideas that somebody came up with at
Speaker 4: a happy hour and was like, hah, and this will
Speaker 4: f with Harvard.
Speaker 5: Let's see what happens.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So let's let's talk briefly about this this father
Speaker 3: in Mississippi. And I guess you can let me know
Speaker 3: if the right is angry that I would that I
Speaker 3: call him a Mississippi father, just like they're angry about
Speaker 3: calling Braio Garcia Maryland.
Speaker 5: Maryland that this is That was the Atlantic headline.
Speaker 3: No, they hated, they hated Maryland father in particular. How
Speaker 3: dare you humanize him? So I'll just read from this
Speaker 3: this report. His father went to his This father went
Speaker 3: to his citizenship hearing, expecting a handshake. Instead, Ice shackled him,
Speaker 3: threw him into a van, and tore him away from
Speaker 3: his pregnant wife and four children without even letting him
Speaker 3: say goodbye. Casper Erickson arrived in Mississippi from Denmark in
Speaker 3: twenty thirteen, fully documented and determined to build a life here.
Speaker 3: He started a family, became part of his community, and
Speaker 3: followed every rule. He was never accused, let alone convicted
Speaker 3: of any crime, But as best we understand, he's now
Speaker 3: in prison because of a single clerical mistake made years ago.
Speaker 3: In twenty fifteen, Casper and his wife Savannah missed filing
Speaker 3: one form among the hundreds acquired on the complicated path
Speaker 3: to citizenship. Savannah had just suffered a still birth, losing
Speaker 3: their first child. In the painful days that followed, paperwork
Speaker 3: deadlines understandably slipped past unnoticed. Now over a month after
Speaker 3: his arrest, Casper remains locked in a detention facility notorious
Speaker 3: for cruelty, neglect, and abuse. Savannah, eight months pregnant, at
Speaker 3: high risk, and terrified, is desperately pleading for her husband's return.
Speaker 3: She and their children have no idea when or if
Speaker 3: they'll ever see him again, and she doesn't know if
Speaker 3: he'll be present for her child's birth. Every day brings
Speaker 3: another nightmare. Under the Trump administration, actions of our government
Speaker 3: are evil or simply no other way to describe it.
Speaker 3: May God have mercy on all of us for allowing
Speaker 3: this to happen. Here's the family, you know. This comes
Speaker 3: at the same time that Ice is also denying Makmood
Speaker 3: Khalil a contact visit with his want with his one
Speaker 3: month old baby for for no reason, Like there's contact
Speaker 3: visits are a thing that you can allow people who
Speaker 3: are in detention. Khalil was arrested or blocked up a
Speaker 3: month before his child was born, as he has not
Speaker 3: seen his child since then. This one, you know, struck me.
Speaker 3: You know, we also suffered a still born with our
Speaker 3: with our first daughter and also now have four children.
Speaker 3: And I can I can only imagine that. Of course,
Speaker 3: you're missing paperwork amidst amidst the deepest grief that that
Speaker 3: a human being can imagine losing a child, like there's
Speaker 3: there's nothing deeper than that. Ah. And two to use
Speaker 3: that to have a system that says you missed that deadline,
Speaker 3: there's nothing we can do. We must put you in
Speaker 3: this private prison for months on end as we work
Speaker 3: to deport you to Denmark is like this. This guy
Speaker 3: here described it as evil, and like, I'm hard pressed
Speaker 3: to find a different.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, there's the legal question in the ethical question,
Speaker 4: and on the ethical question. One of the things that
Speaker 4: bothers me about the.
Speaker 5: Way, particularly.
Speaker 4: We looked at like Venezuelan asylum seekers who ended up
Speaker 4: in Seacott and we're legitimate asylum seekers like the barber
Speaker 4: that we discussed by me about that is I feel
Speaker 4: like the United States made a promise, and I feel
Speaker 4: that about many of the asylum seekers who came under Biden.
Speaker 4: It's one of the things that bothered me about the
Speaker 4: Biden policy because I knew that at some point we
Speaker 4: were going to break the promise, because it was unsustainable
Speaker 4: to make those promises to so many different people that
Speaker 4: you will have a fair asylum hearing and that if
Speaker 4: you are and I know I'm just talking narrowly about
Speaker 4: asylum here, but the point is that we do promise
Speaker 4: rule of law and legal processes, and we you know,
Speaker 4: people come here with the expectation that the United States
Speaker 4: will do it fairly and will you know, treat people humanely.
Speaker 4: And so whether something is legal in a narrow sense
Speaker 4: is different than whether it's ethical, and it just it
Speaker 4: does you know, looking at some of the particularly some
Speaker 4: of the asylum cases Cubans, it just eats me up
Speaker 4: when I think about just having that sort of removed
Speaker 4: after people because the United States extended a hand and
Speaker 4: said make an appointment on CBP one, come here.
Speaker 5: You know, you can just tell us like go through
Speaker 5: the legal process.
Speaker 4: Tell us why you want to asylum, tell us why
Speaker 4: you're a refugee. And it's I think sort of been
Speaker 4: that it feels like we've let ourselves down in some
Speaker 4: of those cases. And again that's coming from somebody who
Speaker 4: actually is pretty supportive of a lot of what Donald
Speaker 4: Trump has done on the border, Like the crossings are
Speaker 4: down so significantly, the border basically is closed to the
Speaker 4: point where it doesn't justify.
Speaker 5: Any policies based on a quote quote invasion. But you
Speaker 5: know that.
Speaker 4: It's not Trump's fault that Biden did what Biden did,
Speaker 4: that the Biden administration did what the Biden administration did.
Speaker 4: It's not the Republican parties, well, Republican party is different.
Speaker 4: It's not the Trump administration's fault. But they do have
Speaker 4: then a moral obligation to deal with the people who
Speaker 4: came here humanly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, Because we can choose what kind of country
Speaker 3: we want to we want to be. If if we
Speaker 3: want to be vicious and cruel like that is that
Speaker 3: is a thing we can do like that is within
Speaker 3: our power and our ability, or we can be or
Speaker 3: we can try to be a civilized country. That's that's
Speaker 3: the true We.
Speaker 4: Are refugees we should be. That's the other thing. That's
Speaker 4: another the United States. We were just talking about this
Speaker 4: when we're talking about academia. We have been a place
Speaker 4: a talent magnet for generations. Uh, and there aren't and
Speaker 4: there have been excesses of that. We have been a
Speaker 4: magnet for desperate people seeking freedom for decades, and there
Speaker 4: have been some excesses of that. But in the concept
Speaker 4: in of itself, is part of what makes us a
Speaker 4: great country. Is because we are comprised of this amazing
Speaker 4: collection of people who are really talented, love freedom, and
Speaker 4: that's an addition to our native born population, and it's additive,
Speaker 4: and people integrate and love the United States. And again
Speaker 4: we have to fix those processes too. There's nothing to
Speaker 4: say that I think there's more. There are plenty of
Speaker 4: questions to be raised about that. But on the other hand,
Speaker 4: it also is part. It's always been additive. It's part
Speaker 4: of what makes us a good country and a place
Speaker 4: that a lot of us are proud to live.
Speaker 3: There's also news last night we're out of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 3: and I can put this up that the Trump administration
Speaker 3: one in the Supreme Court and is being allowed temporarily.
Speaker 3: It's a temporary victory, but it's a significant one being
Speaker 3: allowed to temporarily remove gwyn Willcox from the National Labor
Speaker 3: Relations Board and also Kathy Harris, who's on the Merit
Speaker 3: Systems Protection Board. People understand the NLRB, that's this, This
Speaker 3: is board that oversees labor rights. Uh. The the kind
Speaker 3: of I think failure of the bipartisan populist movement or
Speaker 3: or transpartisan populist move whatever you would call it, has
Speaker 3: been that despite the kind of working class shift in
Speaker 3: the Republican Party, the NLRB has remained a you know,
Speaker 3: public enemy number one because of the kind of corporate
Speaker 3: control and it's the ond a medium business control as
Speaker 3: well of inside the Republican coalition. We can talk about
Speaker 3: that in a second. I just want to say a
Speaker 3: word about the Merit Systems Protection Board. But basically what
Speaker 3: this is is there are all of these rules around,
Speaker 3: you know, how you can hire and fire people in
Speaker 3: the federal government, and so if if you are wrongfully fired,
Speaker 3: you can then appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Speaker 3: And what Trump, what Trump is doing here is trying
Speaker 3: to destroy the the merit the Merit Board, which then
Speaker 3: would allow him to get rid of all of the protections,
Speaker 3: because the protect if the protections are there on paper
Speaker 3: but there's no avenue for you to challenge them, then
Speaker 3: they don't really exist. And so this is a huge
Speaker 3: win in his kind of assault on the federal on
Speaker 3: this federal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and Kagan and so to Major agree with that.
Speaker 4: I'm reading from their descent here. She says, the current
Speaker 4: president believes that Humphreys, so that's the Humphrey's executor case,
Speaker 4: should be either overruled or confined, and he has chosen
Speaker 4: to act on that belief, really to take the law
Speaker 4: into his own hands. Not since the nineteen fifties or
Speaker 4: even before, has a president without a legitimate reason tried
Speaker 4: to remove an officer from a classic independent agency. And
Speaker 4: they write, our Humphrey's decision remains good law, and it
Speaker 4: forecloses both the president's firings and the court's decision to
Speaker 4: award emergency relief. So it's a very long descent, but
Speaker 4: basically they feel that Humphreys is threatened here, and Humphreys
Speaker 4: is My preference would be that Humphrey's executor is is overturned.
Speaker 4: I do think that these outside agencies need to be
Speaker 4: accountable to the executive But at the same time.
Speaker 3: Although the FED in here, they also say that the
Speaker 3: FED is cool, right, which is just they're just making
Speaker 3: it up as they go along, Like, yeah, just there's
Speaker 3: no principle here, by the way, just this independent agency.
Speaker 3: You can destroy this independent agency, which we're very nervous
Speaker 3: about what Trump would do with that one constitutionally is protected.
Speaker 3: It's like what they all are none of.
Speaker 5: No argument with me on that one. But that's what's
Speaker 5: I mean.
Speaker 3: Like when they when they handed the White House to
Speaker 3: uh Bush, there's this famous line in the in Bush v. Gore.
Speaker 3: Uh this sets no precedent and can never be referenced again.
Speaker 3: Oh all right, I would.
Speaker 5: Add that as my email signature.
Speaker 3: Yes, delete this email.
Speaker 4: But that is the reason that's a fault And actually,
Speaker 4: to your point, the reason that the NLRB is particularly
Speaker 4: a fault line, even amidst the transpartisan like FTC populism,
Speaker 4: all of that is because it brings into the question
Speaker 4: the size of the executive branch, period and most people
Speaker 4: on the right still believe that the executive branch is
Speaker 4: bloated and unaccountable to the president, and I include myself
Speaker 4: in that category. So Humphreys to the point that Kagan
Speaker 4: and so do my rr making is sort of a
Speaker 4: foundational like that is a load bearing decision for the
Speaker 4: entire executive branch.
Speaker 3: Let's talk about this comical clip with Caroline Levitt being asked, Hey, man,
Speaker 3: you guys said you're going to cut the devasit coms
Speaker 3: bill explodes it. She had a very she had a
Speaker 3: very clever response to that challenge. Let's let's play this.
Speaker 7: The One Big Beautiful Bill also to get our fiscal
Speaker 7: in order by carrying out the largest deficit reduction in
Speaker 7: nearly thirty years with one point six trillion dollars mandatory savings.
Speaker 7: Every single Democrat in the House of Representatives who voted
Speaker 7: against all of these common sense and massively popular policies.
Speaker 7: The Democrat Party has never been more radical and out
Speaker 7: of touch with the needs of the American people. The
Speaker 7: One Big Beautiful Bill is the final missing piece toward
Speaker 7: ushering the Golden Age of America. The Senate should pass
Speaker 7: this as quickly as possible and send it to President
Speaker 7: Trump's desk for a Yeah.
Speaker 3: So we want to hear that again just for fun.
Speaker 3: It's just it's just amazing.
Speaker 7: Well, also helps get our fiscal house in order by
Speaker 7: carrying out the largest deficit reduction in nearly thirty years.
Speaker 3: That's amazing the fiscal I didn't know you could do that.
Speaker 5: So in order you are going to be sick of
Speaker 5: the fiscal house being in order.
Speaker 3: It's a really clever governing strategy. So instead of actually
Speaker 3: creating a bill that that cuts the deficit, as you
Speaker 3: said you would do, you you create you create a
Speaker 3: bill and pass into the House that blows up the deficit,
Speaker 3: but it cuts it off.
Speaker 4: It's you're putting diet on the sugarful yogurt.
Speaker 5: That's exactly what this is. It works, That's the American.
Speaker 3: Way, except the the problem apparently is that the American
Speaker 3: people don't don't quite buy it. H So this is
Speaker 3: the COBC. We were trying to figure out yesterday how
Speaker 3: you say this the COBC letter. Americans have never been
Speaker 3: so pessimistic about future finances. US consumers expectations about their
Speaker 3: financial situation over the next year drop to an all
Speaker 3: time low in May. So this is how do you
Speaker 3: feel like you will be doing one year from now?
Speaker 3: And you can see that. So that chart there, if
Speaker 3: you're listening to this, it's just a just a cliff
Speaker 3: like that. The numbers you know, you know, fluctuating over
Speaker 3: the years and over the last couple of weeks, two months,
Speaker 3: it's just a it's just a straight line. It looked
Speaker 3: like the chart looks like you're going to have to
Speaker 3: quickly hit that minus button and start like zooming out
Speaker 3: to give it, to give it more room, to be
Speaker 3: able to encompass the depth of the pessimism that is
Speaker 3: engulfing the American public right now.
Speaker 4: If I had to, I wouldn't have bet this week
Speaker 4: on whether the big beautiful bill passed the House or not,
Speaker 4: because it was just such a close call.
Speaker 5: But the fact that it did.
Speaker 4: Pass, I think bodes well. Actually going into the Senate,
Speaker 4: it's going.
Speaker 5: To be very very, very very difficult.
Speaker 4: But what the passage in the House suggests is the
Speaker 4: Republican Party is sufficiently desperate to have some type of
Speaker 4: augmentation for the tariff policy. Uh and they're they're freaked
Speaker 4: out about the chart, for example, that you just showed
Speaker 4: and other charts liked it, like it, because that's the
Speaker 4: only way you really get people on board with blowing
Speaker 4: up the deficit is when they are deficit hawks is saying, well,
Speaker 4: if nothing passes, then you are even like you're you're
Speaker 4: tanking the economy because you're not.
Speaker 5: Having you have no reshoring legislative policy.
Speaker 4: You have no one tax right off you know, retroactor
Speaker 4: to January for building all of that stuff. And so
Speaker 4: if you if you don't pass this bill, you know,
Speaker 4: cut the corporate taxes, you don't have the reshoring incentives,
Speaker 4: then you have a much worse situation. So it's a
Speaker 4: it's a wonderful way we make laws.
Speaker 3: By the way, I got some details from that Trump
Speaker 3: meeting that you had with the Republican Conference from a
Speaker 3: source that hadn't made it into the press yet. You
Speaker 3: think some of this up back to your sources. Uh,
Speaker 3: they'll they'll they'll enjoy this. Uh, you know, they're the
Speaker 3: thing that the Freedom Caucus put out leaked out. He said,
Speaker 3: I love the Freedom Caucus. You know, these are my guys.
Speaker 3: The fuller quote was, I love the Freedom Caucus. These
Speaker 3: are my guys. You know, give me liberty or give
Speaker 3: me death, and then he added, vote for this bill
Speaker 3: or it's gonna be death for you. They and when
Speaker 3: the Freedom Caucus members leaked that out, to the press.
Speaker 3: They conveniently said the washing.
Speaker 5: So that's funny.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they love that he loves us. He loves us
Speaker 3: so much. They left out that he's threatened to kill
Speaker 3: them metaphorically kill them, I assume.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: He also, at one point, I forget the exact context,
Speaker 3: said he was the first gay president because he was
Speaker 3: complementing somebody, and uh, it will be Buchanan. Come on,
Speaker 3: this is Buchanan erasure.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, it's fair.
Speaker 3: He was married Joe Senator from like Mississippi or whatever, like, well,
Speaker 3: it's an interesting one.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 3: And then he got into a back and forth with Massy.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: Source told me where he said, like Massy, very smart guy. Uh,
Speaker 3: he went to mi T But look it up. Wharton
Speaker 3: much better school, much harder to get into.
Speaker 4: I want to see Trump than running his on Tesla batteries,
Speaker 4: you know, making that that's mass.
Speaker 5: Is absolute genius. He's like literally self sustaining farming.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Wharton, harder to get into.
Speaker 5: Incredible.
Speaker 3: I'm smarter than Massy. So let's here, Let's roll Massy's
Speaker 3: Uh he did vote against He's one of the few
Speaker 3: that did vote against it. Let's play his his speech
Speaker 3: reserves gentleman from Massa Chiefs is recognized as a speaker.
Speaker 3: I yield one and one half minutes to the gentleman
Speaker 3: from Kentucky, a man who is not afraid to speak
Speaker 3: his mind about fiscal responsibility. Mister Massey, gentleman from Kentucky's
Speaker 3: recognized for ninety seconds.
Speaker 8: Well, I'd love to stand here and tell the American
Speaker 8: people we can cut your taxes and we can increase
Speaker 8: spending and everything's going to be just fine. But I
Speaker 8: can't do that because I'm here to deliver a dose
Speaker 8: of reality. This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near term,
Speaker 8: but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years
Speaker 8: from now. Where have we heard that before? How do
Speaker 8: you bind a future Congress to these promises? This bill
Speaker 8: is a debt bomb ticking. Congress can do funny math,
Speaker 8: fantasy math if it wants, but bond investors don't. And
Speaker 8: this week they sent us a message. Moodies downgraded our
Speaker 8: credit rating, and the bond investors who buy our debt
Speaker 8: and finance our debt demanded higher interest rates on the
Speaker 8: ten year note, the twenty year note, and the thirty
Speaker 8: year note. What does this mean? Very soon the government
Speaker 8: will be paying sixteen thousand dollars of interest interest a
Speaker 8: loan per us family. And what are we telling them?
Speaker 8: Instead of taking care of that problem, We're going to
Speaker 8: give you a sixteen hundred dollars break under the taxing
Speaker 8: and spending levels. In this bill, we're going to rack
Speaker 8: up the author say, twenty trillion dollars of new debt
Speaker 8: over the next ten years. I'm telling you it's closer
Speaker 8: to thirty trillion dollars of new debt in the next
Speaker 8: ten years, mister speaker. We're not rearranging deck chairs on
Speaker 8: the Titanic tonight. We're putting coal in the boiler and
Speaker 8: setting a course for the iceberg. If something is if
Speaker 8: something is beautiful, If something is beautiful, you don't do
Speaker 8: it after midnight.
Speaker 5: I that's a quote. It's not true.
Speaker 3: It's a good one, so messy, not always true. Real
Speaker 3: real quickly, let's uh, and we got to get to
Speaker 3: this back half the show. But I did want to
Speaker 3: talk about this, this bulwark piece real quick, where Democrats
Speaker 3: are planning a whole uh, claiming that they're going to
Speaker 3: do a bunch of changes. The funniest one that I thought, UH,
Speaker 3: from this one is that they're saying that Joe Joe
Speaker 3: Biden operatives, they're going to attempt to blacklist them. We'll see.
Speaker 3: That would be like the first blacklisting of any like
Speaker 3: kind of mainstream operatives for anything ever in in democratic
Speaker 3: politics in the in the past, it's only been a
Speaker 3: blacklist for people who challenge the democratic establishment. Uh there.
Speaker 3: And they're also going after uh South Carolina like they're
Speaker 3: Carolin well making no, making South Carolina the first in
Speaker 3: the nation state like that was done for Cliburn and
Speaker 3: for but for really for Biden, who you know, credits
Speaker 3: South Carolina for for that win. And so now they're
Speaker 3: they're looking at that again. It's we'll see. If I
Speaker 3: don't I don't. I don't think they'll actually do it, uh,
Speaker 3: but we'll see.
Speaker 4: I think that's a that's actually very interesting because you
Speaker 4: have both of your books behind you, the posters for them.
Speaker 4: But we see some of the starting to happen on
Speaker 4: the right, like if you have worked in Coke Universe,
Speaker 4: you were supposed to be kind of booted from Trump circles,
Speaker 4: that you were supposed to be off the list of
Speaker 4: the administration.
Speaker 5: That didn't totally happen but it's still kind of.
Speaker 4: A it's still not great on a resume if you're
Speaker 4: trying to move into the mainstream conservative movement now and
Speaker 4: you have recently like a Coke group on your resume.
Speaker 4: But you know, the idea that someone who worked for
Speaker 4: a mainstream Democratic politician campaign presidential campaign for an establishment
Speaker 4: Democrat like Joe Biden, that that would be a problem
Speaker 4: for you. I just genuinely don't believe that that's durable.
Speaker 4: It seems to me like something that is being discussed
Speaker 4: right now, but then everyone will just pretend never happened
Speaker 4: in six months or something like that. But maybe it
Speaker 4: applies to the tippy tippy top, like maybe your general
Speaker 4: Malley Dylan. Maybe you're like other people that are up
Speaker 4: that were up really high in that world. Maybe that's why,
Speaker 4: maybe that's why people like l Rosa are, you know,
Speaker 4: talking to breaking points for example, to sort of say, well,
Speaker 4: we were in here and we were the sane voices,
Speaker 4: or we tried to be the sane voices.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I would think Jenno Mali Dylan is done anyway. Like
Speaker 3: she you know, she ran the twenty Obama twenty twelve
Speaker 3: campaign and then Biden in twenty twenty and then this one.
Speaker 3: And she's a corporate consultant, like that's her Her main
Speaker 3: gig is her firm does corporate consulting. So I don't
Speaker 3: expect her to run another presidential campaign. And once you've
Speaker 3: run them, you don't you don't go into you know
Speaker 3: you maybe maybe she'll still do some like socide consulting
Speaker 3: work for a future presidential campaign, but that's peanuts compared
Speaker 3: to the amount of corporate money that's available to her
Speaker 3: and other Democratic operatives. But let's move. Let's move to
Speaker 3: the back half of this show. This is for premium
Speaker 3: subscribe uh breaking go to breakingpoints dot com this because
Speaker 3: it supports all the journalism that that we do here.
Speaker 3: And you'll also get a Matt Stoller clip that we're
Speaker 3: going to play towards the end, and also a James
Speaker 3: Lee interview that he did with this and we should
Speaker 3: uh Layman Trader, Jared.
Speaker 4: We should also mention we're doing an A M A
Speaker 4: in the second half of the show, so we're taking some.
Speaker 3: Premium describers questions.
Speaker 4: So if you want to see the rest of the
Speaker 4: show Breakingpoints dot Com, you can do that. You can
Speaker 4: send questions for future ames, and you can hear all
Speaker 4: the fun stuff we discuss today.
Speaker 3: And so so let's talk about some of the political
Speaker 3: fallout from the shooting of two Israeli embassy staffers and
Speaker 3: killing in here in Washington, d c UH the other
Speaker 3: night