Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, Welcome to Breaking Points.
Speaker 3: A bunch of stuff going on today, aamily.
Speaker 4: This is a very full show.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, we kept adding things up until like the
Speaker 1: time I went to bed last night, so.
Speaker 4: And then afterwards. Yeah true, oh very Elon was up,
Speaker 4: Elon was sweeting.
Speaker 1: The Tesla board was sweeting. Lots of things were unfolding
Speaker 1: before we get to that. So that I don't forget
Speaker 1: Spotify users. I know some of you guys are still
Speaker 1: having issues getting the video to load. We are talking
Speaker 1: to Spotify trying to work it out. We're kind of
Speaker 1: at the whims of these tech giants, so please bear
Speaker 1: with us. Sorry for the technical difficulties, but we're doing
Speaker 1: everything we possibly can to resolve it. Because when it works.
Speaker 1: It is a great experience on Spotify. So we're going
Speaker 1: to keep working on that, all right. In the show today,
Speaker 1: we have a Ukraine minerals deal. We have the leadst
Speaker 1: with regard to terras, including Donald Trump basically going full
Speaker 1: Grinch mode. Okay, no more dolls for little girls.
Speaker 4: Totally support this.
Speaker 5: The girls can only have two dolls, he said, maybe
Speaker 5: you'd have thirty.
Speaker 4: But now you only have two.
Speaker 3: I have too.
Speaker 4: We'll play the videos.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's something, It's really something.
Speaker 1: As we were mentioning Elon, there was a report from
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal that Tesla is looking for a
Speaker 1: new CEO Elon, and the Tesla board now disputing that.
Speaker 1: But obviously that is a remarkable turn of events. And
Speaker 1: Tesla's dock has been plummeting in the Trump two point
Speaker 1: zero era and their sales have fallen off the cliff
Speaker 1: because Elon is so toxic, etcetera. So a lot to
Speaker 1: get into there. We've got some developments with regard to deportations,
Speaker 1: including New York Times had a good story about m
Speaker 1: Kelly and this deal that he cut with the Trump
Speaker 1: administration to house what he was insisting had to be
Speaker 1: criminals and was apparently reportedly according to this report, set
Speaker 1: at the fact that the people that they sent to
Speaker 1: him did not have criminal records there but nothing adjudicated
Speaker 1: in the courts, or at least many of them did not.
Speaker 3: So interesting insights.
Speaker 1: They're also one of the pro Palestine students foreign students
Speaker 1: who had been arrested and detained, has now been released.
Speaker 1: And what the judge says about that is also quite
Speaker 1: extraordinary and would have huge implications if this is upheld,
Speaker 1: you know, in higher level courts, huge implications for all
Speaker 1: of the foreign students who have been detained simply for
Speaker 1: their speech with regard to Palacin. So that's a really
Speaker 1: important one. We're going to have Dave Weigel join us
Speaker 1: to do a little rundown of the early twenty twenty
Speaker 1: eight DEM contenders JB. Pritzker, Big JB out there making moves.
Speaker 4: Can we call them meetball JB?
Speaker 3: That's inappropriate, That's we got to come up with something original.
Speaker 3: Lets men have Rhonda Santis yet, come on it.
Speaker 4: True, it do better. You're not right, Yeah, you're right,
Speaker 4: you're right.
Speaker 3: But he's being he got asked.
Speaker 1: Weigel actually asked him an interesting question about like, well,
Speaker 1: are you and oligarch and so his answer was was
Speaker 1: pretty interesting and revealing any washersound there. Gretchen Whitmer is
Speaker 1: out there, but with Donald Trump apparently, and not just
Speaker 1: political instincts I've ever seen.
Speaker 5: Butshers on Fox News, Whitmer is giving speeches in front
Speaker 5: of Trump.
Speaker 3: Trump's hundred day rounds.
Speaker 4: You're weird, yep.
Speaker 1: So lots of different tactics being deployed by these early contenders.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get this story into the show. Mark
Speaker 1: Andresen made some crazy comp i mean not crazy perfect
Speaker 1: comments about AI where basically said he thinks AI is
Speaker 1: going to replace everyone but him. Yeah, venture capitalists will
Speaker 1: be the only ones who are not replaced by AI.
Speaker 4: The valuable people. That's right. Yeah, that's whe we create.
Speaker 3: Well truly irreplaceable. There's that industry.
Speaker 4: No computer could ever.
Speaker 1: These guys are amazing and we want to try to
Speaker 1: get to some comments from Alex Jones little critique of
Speaker 1: Trump alongside Fetess, who has long been critiquing Trump from
Speaker 1: the right as a Nazi Trump not being Nazi enough
Speaker 1: so but anyway, kind of interesting there and fits with
Speaker 1: some of the other like little critiques that you've seen
Speaker 1: come out of Magalworld visa be Trump.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I mean this is a big show, and part of
Speaker 5: it is because Crystal. You just had to get Mark
Speaker 5: andresen and the what it resist?
Speaker 3: I can't.
Speaker 1: I can't resist that code hand. What could I say?
Speaker 4: Looking forward to it? It'll be good.
Speaker 5: Let's start with the mineral deal in Ukraine. We can
Speaker 5: put the first element up on the screen breaking news yesterday.
Speaker 4: This is from the Wall Street Journal Ukraine.
Speaker 5: US sign economic deal for minerals, and the journals subheading
Speaker 5: there is the two countries finally reaching agreement after several
Speaker 5: false starts. You'll remember the mineral deal is what was
Speaker 5: on the table when Zelenski visited the White House and
Speaker 5: the infamous Oval Office meeting transpire just a couple of
Speaker 5: months ago.
Speaker 4: Now they're back at it.
Speaker 5: They finally got that deal signed, which I think Crystal
Speaker 5: was very predictable that it was ultimately going to happen.
Speaker 5: The fits and starts felt more like personnel personal I
Speaker 5: should say not personnel personal hurdles for Zelensky and Trump
Speaker 5: to both overcome in order to feel confident that it
Speaker 5: made sense.
Speaker 3: I don't even know personal hurdles, more like posture.
Speaker 1: Because the reality is There's an incredible quote here from
Speaker 1: this woman, Heidi Kribo Ruddicker, senior fellow at the Council
Speaker 1: on Foreign Relations, who says this is a win win
Speaker 1: deal because quote, the US will have a vested interest
Speaker 1: in the geology that the Ukrainians will be fighting for.
Speaker 1: And this is you know, this is what Zelenski had
Speaker 1: been pushing, This is what Lindsay Graham had actually been
Speaker 1: presenting as a way to keep the Trump administration invested
Speaker 1: in Ukraine and committed to Ukraine. This is seen as
Speaker 1: a security guarantee. It is being explicitly pitched as such,
Speaker 1: with the idea being that if you have a bunch
Speaker 1: of American capitalists, American billionaires who are profiting off of
Speaker 1: the minerals in Ukraine, that they are de facto then
Speaker 1: backing up the Ukrainian government, and that you know, that
Speaker 1: would act as a deterrent for Russia continuing to fight,
Speaker 1: and you know, it would basically create a situation where,
Speaker 1: you know, some millionaires who are tied to Trump can
Speaker 1: make a lot of money and if things go sideways again,
Speaker 1: America will once again be on the hook for defending Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Whether that's through continued weapons, shipments or whether it through
Speaker 1: would ultimately be through you know, sending soldiers.
Speaker 3: I don't want to like, you know, I don't want.
Speaker 1: To fear monger here, but that's effectively the dynamic that's
Speaker 1: being set up. This would be a long term engagement
Speaker 1: in the future of Ukraine, which is why, you know,
Speaker 1: it's what Selenski wanted, It's what Lindsay Graham wanted, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And I, you know, I always thought that the show
Speaker 1: in the in the Oval with Zelenski. You and I
Speaker 1: differed on this saga, and I differ on this as well.
Speaker 1: But my analysis at the time was that this was
Speaker 1: a way for Trump to give some red meat to
Speaker 1: the base because he had this big blow up and
Speaker 1: he's yelling at Zelenski and all of these sorts of things,
Speaker 1: which you know, the base was very happy about because
Speaker 1: they've turned Zelenski into this villain. You know, they overtly
Speaker 1: like dislike Ukraine and want Trump to completely break with them.
Speaker 1: So he gave them that. But in the end, the
Speaker 1: result is exactly what, you know, what was pitched from
Speaker 1: the beginning.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's a The journal says there's a distinction that
Speaker 5: was previously so it doesn't require Ukraine to repay past
Speaker 5: military aid, and that I suppose is a pretty significant change,
Speaker 5: but not dramatic. I mean, it's it's definitely a new thing.
Speaker 5: But it also includes, as Wall Street Journal says, the
Speaker 5: US being able to count new military aid into Ukraine
Speaker 5: as a contribution to the fund. So yeah, makes sense
Speaker 5: that they were able to reach this deal at this point. Obviously,
Speaker 5: it's not the level of security guarantee that Zelensky was
Speaker 5: fairly insistent on. That's what blew up the original deal
Speaker 5: is that Zelensky didn't feel comfortable with a mineral deal
Speaker 5: as a security guarantee. But it is seen as the
Speaker 5: White House by the White House, as this is how
Speaker 5: the journal puts it, quote a kind of security guarantee
Speaker 5: for Ukraine. And I suppose that's true because there would
Speaker 5: significant US business. There will be significant US business interests
Speaker 5: on the table in Ukraine for this is a ten
Speaker 5: year deal, but for the foreseeable future. Also crystal pretty
Speaker 5: interesting question about what exactly exists to be mined right,
Speaker 5: how much actually is there?
Speaker 1: There was some reporting that Zelenski was kind of overblowing
Speaker 1: over selling.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what is actually there?
Speaker 1: Now it's also could be possible that it's not fully known,
Speaker 1: like it's not fully mapped out what sort of minerals
Speaker 1: they're there. I was also wondering if the tariff, the
Speaker 1: trade war has put a little bit of pressure on
Speaker 1: the Trump administration to get this mineral deal done, because
Speaker 1: China is of course cutting off the supply of some
Speaker 1: of the rare earth minerals that would presumably be you know,
Speaker 1: be available within Ukraine. So that may have also provided
Speaker 1: some of the impetus to get this signed.
Speaker 3: At this point.
Speaker 1: And I should also say, you know, as we're recording this,
Speaker 1: we don't actually have all the details. There's a few
Speaker 1: details in this Wall Street Journal report. There's been a
Speaker 1: few details that are on there public. We saw a
Speaker 1: previous draft that included not only minerals rights, but basically
Speaker 1: that the US would effectively economically colonize Ukraine with control
Speaker 1: over you know, half of ports and half of a
Speaker 1: lot of economic activity in the country in perpetuity, above
Speaker 1: and beyond the minerals rights. But as of yet we
Speaker 1: don't know if that is what is entailed in this
Speaker 1: in this deal that was ultimately signed or not. So
Speaker 1: we'll await the details at the same time, Lindsay Graham
Speaker 1: is in the Senate pushing you know, an even more
Speaker 1: aggressive sanctions regime against Russia, an attempt I guess to
Speaker 1: get them to come to the table. They seem to
Speaker 1: be quite resist, resistant to coming to any sort of
Speaker 1: deal at this point because they have the upper hand
Speaker 1: in this war, including you know, behoming Kiev in a
Speaker 1: way that required Trump to weigh in with his Vladimir
Speaker 1: Stop tweet. But let's put Lindsay up on the screen here.
Speaker 1: He's forging ahead, they say, on a plant and pose
Speaker 1: new sanctions on Russia, steep tariffsun countries that buy Russian oil, gas,
Speaker 1: and uranium, as Trump struggles to fulfill his campaign promise
Speaker 1: to end the war. In terms of the votes, it
Speaker 1: looks like Lindsey Graham does have the votes in the Senate.
Speaker 3: Of course, that doesn't.
Speaker 1: Guarantee that it would be brought to the floor. You
Speaker 1: would need you know, John Thune to decide that this
Speaker 1: needs to be brought to the floor.
Speaker 3: By the end of the week. Lindsay Gram's predicting the bill.
Speaker 1: Will have at least sixty seven co sponsors. That would
Speaker 1: be enough to override even a potential presidential veto. Trump
Speaker 1: himself has not weighed in on this, on this potential
Speaker 1: bill that Lindsay Graham is working on, But I mean,
Speaker 1: we already threw a lot of sanctions in Russia. We
Speaker 1: threw effectively the entire sanctions playbook at Russia, and it
Speaker 1: you know, it didn't have no impact, if there was
Speaker 1: an impact, but it was not nearly what economists expected,
Speaker 1: and in fact, it really ended up demonstrating a lot
Speaker 1: of impotence on the part of the US because it
Speaker 1: showed that you could throw the entire sanctions playbook at
Speaker 1: Russia or at any nation and that they would be
Speaker 1: able to survived and would be able to withstand that.
Speaker 1: And I think it also gave China even a bit
Speaker 1: of a dry run of what this could look like
Speaker 1: if there was the sort of trade war, the sort
Speaker 1: of complete economic cutoff that they're facing from US right now.
Speaker 1: So interesting, you know, not surprising from Lindsay Graham taking
Speaker 1: even more aggressive hawkish approach, but that's what's on the
Speaker 1: table now.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, and you know, it's important to actually think
Speaker 5: it's a really important story to tack onto the context
Speaker 5: of signing this deal, because the hopeful you know, even
Speaker 5: though this involves colonizing Ukrainian mineral resources. And by the way,
Speaker 5: I mean they do have Apparently they have twenty of
Speaker 5: fifty critical minerals, minerals that we consider critical, so that's
Speaker 5: like lithium and graphite, titanium, uranium, to your point, rare
Speaker 5: minerals that could have something to do with There could
Speaker 5: be added incentives based on the tariff struggles in the
Speaker 5: last couple of months from the Trump administration.
Speaker 4: But they're also incredibly corrupt.
Speaker 5: This was the entire Republican argument against Barisma and Hunter Biden,
Speaker 5: and so it's definitely putting the United States into a
Speaker 5: complete economic mess that has military implications in Ukraine. But
Speaker 5: hopefully what this means at the very least, and it's
Speaker 5: not nothing, is that we're on a glide path to
Speaker 5: an actual ceasefire, so that the thousands of people who
Speaker 5: are dying every single day, that those further lives can
Speaker 5: be safe because these battle lines are probably going to
Speaker 5: be whatever ceasefires eventually reached, it's probably going to look
Speaker 5: like where the battle lines are right now in all likelihoods.
Speaker 5: So Lindsay Graham continuing the saber rattle seems super unhelpful.
Speaker 4: To the entire purpose of inking this particular deal. But
Speaker 4: we'll see where things go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, indeed, I mean I think there's a lot of
Speaker 1: question marks. It's hard to see. It doesn't feel like
Speaker 1: we're terribly close to a cease fire at this point,
Speaker 1: but you never know where we're going to end up.
Speaker 1: And certainly, by signing this minerals deal, you are committing
Speaker 1: the US to Ukraine for the long term so that
Speaker 1: a bunch of billionaires can get their stuff and get
Speaker 1: their rare earth minerals out of the ground benefit from it.
Speaker 5: You know. This is another thing the Journal had a
Speaker 5: story on not long ago, is that Chevron and Shell
Speaker 5: have tried to mind in Ukraine, but the corruption in
Speaker 5: Ukraine has made it extremely difficult for that process to
Speaker 5: be done in a way that's profitable for them.
Speaker 4: And so now we're just going.
Speaker 5: Even fully more into the experiment of trying to extract
Speaker 5: minerals from Ukraine in an effort to stop a brutal
Speaker 5: conflict that would further I mean, if the United States
Speaker 5: sates this has a potential security guarantee, that is a
Speaker 5: really scary thing. Actually, yeah, right, Like we're at.
Speaker 4: The whims of Ukrainian oligarchs.
Speaker 5: I mean, we'll have more control over them now at
Speaker 5: this point, although we always had control over them. But
Speaker 5: that's what's so gross about this is that it's just
Speaker 5: American oligarchs mingling their interest with Ukrainian aligarchs in the
Speaker 5: lives of thousands of people hang in the balance based
Speaker 5: on not just the military concerns but also the economic concerns.
Speaker 5: So it's definitely not the cleanest solution to this war.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, unfortunately, Americans don't understand the word oligarchs, so I
Speaker 1: don't think they're really going to be able to grasp
Speaker 1: what's going on here. Emily, they don't watch enough breaking points.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get to the tariffs. We had a
Speaker 1: big cabinet meeting. It was so grotesque the level of
Speaker 1: North Korea propaganda and like slavish devotion to the dear
Speaker 1: leader that was on display.
Speaker 3: We'll put that aside for the moment.
Speaker 1: Trump sort of jumped in here and after the GDP
Speaker 1: numbers came out and were really bad, and the inflation
Speaker 1: numbers were bad, and the employment numbers were really bad,
Speaker 1: he felt like he needed to say something about the
Speaker 1: direction that the economy was going in and that something was,
Speaker 1: it's all the fault of the last guy.
Speaker 3: Let's take a lism.
Speaker 6: You frequently took credit for the stock market highs. You
Speaker 6: said it was a reflection of how well you were
Speaker 6: doing in the polls. And then after you were elected,
Speaker 6: you said the stock market highs were a reflection of
Speaker 6: how well the transition's going and the American people's confidence
Speaker 6: in your incoming administration. Now stock market's not doing so well,
Speaker 6: and you're saying that's the Biden stock market. Yet you
Speaker 6: are the president. Can you I'm.
Speaker 7: Not taking a credit or discredit for the stock market.
Speaker 7: I'm just saying that we inherited a mess both at
Speaker 7: the borders. You could look at every single one of
Speaker 7: the people here and no matter who it is, they're
Speaker 7: doing better and they are far superior to what took
Speaker 7: place for four years before us. When you look at
Speaker 7: prisoners being allowed to come into our country at will,
Speaker 7: just at will, people from mental institutions, gang members, drug dealers,
Speaker 7: when you look at what they've done to our country,
Speaker 7: and also having to do with finance, look at what
Speaker 7: happened with inflation. We had the worst inflation probably in
Speaker 7: the history of our country. They say forty eight years.
Speaker 7: But I would say in the history of our country.
Speaker 1: So he's not taking credit or discredit. But it is
Speaker 1: all Binde's fault, which is also what he opened the
Speaker 1: meeting up with, is like, you know, I know, you
Speaker 1: saw some numbers. It's all Biden's fault. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. This is amazing. People were sharing this
Speaker 1: two different, two different vibe here from Donald Trump on
Speaker 1: true social So this latest one from April thirtieth, that
Speaker 1: would be just this week. This is Biden's stock market,
Speaker 1: not Trump's. I didn't take over until January twenty is
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. But back in January of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: he said this is the Trump stock market. So when
Speaker 1: Biden was actually like in office at that point, he
Speaker 1: was saying, oh, the stock market's good, it's because of me.
Speaker 1: It's because my polls are so good. Everybody assumes I'm
Speaker 1: coming back. That's why the stock market is doing great.
Speaker 1: And now that he's actually in office, he's saying, no, actually,
Speaker 1: this is Biden's stock mark.
Speaker 3: Just amazing.
Speaker 5: I mean he's always had this fixation understandably, So, I mean,
Speaker 5: we could debate the value of stock market for the
Speaker 5: average person's finances.
Speaker 4: But he's always been obsessed with.
Speaker 5: Tracking stock markets and in an effort to sort of
Speaker 5: attach them to himself. When I mean, yeah, it's been
Speaker 5: going up, so it's like great for him.
Speaker 1: I mean it's the sort of real time indicator that's
Speaker 1: kind of irresistible, you know.
Speaker 5: One hundred percent right, And so it was that was
Speaker 5: actually always one of the things I found somewhat amusing
Speaker 5: to extend anything was amusing during the Liberation Day couple weeks.
Speaker 5: I mean, honestly, there were many things that we're amusing
Speaker 5: during those couple of weeks, but it was always like
Speaker 5: he has been obsessed with his influence on the stock
Speaker 5: market for this long. How is he going to handle it?
Speaker 5: It turns out he has already made excuse, it's just Biden.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly right.
Speaker 1: So one person in particular day Port apparently not buying
Speaker 1: the spin here from Trump, we can put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen from him, he says, what's that old expression,
Speaker 1: don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Speaker 3: Well, that applies here.
Speaker 1: The stock market is a direct reflection of Trump's first
Speaker 1: one hundred.
Speaker 3: Days in office.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean it won't get better, and that we don't
Speaker 1: need to be patient. But this is his market, not Biden's.
Speaker 1: So Portnoy has been has said some other things critical.
Speaker 3: I think he doesn't like the tariffs.
Speaker 1: He did originally say something critical about the Trump shitcoin
Speaker 1: before sort of reversing course and being.
Speaker 3: Like, this is great. I'm going to get rich off
Speaker 3: of it. Whatever.
Speaker 1: So anyway, he's high profile, and so anytime he says
Speaker 1: something critical it is interesting. This is really the moment
Speaker 1: from this cabinet meeting and press conference.
Speaker 3: That is so wild to me.
Speaker 1: So he's getting asked about the price of toys in particular,
Speaker 1: and you know, yes, Christmas feels a long way away now,
Speaker 1: but actually the retailers who would mean to stock up
Speaker 1: for Christmas there should be placing those orders right now,
Speaker 1: and all of that is kind of on hold. So
Speaker 1: he gets asked a question in this direction. Take a
Speaker 1: listen to his response.
Speaker 8: They made a trillion dollars when with Biden a trillion dollars,
Speaker 8: even a trillion one with Biden selling this stuff, much
Speaker 8: of it we don't need, you know. Somebody said, oh,
Speaker 8: the shelves are going to be open, Well, maybe.
Speaker 9: The children will have two dollars instead of thirty dollars,
Speaker 9: you know, and maybe the two dolls will cost a
Speaker 9: couple of bucks more than they would normally, But we're
Speaker 9: not talking about something that we have to go out
Speaker 9: of our way.
Speaker 8: They have ships that are loaded up with stuff, much
Speaker 8: of which not all of it, but much of which
Speaker 8: we don't need.
Speaker 1: Many people saying like, okay, you're just the grunch now,
Speaker 1: like that that's your political move is just like the kids,
Speaker 1: they don't need toys. What are we talking about here?
Speaker 5: It's wild that he actually said it, right, because that's
Speaker 5: the underlying it's you know, this is like sort of
Speaker 5: cut pastint coming out and saying the essence of the
Speaker 5: American dream is not cheap goods. And that caught a
Speaker 5: lot of people on the right sort of off guard
Speaker 5: because it's the conversation that has been percolating in like
Speaker 5: white paper intellectual circles on the right for the last
Speaker 5: like five ish years.
Speaker 4: But the problem is it's.
Speaker 5: A political disaster because you have to say things like,
Speaker 5: for example, maybe the kids will have two dollars instead
Speaker 5: of thirty.
Speaker 3: And they're going and those two dollars are going to
Speaker 3: cost more.
Speaker 5: Yes the way, well, oh my gosh, absolutely, But that's
Speaker 5: the I mean, it's true that at this point you
Speaker 5: could probably get thirty dollars for like three hundred dollars,
Speaker 5: and it's kind of insane. I mean, there's definitely a
Speaker 5: bubble right now in cheap prices, but to actually do
Speaker 5: what Donald Trump has done with the tariff regime that
Speaker 5: he's put in place, two dolls, we're using the dolls
Speaker 5: as a proxy for toys in general. That's I mean,
Speaker 5: that's not what the American people are used to, is
Speaker 5: not what the American people want, And good luck taking
Speaker 5: that argument to the voters.
Speaker 4: I mean, I know he doesn't have to get re elected,
Speaker 4: although we can well we'll see what he said. What
Speaker 4: do you have to say about that?
Speaker 5: But man, other Republicans do Ja d Vance might have
Speaker 5: to run for president at some point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, here's here is the thing. And I
Speaker 1: feel like a broken record. If there was some deal
Speaker 1: on the table which was, Okay, your kids are not
Speaker 1: going to get thirty dollars, they're going to get to
Speaker 1: but you're going to be able to afford housing, you're
Speaker 1: going to be able to get healthcare, education is going
Speaker 1: to be cheaper, it's going to be you know more
Speaker 1: it's going to be higher quality. You're going to be
Speaker 1: able to have a better work life balance. Like if
Speaker 1: there was another social contract on the table that had
Speaker 1: some upside.
Speaker 3: Then we could talk.
Speaker 1: We could talk, right, we could consider maybe that is
Speaker 1: an improvement over. Basically, the American dream is centered or
Speaker 1: around cheap consumer goods. That is the American dream at
Speaker 1: this point, as has been sold and implemented over decades
Speaker 1: and decades.
Speaker 4: There is no.
Speaker 3: Alternative deal on the table.
Speaker 1: So all that he's advertising here is my plan is
Speaker 1: going to make you poor. You're going to be able
Speaker 1: to buy fewer things. Those things are going to be
Speaker 1: more expensive, and there is no compensation for that on
Speaker 1: the other side. So, and which is why this has
Speaker 1: been profoundly unpopular. I mean, of all the things that
Speaker 1: he has done, many of which almost all of which
Speaker 1: have been profoundly unpopular in this second.
Speaker 3: Term the Teriff regime.
Speaker 1: When you ask people what's his biggest grew up, it
Speaker 1: jumps off.
Speaker 3: The page in terms of what they're concerned about.
Speaker 1: And so I think it would always be difficult to
Speaker 1: ask people at this point in time in American history
Speaker 1: to sacrifice in service of some larger goal. I think
Speaker 1: that would be a difficult sell in general. But there
Speaker 1: is no larger goal that is being offered or advertised
Speaker 1: or has any like clear cut paths being achieved, right,
Speaker 1: So instead you're just telling people your kids.
Speaker 3: Are going to be unhappy on Christmas and.
Speaker 1: You are going to be poor and able to afford
Speaker 1: less stuff than you can afford.
Speaker 5: Now, there's no clarity or light at the end of
Speaker 5: the tunnel. And I think the other word that we
Speaker 5: come down on a lot of certainty, because with more
Speaker 5: certainty you could understand how companies would be adjusting with employment,
Speaker 5: they would be adjusting with their plans for the future.
Speaker 4: One of the interesting parts of the GDP report yesterday.
Speaker 4: Actually we did talk about that yesterday, But.
Speaker 5: That's I think the difficulty, both politically and on the
Speaker 5: substance for the administration going forward is that if you
Speaker 5: want to make this case that maybe people won't be
Speaker 5: getting thirty things on shean for three bucks whatever, and
Speaker 5: they'll have to buy five things that cost twenty dollars instead,
Speaker 5: if you want to make that.
Speaker 4: Argument, you have to have a lot to show for the.
Speaker 5: Point about this being manufacturing in the US, like creating
Speaker 5: jobs being built here revitalizing communities, and obviously that's a
Speaker 5: very difficult thing to do within the.
Speaker 4: First month of this.
Speaker 5: But what we've seen evidence wise is a whole lot
Speaker 5: of manufacturers leaving and jobs leaving, and we have not
Speaker 5: seen deals inked with like serious substance of deals inked
Speaker 5: with other countries. Yeah, and so that's where I mean,
Speaker 5: that's both the substance in the style being married into one.
Speaker 5: That's where it's going to get really difficult for them
Speaker 5: to keep making that case.
Speaker 3: It reminds me, this rhetoric reminds me of like the
Speaker 3: de growth Left.
Speaker 1: You know, Oh, great point, which is absolutely politically toxic
Speaker 1: and unpopular.
Speaker 4: No, that's such a good point.
Speaker 1: And there's a reason why when the Green New Deal
Speaker 1: came out and they screwed up when they sent out
Speaker 1: the draft and there was like some language in there
Speaker 1: about cutting back on meat consumption or something like that,
Speaker 1: and they ran away from it at a million miles
Speaker 1: per hour because they knew, like, we we are going
Speaker 1: to be in a completely politically untenable position if we're
Speaker 1: asking people to give up some of the things that
Speaker 1: they are accustomed to and that they enjoy and appreciate,
Speaker 1: and so even though look, the reality is that factory
Speaker 1: farming does produce a lot of emissions.
Speaker 3: There is just a recognition in the.
Speaker 1: Sort of like Green New Deal Left that some of
Speaker 1: these things you just they're just politically effectively impossible, and.
Speaker 3: So yeah, that's to me. And this is you know,
Speaker 3: the abundance.
Speaker 1: Guys kind of talk about this, how the Trumpian program
Speaker 1: is this anti growth very aligned in a certain way,
Speaker 1: in a certain like ideological way with that de growth Left,
Speaker 1: and yeah, it's totally politically toxic. So if you are
Speaker 1: going to sell something like your kids are going to
Speaker 1: have fewer toys on Christmas Day, which again I think
Speaker 1: there is some merit to a potential shift in the
Speaker 1: American social contract, there is a version of this that
Speaker 1: I would be interested in. But you are not offering
Speaker 1: anything to compensate for that loss.
Speaker 3: All your program is is people are going to be poor.
Speaker 1: And so you know, that's why it's thoroughly rejected. I
Speaker 1: wanted to play this is kind of interesting. Is this
Speaker 1: guy Sean Ray, and he's the founder of the China
Speaker 1: Market Research Group. He put on this short video talking
Speaker 1: about some of the reasons and we've talked about some
Speaker 1: of this here, but some of the reasons that he
Speaker 1: feels that China has the upper hand in terms of
Speaker 1: this trade war, which is definitely something that the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: the Scott Vessons of the world would definitely dispute. But
Speaker 1: let's just take a listen to his analysis here of
Speaker 1: why he thinks China will ultimately win.
Speaker 10: China is no longer buying American beef, They're buying beef
Speaker 10: from Australia. China is no longer buying oil from the
Speaker 10: United States, They're now buying oil from Canada. China is
Speaker 10: no longer buying American soybeans, They're now buying soybeans from Brazil.
Speaker 10: China is no longer buying Boeing airplanes Shaman Airlines actually
Speaker 10: just refused to accept a Boeing airplane that had just
Speaker 10: arrived in China. They're now instead buying air buses from France.
Speaker 10: Or they're expanding Comak, the Chinese indigenous, homegrown domestic airplane brand,
Speaker 10: which they just signed a deal to sell several Comacs
Speaker 10: to Malaysia. So what's happening is the entire world's system
Speaker 10: is shifting. China can basically buy everything that America sells
Speaker 10: except for semiconductors from other countries. The United States can
Speaker 10: only buy antibiotics, refined rare earth, iPhones computers from China.
Speaker 3: I think those are some solid points.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw this, Emily, but even
Speaker 1: on the semiconductor piece. So, Huawei is now testing its
Speaker 1: newest and most powerful marine for the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence processor. The company hopes it can replace some
Speaker 1: of the higher end products of US chip giant Nvidia.
Speaker 1: So they've also come a long way in terms of
Speaker 1: positioning themselves even to replace some of that you know,
Speaker 1: super high end chip technology that previously had been inaccessible
Speaker 1: to them, and some of that has been you know,
Speaker 1: the necessity of innovating in the face of the the
Speaker 1: export controls that have been put in place by the
Speaker 1: Biden administration as well.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and you know, this to me also is sort
Speaker 5: of a case for what Trump is doing because it's
Speaker 5: so dire, like the supply chain problems are so bad.
Speaker 4: But it's a case against what he's doing because he's
Speaker 4: doing it in a way that makes so little sense,
Speaker 4: that's right.
Speaker 5: So it's it's on the one hand, an argument about
Speaker 5: how bad the situation is. The other hand, it's an
Speaker 5: argument about how bad the attempt to write the ship Like,
Speaker 5: how bad our attempt to address a.
Speaker 4: Bad situation has been. Yeah, Like there's a.
Speaker 5: There's a good way to do this, and an important
Speaker 5: way to do this, and an argument that should be done,
Speaker 5: and then there's a way to do it that makes
Speaker 5: the situation worse.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this next piece up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is tracking these shipments from China to the US,
Speaker 1: and we're all just kind of waiting for this to
Speaker 1: like truly and fully hit. CBS has this report. China
Speaker 1: exports to US plunge as tariff's hit, leading some experts
Speaker 1: to warn of product shortages. Shipments of goods from China
Speaker 1: and US are dropping sharply. The trade war between China
Speaker 1: and US has escalated, with each nation hiking its import duties.
Speaker 1: They say that at the Port of La, which along
Speaker 1: with the Port of Long Beach receives roughly forty percent
Speaker 1: of all imports from Asia, shipments last week we're down
Speaker 1: ten percent compared with the same period one year earlier,
Speaker 1: and they are predicting the Port of La executive director
Speaker 1: is predicting that in two weeks time, arrivals are going
Speaker 1: to drop by thirty five percent. Flexport has even more
Speaker 1: dire readings. According to their estimates, bookings from China to
Speaker 1: the US are already down by as much as sixty percent,
Speaker 1: So you're already starting to see an extraordinary slow down here.
Speaker 3: And look, the large retailers.
Speaker 1: Are going to be able to sort of weather the
Speaker 1: storm and be able to figure it out.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be some
Speaker 3: shortages in the.
Speaker 1: Walmarts and home depots and targets and costcos of the world.
Speaker 1: But the people who are really going to get screwed
Speaker 1: are small and medium business owners, even from the perspective
Speaker 1: of how much they have to invest in understanding what
Speaker 1: the new policy regime is every single day. I was
Speaker 1: also reading this morning the deminimous exemption for you know,
Speaker 1: direct shipping under eight hundred dollars, where you're exempt from
Speaker 1: the import duties from the terraffs that is going away,
Speaker 1: And you know that is like, again, that's something that
Speaker 1: I could imagine exactly right, But in the context of
Speaker 1: all of this other that in and of itself is
Speaker 1: this like massive profound change that is going to have
Speaker 1: huge riverbrating impacts, not just for the Sheans and Timos
Speaker 1: of the world, but for lots of small businesses who
Speaker 1: avail themselves of this deminimous exemption to be able to
Speaker 1: buy supplies and run their own businesses. And so this
Speaker 1: is going to be you know, real hit for them
Speaker 1: as well. And the fact that every day, seemingly there's
Speaker 1: a new policy, things are shifting.
Speaker 3: The tariff is changing, even the at the border.
Speaker 1: You know, the customs officers who have to calculate these things,
Speaker 1: they don't know what's going on, so they're not applying
Speaker 1: the correct rates at times as well. Just up with
Speaker 1: that is impossible to do as a smaller, medium sized business.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and so the Trump administration this is also very interesting.
Speaker 5: I was talking to someone who works in Congress last
Speaker 5: night about this. Larry Kudlow pointed out what he was
Speaker 5: looking through the GDP report that one of the reasons
Speaker 5: the numbers may not have been as bad as it
Speaker 5: was as some people thought it might end up being,
Speaker 5: even though so we could talk about it was the
Speaker 5: projections versus what actually happened. But he said that if
Speaker 5: you're looking at the increase in factory equipment, that sort
Speaker 5: of thing, which is always an interesting indicator, twenty two
Speaker 5: percent growth in business equipment.
Speaker 4: And machinery investment.
Speaker 5: He says it does not spell recession because of that
Speaker 5: canary in the coal mine, or what could be a
Speaker 5: canary in the coal mine.
Speaker 4: He's making this point.
Speaker 5: That Trump and his advisors have been going to the
Speaker 5: business community and saying the tax bill is going to
Speaker 5: include one hundred percent rite offs for investment or expenses
Speaker 5: on business, factory and building that's retroactive to January twentieth.
Speaker 5: You look at that and you're like, that's kind of
Speaker 5: an industrial policy in an incentive structure way. In a way,
Speaker 5: that's like using tax cuts, although they also have their
Speaker 5: revenue problem in front of them, so that's a different story.
Speaker 5: But that's their attempt. And you can see how some
Speaker 5: of those things will help. Being able to write off
Speaker 5: business factory and building expensively, that's huge, one hundred percent
Speaker 5: right off on those things.
Speaker 4: So you kind of see how that stuff will help, but.
Speaker 5: It's not enough, and it's not even being packaged by
Speaker 5: them as industrial policy.
Speaker 4: You need to get people back into the labor force
Speaker 4: in some of these communities.
Speaker 5: You need to make sure that these jobs are good,
Speaker 5: steady work that competes with service sector work. So I mean,
Speaker 5: if their plan is to pass a big tax cut
Speaker 5: that includes a corporate tax rate hike to I think
Speaker 5: bestt wants to take it from twenty one to fifteen percent.
Speaker 4: That's the latest news. Again. Could that help with reshoring, Yes,
Speaker 4: but that is I.
Speaker 5: Mean, you're taking a real gamble if you're putting all
Speaker 5: your eggs in the tax cut basket as your industrial policy.
Speaker 1: Well because I mean last time with the tax cut,
Speaker 1: most of them did like share buybacks, you know, to
Speaker 1: create some manufacturing renaissance. So and this is the problem
Speaker 1: when you're trying to, you know, just hope the market
Speaker 1: does its thing, and you're not taking an affirmative, affirmative
Speaker 1: action to make sure that capital.
Speaker 3: Is doing what you want it to do.
Speaker 1: And you know that's his theory is basically you can
Speaker 1: just sort of like slap some tariffs on and you know,
Speaker 1: throw a tax cut at them, and they're going to
Speaker 1: invest in, create product lines and do what you want.
Speaker 1: But no one's going to be investing anything if we're
Speaker 1: in a recession like that's just you know, everybody's going
Speaker 1: to pull back. Everybody's already pulling back and It's important
Speaker 1: to remember those GDP numbers, which were already really bad.
Speaker 1: That's before the tariffs were even announced or introduced. So
Speaker 1: you know, that's I think what should be making people
Speaker 1: really nervous is that we have not yet seen the
Speaker 1: full economic impact of quote unquote Liberation Day. Here's another,
Speaker 1: you know, not great sign. Dollars General is one of
Speaker 1: the stocks that has been the best performers of Trump's
Speaker 1: first one hundred days. And actually the full the list
Speaker 1: of the top three performing stocks is quite grim, quite
Speaker 1: Ryan Grimm, there's a Pallenteer good, Dollar General, and Philip Morris.
Speaker 1: Those are the top three performing stocks of Trump two
Speaker 1: point zero Emily.
Speaker 4: So, how does that make you feel the Golden Age?
Speaker 4: Clearly it's the Golden age. I mean you can smoke your.
Speaker 1: SAgs, you can get by an AI robot, and you
Speaker 1: can go to the Dollar General, and you.
Speaker 4: Know, there's what's not to love.
Speaker 5: I don't understand dollars Actually.
Speaker 4: You could probably get thirty at Dollar General now.
Speaker 3: Today, yes, but you know in the future by Christmas.
Speaker 4: Time that is bleak, bleak.
Speaker 1: I thought that was pretty depressing personally, No, thanks for that,
Speaker 1: good morning. One last piece here, which you know, this
Speaker 1: is I just thought this was funny. We put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. This is Financial Times. You got
Speaker 1: to be reading the Financial Time. I'm honestly every good
Speaker 1: left he knows you have to read the Financial Times.
Speaker 1: In any case, this guy, Stephen Myron, they described as
Speaker 1: a Trump top economic advisor, recently met with top bond
Speaker 1: investors last week in an attempt to sort of calm
Speaker 1: the waters, like Oh, we've got a plan and here's
Speaker 1: what we're doing, and don't worry.
Speaker 3: We've got it.
Speaker 1: And I'm pretty sure this is the guy who'd pen
Speaker 1: to report that in the early days of you know,
Speaker 1: the new tariff regime, people were pointing to of saying like, look,
Speaker 1: they have a plan and it's this forty chess and here's.
Speaker 3: What's going on.
Speaker 1: The problem is the report didn't match the reality of
Speaker 1: what Trump was actually doing. But in any case, they
Speaker 1: say here that they found his presentation, his comments around
Speaker 1: tariffs and markets to be quote incoherent or incomplete. One
Speaker 1: of them said Miren was out of his death and
Speaker 1: said he got questions and that's when it all fell apart,
Speaker 1: said one person familiar with the meeting. When you're with
Speaker 1: an audience that knows a lot. The talking points are
Speaker 1: taken apart pretty quickly, so noteworthy they're both in terms
Speaker 1: of the fact that they felt the need to go
Speaker 1: to these top bond investors and be like, Oh, it's good,
Speaker 1: we got it. Don't worry, everything's good, and also that
Speaker 1: they were extremely not impressed with the presentation, which they
Speaker 1: described as incoherent.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, not sending their best, to paraphrase Donald Trump himself,
Speaker 5: not sending their best.
Speaker 1: Yes, let's get to Elon because this was big news.
Speaker 1: So the Wall Street Journal yesterday put out this report
Speaker 1: that Tesla is looking at moving on from Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: that they are actively and have been actively searching.
Speaker 3: For a new CEO.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up on the screen, so they say,
Speaker 1: Tesla board open search for a CEO to succeed Musk.
Speaker 3: Let me read you a little bit of this. They say.
Speaker 1: About a month ago, with Tesla's stocks sinking and some
Speaker 1: investors irritated about Musk's white house focus, Tesla's board got
Speaker 1: serious about looking for his successor. Board members reached out
Speaker 1: to several executive search firms to work on a formal
Speaker 1: process for finding Tesla's next chief executive According to people
Speaker 1: familiar with the discussions, tensions had been mounting at the
Speaker 1: company's sales and profits were deteriorating rapidly. Musk was spending
Speaker 1: much of his time in Washington. Around that time, Tesla's
Speaker 1: board met with Musk for an update. Board members told
Speaker 1: him he needed to spend time on Tesla, according to
Speaker 1: people familiar, and he needed to say so publicly. Musk
Speaker 1: did not push back, So that is what they're saying.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you have pulled up what Elon's
Speaker 1: response was, but he and Tesla late last night denied
Speaker 1: the report, said this is an absolute fiction.
Speaker 3: It's an absolute lie.
Speaker 1: I haven't checked in on Tesla's stock this morning, but
Speaker 1: last night, after this Wall Street Journal report had come out,
Speaker 1: it was plummeting even further than it already had been.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's wouldn't be a surprise like in
Speaker 1: any ordinary any normal company would look at the string
Speaker 1: of events of Okay, our CEO is not even here,
Speaker 1: like he's not even running the company, and his brand
Speaker 1: is so toxic and specifically toxic to our particular customer
Speaker 1: base that this is just an utter disaster. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's Elon's baby. He stacked the board with people who
Speaker 1: are mostly sick of fans, including like his brother and
Speaker 1: one of the Murdochs is on there, and there have been,
Speaker 1: you know, questions about the independence of the board because
Speaker 1: they are so closely tied to him. So that's why
Speaker 1: for even this board to be making moves to move
Speaker 1: on from Elon is really really, you know, pretty like
Speaker 1: pretty shocking. There are also details here that apparently Elon
Speaker 1: and I kind of guess this, that Elon is kind
Speaker 1: of over running Tesla. He's kind of sick of still
Speaker 1: being there, and he's been doing Tesla for a long time.
Speaker 1: Maybe his heart's really in SpaceX at this point is
Speaker 1: like Mars delusions. That's that's been my sense from the
Speaker 1: outside and from reading reporting about him, the way he's
Speaker 1: oriented himself with regard to DOGE.
Speaker 5: But in any case, what's their response, so Elon, they're scrambling,
Speaker 5: by the way to get all of this. As yesterday
Speaker 5: the journal published this, When was this Crystal was like
Speaker 5: later at night? I want to say, it was like
Speaker 5: around the evening, yes, oh okay, well it was upwardted
Speaker 5: that's today They updated it apparently at seven forty five am.
Speaker 4: Probably with response to Elin.
Speaker 5: But it was happening in the evening and so Tesla's
Speaker 5: rambled to get a response together and posted a statement
Speaker 5: at one I was think it was like one twenty
Speaker 5: three am, and said earlier today there was a media
Speaker 5: report erroneously claiming that the Tesla board had contacted recruitment
Speaker 5: firms to initiate a CEO search at the company.
Speaker 4: This is absolutely false, and this.
Speaker 5: Was communicated to the media before the report was published.
Speaker 5: The CEO of Tesla's Elon Musk, and the board is
Speaker 5: highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the
Speaker 5: exciting growth plan ahead. Now, what they're narrowly denying here
Speaker 5: is that the board had contacted recruitment firms to initiate
Speaker 5: a CEO search.
Speaker 4: At the company. You can parse that in different ways.
Speaker 5: You could say maybe one or two people on the board,
Speaker 5: not the board itself, acting as a collective, had flirted
Speaker 5: with the idea and maybe talk to a couple of
Speaker 5: people that they know in these business circles.
Speaker 4: That's how it is. That you're like out a dinner.
Speaker 5: And you're like, hey, would you potentially, you know, be
Speaker 5: able to help us with a recruitment search at Tesla,
Speaker 5: and then that person goes to the media. The journal
Speaker 5: has had the i would say, deepest reporting on Elon Musk.
Speaker 5: And this is what's really irking musk heads right now
Speaker 5: is that the journal is the one that had this
Speaker 5: story because they're you know, already furious with the way
Speaker 5: the journal is reporting on Musk. Musk quote tweets this
Speaker 5: is all happening literally at one thirty in the morning
Speaker 5: the Tesla statement and says all caps, it is in
Speaker 5: all caps extremely bad breach of ethics that the Wall
Speaker 5: Street Journal would publish a deliberately false article and fail
Speaker 5: to include an unequivocal denial beforehand by the Tesla board
Speaker 5: of directors. Now, I will say if Tesla's hold the
Speaker 5: journal beforehand, that if they gave this statement to the
Speaker 5: journal beforehand, basically saying that the board had not contacted
Speaker 5: recruitment firms, then the journal should have printed that. But
Speaker 5: I also don't like believe that the journal just wouldn't
Speaker 5: print that because it doesn't really poke.
Speaker 4: A hole in their reporting.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's a denial from a company, but everyone
Speaker 5: knows that companies will issue narrow, carefully worded denials and
Speaker 5: situations like this when you have robust sourcing in a
Speaker 5: major newspaper.
Speaker 4: So I started feel like they would have put that
Speaker 4: in there if they had it, no matter what.
Speaker 5: It's not, you know, a super persuasive denial of everything
Speaker 5: that they're reporting here. So, I mean, it's not a
Speaker 5: great look for Musk, but it does make sense with
Speaker 5: all of his moves over the course of the last month, Chrystial,
Speaker 5: you and I have talked about how that Wisconsin election
Speaker 5: felt like a turning point in Maga world when it
Speaker 5: came to Musk, and it seemed as though, you know,
Speaker 5: I think you and I had said this all along,
Speaker 5: the quiet quitting of Musk would be the way that
Speaker 5: this goes, rather than like a big kinetic explosion, was
Speaker 5: always going to be sort of a conscious uncoupling that eventually.
Speaker 4: It just becomes untenable.
Speaker 5: And because the relationship between Trump and Musk is so
Speaker 5: important of both of them, yeah, because for Trump it's
Speaker 5: I mean, that's the money for the magnification of the
Speaker 5: Republican Party going forward via America pack And for Musk, well, obviously,
Speaker 5: this is the president of the United States. He oversees
Speaker 5: five major companies, so it makes sense. But it also
Speaker 5: I think makes sense with the UH disintegration or the
Speaker 5: or Musk decision to take all of these steps back,
Speaker 5: that this is what was happening behind closed doors with
Speaker 5: his prized company. Obviously he loves Starlink and Boring and SpaceX.
Speaker 5: His SpaceX is probably his favorite, who knows, But this
Speaker 5: is Tesla, like this is his, this is his baby,
Speaker 5: this is his what he's been known for most of
Speaker 5: his career.
Speaker 4: So you understand why it would be sort of a blow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, and that is exemplified by the fact that
Speaker 1: you know, we got Trump to do that, like Tesla
Speaker 1: sale in the parking lot of the White House and
Speaker 1: the Pam Bondie is announcing that like, if you harbor
Speaker 1: ill feeling towards Tesla, you're basically terrorists.
Speaker 3: And whatever like it.
Speaker 1: Also, though, I mean, it is astonishing because the way
Speaker 1: that Musk being so cozy with try would hurt their
Speaker 1: sales to a what has previously been mostly like an
Speaker 1: affluent liberal California customer base that is so incredibly predictable.
Speaker 1: And you know, the stock really rose once Trump got
Speaker 1: elected because everyone's like, oh, well, Elon is secondhand to
Speaker 1: the king and he's going to be able to get
Speaker 1: all these works, true, but you still have to be
Speaker 1: able to sell cars, and not only here but around
Speaker 1: the world. Tesla sales really plummeted, I mean really plummeted.
Speaker 1: Cyber truck has been one of the greatest, you know,
Speaker 1: automotive flops in history. Truly, even Tesla dealerships are not
Speaker 1: even accepting cyber trucks as trade ins. That's how little
Speaker 1: appetite there is for this very expensive and poorly created vehicle,
Speaker 1: which has become this incredibly like political symbol that for
Speaker 1: many people reads as extremely toxic. And so if you're
Speaker 1: going to buy this really expensive thing, you also have
Speaker 1: to expect you're going to get like flicked off and
Speaker 1: people are going to give you dirty looks and whatever.
Speaker 1: Most people just don't want to deal with that, right,
Speaker 1: So in any case, not to mention, it's not really
Speaker 1: a vehicle that makes any sense anywhere except for America,
Speaker 1: So you're limiting your market to begin with. Then you've
Speaker 1: got the trade war, which is bad for everybody.
Speaker 3: But Elon talked.
Speaker 1: About that on the investor call, and you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of Tesla's hopeful growth was in China. China now
Speaker 1: also with byd has. I mean, they've just out innovated
Speaker 1: Tesla as well, like their product is better than Tesla
Speaker 1: or the other ev makers here in America. So there's
Speaker 1: all source of issues, but the biggest one is Elon himself.
Speaker 1: So like I said, to get rid of him is
Speaker 1: the most rational thing you could possibly do. But given
Speaker 1: that the board is so closely tied to him, you know,
Speaker 1: I always thought it was kind of unlikely.
Speaker 3: So even the fact that even if it's not.
Speaker 1: The whole board, but a few board members are reaching
Speaker 1: out to these executive search firms or whatever, is really
Speaker 1: quite something. We could put before up on the screen
Speaker 1: of the Tesla stock which just shows you the you know,
Speaker 1: the surge after Trump's elected and then the germantic crash.
Speaker 3: He's gained back a little bit, you know.
Speaker 1: Like I said, I haven't checked in with it today.
Speaker 1: The last piece we have here just a sign of
Speaker 1: his failure here in Washington as well, in the quiet quitting.
Speaker 3: As Emily put it, he was at this cabinet meeting.
Speaker 1: Yesterday, not a member of the cabinet and not a
Speaker 1: member of the cabinet, so you know, whatever that he's
Speaker 1: there to begin with, but he's not even the head
Speaker 1: of doge according to Trump administration, in court.
Speaker 3: But you know, previously at the.
Speaker 1: First cabinet meeting, he was standing up, he was holding court.
Speaker 1: Everyone was doing some of their obsequiousness that they normally
Speaker 1: direct to Trump, they were doing that with Elon as well.
Speaker 1: Now he's getting this sort of like, you know, the
Speaker 1: sort of like pity clap.
Speaker 3: It's more like what he's getting from Trump or like
Speaker 3: the pad like do you want to go to the car?
Speaker 1: You know you could, you could stay, but I know
Speaker 1: you want to get back to working on your cars,
Speaker 1: don't you.
Speaker 3: So let's go ahead and take a listen to B two.
Speaker 1: And you know how things are going for Elon with
Speaker 1: regards to the Trump administration.
Speaker 7: But you have been treated unfairly.
Speaker 11: But the vast majority of people in this country really
Speaker 11: respect and appreciate you, and this whole room can say
Speaker 11: that very strongs are really been a tremendous help.
Speaker 7: You opened up a lot of eyes as to what
Speaker 7: could be done, and we just want to thank you
Speaker 7: very much. And you know you're invited to stay as
Speaker 7: long as you want.
Speaker 9: At some point, he wants to get back home to
Speaker 9: his cars at his.
Speaker 3: Time, So what were What were the vibes of that
Speaker 3: for you, Emily?
Speaker 4: It feels like a sendoff.
Speaker 5: Doesn't that feel like when you know, one member of
Speaker 5: like the you know, drama club at high school is
Speaker 5: about to graduate, Like one member of the basketball team
Speaker 5: is about to graduate. You know, Yeah, you did a
Speaker 5: great job. You know, you didn't start every game, but
Speaker 5: you were always there. You had the heart, you had
Speaker 5: what it took you. You'll always you will always remember
Speaker 5: you didn't I feel like that.
Speaker 3: You were a critical part of this team.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you will always be a part of this team.
Speaker 4: It had those vibes a little bit.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: It's funny you went to the sports thing too, because
Speaker 1: I was also thinking about you know, when like after
Speaker 1: one of my kids plays a game and like it's
Speaker 1: the other bus game, You're like, you did good, Like
Speaker 1: you did good. You know, look, it's not always going
Speaker 1: to be your day. It's fine, but.
Speaker 4: You were good. But you were good. Yeah, I'm not
Speaker 4: saying you weren't good. You were good, like great form. Yeah. No,
Speaker 4: it does feel like that. And Trump at one point said.
Speaker 3: This is a learning experience. You know.
Speaker 5: Trump at one point said, you know, elin you know,
Speaker 5: you're invited to stay as long as you want, which
Speaker 5: is one hundred percent what you say when you're like
Speaker 5: evicting someone, right, like politely evicting someone, just like a
Speaker 5: family member's been CouchSurfing for a while and they got them.
Speaker 1: It's been literally like CouchSurfing in some federal government office yelling.
Speaker 3: So apparently, yeah, and.
Speaker 4: They got the hint, right, like this person got the hint.
Speaker 5: They realized that, like you're a little tired of, you know,
Speaker 5: the CouchSurfing, and they're leaving, and you're like, you know,
Speaker 5: you're you're invited to stay as long as you want.
Speaker 4: That was basically how you.
Speaker 1: Do it in Wisconsin, right, Yeah, of course, yeah, you
Speaker 1: can stay forever, but I know you have things you
Speaker 1: want to do.
Speaker 3: You want to get back to your cars, not here.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but I mean it's it's also like he's actually
Speaker 5: not invited to say as long as he wants unless
Speaker 5: he divests from like to be clear, he's only allowed
Speaker 5: to stay for one hundred and eighty days based on
Speaker 5: the special government employee distinction.
Speaker 4: So technically is not invited.
Speaker 1: Yes, but which, as we've discussed before, you know, they're
Speaker 1: a stickler for the rules and regulations in this administrative.
Speaker 4: Oh you know, one hundred and eighty one days.
Speaker 3: Absolutely not unacceptable.
Speaker 4: That's the red line. No way, no way Elon is ticking.
Speaker 4: It felt like a little send off. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So anyway, that's what's going on with Elon as best
Speaker 1: we know. But there were also some comments made at
Speaker 1: this meeting from Marco Rubio with regard to deportation. So
Speaker 1: let's get to that. So Marco Rubio saying that they
Speaker 1: are exploring other countries outside of El Salvador to ship
Speaker 1: deportees to listic A.
Speaker 4: Listen, and I.
Speaker 12: Say this unapologetically. We are actively searching for other countries
Speaker 12: to take people from third countries. So we are active,
Speaker 12: not just El Salvador. We are working with other countries
Speaker 12: to say we want to send you some of the
Speaker 12: most despicable human beings to your countries. We do that
Speaker 12: as a favor to us, and the further away from
Speaker 12: America the better, so they can't come back across the border.
Speaker 12: I'm not apologetic about it.
Speaker 13: We are doing that.
Speaker 12: If president was elected to keep America safe and to
Speaker 12: get rid of a bunch of perverts and pedophiles and
Speaker 12: child rapists out of our country.
Speaker 3: So searching for other countries.
Speaker 1: You know, no details there about what countries or whether
Speaker 1: they would also be shipped just to those countries or
Speaker 1: to prisons as they have been in El Salvador, this
Speaker 1: you know, place that people are never let it out
Speaker 1: of and there indefinitely. And it's interesting only because it
Speaker 1: comes as there's this New New York Times investigation into
Speaker 1: the deal that the Trump administration made with bu Kelly,
Speaker 1: who called what does he call himself, like the coolest
Speaker 1: dictator in.
Speaker 3: The world or something like that, dictor the cool deck.
Speaker 1: So anyway we could put this is ce five guys,
Speaker 1: if we could skip ahead to see five and put
Speaker 1: this up.
Speaker 3: On the screen.
Speaker 1: So it turns out, you know, they have this sort
Speaker 1: of contractual relationship where the Trump administration is paying some
Speaker 1: amount twelve million is one of the dollar amounts I
Speaker 1: heard floated of money to Bukelly to house these Venezuelans
Speaker 1: who have been you know, who were summarily deported with
Speaker 1: no due process whatsoever under the pretense that they were
Speaker 1: alien enemies and they were the worst of the worst,
Speaker 1: and they were trender Ragua gang members. So in any case,
Speaker 1: Bikelly had apparently agreed to house only what he called
Speaker 1: quote convicted criminals in the prison. However, many of the
Speaker 1: Venezuelan Venezuelan men that had been labeled gang members and
Speaker 1: terrorists by the US government had not been tried in court.
Speaker 1: Mister Bkelly was willing to let the US use his
Speaker 1: prisons with conditions. He told Rubio and Mauricio Clever Coronia.
Speaker 1: I don't know, oh, mister Trump's Latin American envoy. He
Speaker 1: did not want to bring in non criminal migrants. He
Speaker 1: could not convince Salvadorans that he was prioritizing their national
Speaker 1: interests if he turned their country into a dumping ground
Speaker 1: for US deporties from other countries, he explained to mister
Speaker 1: Trump's aids.
Speaker 3: But he did agree to take.
Speaker 1: In violent criminals, no matter their nationality, for a fee,
Speaker 1: which would help to subsidize the country's prison system. So
Speaker 1: because the Trump administration shipped off, the vast majority of
Speaker 1: the people they shipped down had zero criminal records. According
Speaker 1: to The New York Times, even Kelly was like, this
Speaker 1: is a problem. This is not what we agreed to.
Speaker 1: Now he of course has gone along with it. It's
Speaker 1: very possible this leak to The New York Times is
Speaker 1: a bit of ass covering for himself, especially as he's
Speaker 1: found all of these Democratic senators and members of Congress
Speaker 1: flying down Tella Salvador saying, hey, this guy has no
Speaker 1: gang affiliation. They shipped him here indefinitely because of some
Speaker 1: mom and dad tattoo or an autism awareness tattoo, or
Speaker 1: in the case of kil Mar Brego Garcia, they admit
Speaker 1: that they messed up and shouldn't have sent him here,
Speaker 1: like you need to do something. So it's creating domestic
Speaker 1: political problems for Bukelly. So it could have been that
Speaker 1: that leads to this leak to the New York Times
Speaker 1: of like, this is not really what we agreed to.
Speaker 1: And the last thing, Emily I'll say before I get
Speaker 1: your reaction, is in the initial three planeloads that were
Speaker 1: sent and you guys remember this dramatic situation with the
Speaker 1: judge saying you've got to turn those planes around. They
Speaker 1: don't do it, and a third plane actually departs. They
Speaker 1: claim not under Alien Enemies Act, but in any case
Speaker 1: departs even after that order is issued.
Speaker 3: On those planes, there were a number of women.
Speaker 1: This is an all male facility, and so those women,
Speaker 1: but Kelly's we're not taking these women, so they sent
Speaker 1: the women back. In addition, there were also some high
Speaker 1: level MUS thirteen members that were in our criminal justice
Speaker 1: system facing charges and punishment that the Kelly wanted back.
Speaker 1: And Ryan did the first report on this over a
Speaker 1: drop site that the Kelly wanted back because he, as
Speaker 1: part of his crackdown, has also been cutting deals with
Speaker 1: MS thirteen, either for hey, you guys, can you know,
Speaker 1: do your thing over there, but not in this neighborhood
Speaker 1: where the tourists are. Hey, I'll make sure some of
Speaker 1: your people get a little bit better prison conditions, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So that was another part of the deal. And sorry,
Speaker 1: I keep going on and saying one last thing. No, Also,
Speaker 1: we had talked before about this dude who you know,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration did a big press conference about this
Speaker 1: is the East Coast head of MS thirteen. We are
Speaker 1: going to charge him. He is going to prison. We
Speaker 1: are so proud of ourselves. Now quietly, all of those
Speaker 1: charges have been dropped and he is just being deported
Speaker 1: through regular channels before there can be any scrutiny into
Speaker 1: what the hell happened there. Now it's possible they just
Speaker 1: didn't have the goods on this guy. And they just
Speaker 1: made up some bullshit and he was not the MS
Speaker 1: thirteen like East Coast head. And when it came to
Speaker 1: trying to prove this in court, it was not going
Speaker 1: to work out, so they just quietly tried to save face.
Speaker 1: Or it could be this is one of the dudes
Speaker 1: who was part of this dealing with bo Kelly.
Speaker 4: Well yeah, I mean, think about that for a second.
Speaker 5: This is the invocation of the There's a lot of
Speaker 5: juicy stuff in this New York Times story, but the
Speaker 5: invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is predicated on this
Speaker 5: idea that the Venezuelan government is directing Trende Aragua to
Speaker 5: invade the United States, which is a very flimsy premise.
Speaker 3: It's preposterous.
Speaker 5: It's a very flimsy premise that was intentionally concocted by
Speaker 5: people in the Trump administration to be able to get
Speaker 5: around the regular channels of due process.
Speaker 4: Stephen Miller said.
Speaker 5: That openly that it was part of the plan because
Speaker 5: they know mass deportations with the regular due process. That
Speaker 5: is the clear implication of what Steven Miller has said,
Speaker 5: regular deportations. You can't do at the level of QUOTEO
Speaker 5: mass deportations if you go through those channels without dramatically
Speaker 5: boosting the immigration judge system, which then can.
Speaker 3: Cut and they're cutting the immigration judge system, by the.
Speaker 5: Way, there are problems with that because it can become
Speaker 5: a carrot if you can start hearing cases really quickly.
Speaker 5: It did become in the Biden administration and incentive form
Speaker 5: of people to keep trying. But the Trump administration can
Speaker 5: deal with that pretty easily by remain in Mexico policies.
Speaker 5: If that is their problem with they could deal with
Speaker 5: it in other ways. But the idea that the East
Speaker 5: Coast kingpin of MS thirteen needs to be sent back,
Speaker 5: that they have charges, that they do a big, splashy
Speaker 5: press conference. Pam Bondi did a huge, high profile press
Speaker 5: conference to tout the arrest of this man and the
Speaker 5: charges against this man. I think the charges were dropped
Speaker 5: within a month, it might have even been less than that.
Speaker 4: And they didn't just send him to El Salvador.
Speaker 5: They literally dropped these charges, this big case that they
Speaker 5: were touting against him. And that gets to a quote,
Speaker 5: which by the way, is again a follow up on
Speaker 5: the drop site reporting, which was way ahead of the story.
Speaker 5: CNN then had a piece that came out earlier this
Speaker 5: week as well. This is from Douglas Ferra in The
Speaker 5: New York Times, an El Salvador expert who between twenty
Speaker 5: eighteen and twenty twenty two collaborated with the Justice Department
Speaker 5: Vulcan Task Force, which targeted MS thirteen. He says, quote,
Speaker 5: what Bucel is desperate for is to get these guys
Speaker 5: back in El Salvador.
Speaker 4: Before they talk in US court.
Speaker 5: So I'm reading these leaks from State, which also included
Speaker 5: that big CNN piece earlier this week. It looks like
Speaker 5: some of this is probably coming from Boucalley world, and
Speaker 5: I would take all of the sincerity of that. I
Speaker 5: would take all of that with a grain of salt.
Speaker 5: But what's also interesting is it sounds to make most
Speaker 5: of this is coming from State Department world, that there's
Speaker 5: ass covering happening in State Department world, saying we were
Speaker 5: uncomfortable with the answers to bu Kelly's questions about whether
Speaker 5: these were actually.
Speaker 4: MS thirteen members.
Speaker 5: So now the question becomes, and this has actually always
Speaker 5: been the question to some extent, to on what level
Speaker 5: does the Alien Enemies Act allow you to deport people
Speaker 5: if there's tenuous or if there's very thin evidence of
Speaker 5: their alleged involvement in this invasion. Right, So Steven Miller
Speaker 5: thinks that you can just get rid of every foreign
Speaker 5: national in that area. But if you your intelligence is
Speaker 5: telling you that this invocation of the Alien Enemies Act
Speaker 5: eight and of itself is a flimsy is the premise
Speaker 5: to that doesn't work? Does that become a legal problem
Speaker 5: for the administration. And let me just say, Stephen Miller
Speaker 5: isn't sweating that. Stephen Miller like this. He does not
Speaker 5: see this as a significant blow to his prom to
Speaker 5: his process, that there are constitutional questions being raised, or
Speaker 5: to his project, I should say, because their plan was
Speaker 5: to throw everything at the wall and see what would stick,
Speaker 5: knowing that some of it would not. Because they want
Speaker 5: to do mass deportations. And if you want to do
Speaker 5: mass deportations, they're correct, that is going to be very difficult,
Speaker 5: and if the American people voted for that, there's going
Speaker 5: to be a lot standing in the way of your
Speaker 5: effort to.
Speaker 4: Achieve that end.
Speaker 5: But he's he knows that some of the stuff is
Speaker 5: going to get hung up in the courts, and his
Speaker 5: allies and the administration know that that's the point of
Speaker 5: doing this strategy where you're just like there's actually some
Speaker 5: quotes in this piece about how he was like don't worry.
Speaker 3: Said, don't worry about the law something like that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, right, like you have to go fast.
Speaker 5: And so they're worried that they're not going to be
Speaker 5: able to do quote mass deportations. But what they're not
Speaker 5: worried about is, you know, being accused of like flouting
Speaker 5: the constitution. They think that the constitution isn't set up
Speaker 5: to deal with this problem of mass immigration under Biden.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, yeah, they just they don't care about
Speaker 1: the constitution, they don't care about the legality, they don't
Speaker 1: care about due process. They don't care if they mistakenly
Speaker 1: send someone there, you know, and know that it's a mistake,
Speaker 1: they'll just say, like he deserves to be there.
Speaker 3: I don't care.
Speaker 1: And part of the strategy is this is something we
Speaker 1: talked about from the beginning of this administration too, is
Speaker 1: the more horrific and the more cruel the images and
Speaker 1: the stories that come out, the more they're hoping that
Speaker 1: people will quote unquote self support, because there isn't there now.
Speaker 1: The Republican budget has a lot more resources for ice
Speaker 1: and a lot more resources for the private prison contract
Speaker 1: or to set up additional detention centers, etc. But you know,
Speaker 1: there are not the resources to have this, you know,
Speaker 1: the mass deportation skill that a Steven Miller would love
Speaker 1: to see. And so I know it's this cliche, the
Speaker 1: cruelty is the point, but that they will actually the
Speaker 1: best true and that it's true, And so that's how
Speaker 1: he's looking. I mean, Steven Miller is he is truly
Speaker 1: an ideological racist.
Speaker 4: Like he has.
Speaker 1: A political program and I don't think he cares whether
Speaker 1: it's popular or not. He has a thing he wants
Speaker 1: to do and he does not care what's going to
Speaker 1: stand in his way of doing that. And I think
Speaker 1: Trump has outsourced his entire immigration policy to Steven Miller.
Speaker 3: You guys talked about him.
Speaker 1: Actually believing MS thirteen was literally tattooed on kilmar Garcia's
Speaker 1: knuckles when it was the most obvious photoshop in history.
Speaker 1: I think Steven Miller just told him that this is
Speaker 1: real and he just believes it.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: I think Steven Miller told him that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision went nine oh their way, even though that is
Speaker 1: the polar opposite of what happened, and he just believes it.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what he seemed to say in the
Speaker 1: Oval Office. So this has been completely outsourced to Stephen Miller.
Speaker 1: But you know, it did expose that there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of a potential pressure point that Chris van Holland
Speaker 1: and you know the other Democrats who flew down to
Speaker 1: El Salvador that they were kind of pushing on, which
Speaker 1: is that l Salvador. But Kelly has his own domestic
Speaker 1: political situation. Yes, he's very popular there, but that can
Speaker 1: always change, yep. So he has his own domestic political
Speaker 1: situation to think about. And you also have to think
Speaker 1: about like Republic, it's not going to be President Trump
Speaker 1: forever yep. And so if you have made your country
Speaker 1: enemy number one of Democrats and they're set to take
Speaker 1: power to make control Congress, control Congress in you know,
Speaker 1: less than two years, which is some investigatory powers, very possible, Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, and very possible that they take back the
Speaker 1: White House in twenty twenty eight, you start to get
Speaker 1: a little nervous about where all of this is is going.
Speaker 1: And I do think we are ultimately headed to the alien.
Speaker 1: This invocation of the Alien an Enemy's Act being deemed
Speaker 1: like unsupportable, like, you know, because on so many levels,
Speaker 1: and it should be. It's not an invasion, We're not
Speaker 1: at war. Venezuela is not working with Trando Arragula the
Speaker 1: way that it's been implementing. These judges are human beings
Speaker 1: are going to look at this and be like, this
Speaker 1: is outrageous what the administration is doing. And so I
Speaker 1: think it is likely that their invocation is going to
Speaker 1: get struck down. They're already being blocked in a number
Speaker 1: of jurisdictions across the country from continuing these deportations under
Speaker 1: this provision. But you know, and that comes back to
Speaker 1: Marco Rivio saying, ah, well, we're looking at other countries
Speaker 1: where we can do the same thing.
Speaker 5: Glenn has made this point that well, and that's the
Speaker 5: Kilmra Abrigo Garcia case. They actually could have if they
Speaker 5: had gotten an agreement from Mexico, for example, they could
Speaker 5: have deported him at any moment. Basically, they just couldn't
Speaker 5: deport him to Alsalvador. Based on all this, Miller argues
Speaker 5: that because of the Alien Enemies Act, they still could,
Speaker 5: but that's not clear cut, and even conservative attorneys like
Speaker 5: and Annie McCarthy and Walen have come.
Speaker 1: The administration itself argued in court that it was a mistake.
Speaker 4: And it parts then they fired that guy from the
Speaker 4: DJ like they but I.
Speaker 3: Mean, there were multiple court filings and the court is
Speaker 3: that it was a mistake.
Speaker 5: Completely agree Stephen Miller would but Stephen Miller comes down
Speaker 5: and says, like we could do what we want, like
Speaker 5: get out of here DJ, like even the Trump DOJ
Speaker 5: Like you guys, you know, why would you ever admit
Speaker 5: an error. You're harming the project of mass deportation by
Speaker 5: admitting we can't do this, because this is what we
Speaker 5: have to do.
Speaker 4: We have to be.
Speaker 5: Pushing these lines in these boundaries in order to end
Speaker 5: up with mass deportation. And honestly, like if if we
Speaker 5: take this in a like seriously, because there is a
Speaker 5: trunk of the American people that looks at the mass
Speaker 5: immigration during the Biden administration and.
Speaker 4: Talking to some of.
Speaker 5: These people, it's so the lives that they live maybe
Speaker 5: better than what they had in Venezuela.
Speaker 4: I mean, one of these migrants was protesting Maduro.
Speaker 5: And that's why Republicans have often supported the silent policies
Speaker 5: that we have just protesting Maduro. They end up having
Speaker 5: to live these precarious existences in the United States hiding.
Speaker 5: You know, a Brego Garcia was pulled over for driving
Speaker 5: radically with an expired license.
Speaker 4: I mean, a reason that you try.
Speaker 5: To avoid going to the government in some of those
Speaker 5: like we're doing licenses or whatever, is because you're.
Speaker 4: In fear of being deported.
Speaker 5: It's not a great existence, even if it's better than
Speaker 5: Venezuela or El Salvador. And our process right now sucks.
Speaker 5: It keeps people in these situations for like ten plus years.
Speaker 5: He'd come into this country, what twenty twelve at Brego Garcia.
Speaker 5: I think that's and it had just sort of been
Speaker 5: living in the shadows. And it's not good for anybody.
Speaker 5: And there needs to be a solution to this. And
Speaker 5: the solution is always going to involve horrible mistakes and
Speaker 5: heart wrenching, heart wrenching examples of people who end up
Speaker 5: getting deported who had lives here. The administration needs to
Speaker 5: deal with that. They need to realize that you're not
Speaker 5: going to be able to just flout the Constitution use
Speaker 5: things like Alien Enemies Act. All that's going to end
Speaker 5: up doing is creating less public support for what you're
Speaker 5: doing in the first place, and it's going to take
Speaker 5: time away from what you could be doing, which is
Speaker 5: building up a system to actually deal with the literal
Speaker 5: millions of people who are here living these precarious existences,
Speaker 5: which isn't a good situation for anybody. But I don't
Speaker 5: see basically any any movement in that direction. Glenn has
Speaker 5: made this point that actually it's not that hard to
Speaker 5: go through the court system if you focus on it,
Speaker 5: it's not that hard to bring him back to try him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, they were already the State Department was coming
Speaker 1: up with plans bringing back because this is not the
Speaker 1: first time that someone has been mistakenly deported.
Speaker 3: Yes, and you just go to deal with it. This
Speaker 3: is terrible.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, We're going to get you back, and like
Speaker 1: follow the They were already working on those plans, and
Speaker 1: then you know, whoever in the Trump administration came over
Speaker 1: the top and we're like, no, yeah, we made a mistake.
Speaker 1: We don't care. He's going to stay. And again, this
Speaker 1: is not just deportation, just deportation. This is you are
Speaker 1: locked in a prison for life. Yep, your wife, your family,
Speaker 1: your lawyers, like you have no access to anyone, accept
Speaker 1: a brief meeting with Chris van Hollen. You are cut
Speaker 1: off from the entire world, potentially forever, sentenced to life
Speaker 1: in prison in a foreign prison. Not kill maraa Brego
Speaker 1: Garcia has been moved to a different facility. But for
Speaker 1: the rest of these guys in Seacott, like, this place
Speaker 1: is known for torture and human rights abuse.
Speaker 5: And there's there are rules against that that we abide
Speaker 5: by us.
Speaker 4: Yeah, sure, you your rendition.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: You cannot ship someone off and then be like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, the Egyptian government or whoever, they're going to
Speaker 1: do what they're going to do, and it's not our fault. Like,
Speaker 1: if you know the conditions that the people are being
Speaker 1: sent to, then you are still responsible for those conditions.
Speaker 1: So in any case, you're absolutely right in the way
Speaker 1: that I mean, if you look at the way public
Speaker 1: opinion is dramatically shifted already with regard to how they
Speaker 1: feel about immigration, certainly how they feel about Trump's handling
Speaker 1: of immigration, how they feel about kill mar and Brego
Speaker 1: Garcia and all of this. It has been a dramatic,
Speaker 1: dramatic flip, and it's what we saw in the first
Speaker 1: term as well, where the public had never been more
Speaker 1: pro immigrant than they were during Trump's first term in office.
Speaker 5: And then that swung back wildly during the Biden administration,
Speaker 5: which is why I think Steven Miller like, how often
Speaker 5: do we hear them claiming.
Speaker 4: A mandate, a mandate, a mandate. Well, they're misinterpreting. First
Speaker 4: of all.
Speaker 5: I mean, the question whether if you win, you know,
Speaker 5: forty nine percent of the vote, you have a mandate
Speaker 5: is rightly question. But they they're misinterpreting that mandate as
Speaker 5: something that it isn't. And I don't even know if
Speaker 5: it's an accidental misinterpretation. I think it's probably a wilful
Speaker 5: misinterpretation because Steve Miller knows that this is a very
Speaker 5: slim window and again, if you're doing the math as him,
Speaker 5: that is correct, like, this is a very slim window
Speaker 5: in order to do master deportations because House Democrats are
Speaker 5: going to take back over, public supporter is going to shift,
Speaker 5: so they're trying really hard to just put their foot
Speaker 5: on the accelerator, you know.
Speaker 1: To go back to Glenn's point, like it's yeah, Democrats
Speaker 1: pass the freaking Lincoln Riley Act with Republicans. If you
Speaker 1: wanted to expedide the system, hire more immigration judges, and
Speaker 1: have this aggressive approach. I don't support it, but they
Speaker 1: could have done it. Democrats were willing to vote for
Speaker 1: basically whatever on immigration at the beginning of this term.
Speaker 1: You you know, have your budgeting process and you're willing
Speaker 1: to do all move all sorts of moneys around with
Speaker 1: doge Like. If you wanted to do this in a
Speaker 1: in some sort of even approaching lawful way, that path
Speaker 1: was available, but that would not have entailed the level
Speaker 1: of horror that Stephen Miller wants this process to entail
Speaker 1: so that they can trigger the you know self deportations
Speaker 1: that they see as being critical to this. So, you know,
Speaker 1: the the Guantanamo Bay that was the same the same
Speaker 1: reason that they were sending immigrants also to Guantanamo Bay,
Speaker 1: and I think are continuing to do so, even though
Speaker 1: there had been some reports that a number of those
Speaker 1: immigrants have been removed using military planes. This is this
Speaker 1: is way more expensive than the private ice flights that
Speaker 1: they normally use.
Speaker 3: But again it's to generate.
Speaker 1: This you know, this spectacle, the ASMR like deportation likes
Speaker 1: discussed is like incredibly disturbing to be videos that they
Speaker 1: put out Christino, I'm going down to Seacott. It's all
Speaker 1: about a spectacle of horror. And you know, so he
Speaker 1: he has no interest in going through like any sort
Speaker 1: of approaching lawful process to effectuate this outcome because it
Speaker 1: wouldn't achieve his aims ultimately, and so that's why he's
Speaker 1: you know, pursued very specifically him has pursued this this
Speaker 1: particular path. I want to get to some really good
Speaker 1: news in the fight against the crackdown on pro Palestine
Speaker 1: students who have been arrested for things like writing abeds
Speaker 1: or you know, for in the case of Machmun Khalil,
Speaker 1: for being a negotiating a negotiator on the Columbia campus protests.
Speaker 1: One of the people who had really attracted a lot
Speaker 1: of attention is Mosen Madali. He has now been actually
Speaker 1: released from prison from detention while his case was adjudicate.
Speaker 1: Let's take let's take a look at him walking out,
Speaker 1: because this is quite extraordinary. You can see him walking
Speaker 1: out here to cheers. I believe this was in Vermont
Speaker 1: where this was all unfolding, and he also spoke and
Speaker 1: his message to this cheering crowd. Here you'd see lots
Speaker 1: of Palestine flags, free Muslim Madowi now calling for due process,
Speaker 1: et cetera. His message coming out was, I am not
Speaker 1: afraid of Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 13: What did they do to me?
Speaker 14: They arrested me. What's the reason? Because I raised my
Speaker 14: voice and they said no to war, yes to peace.
Speaker 14: Because I said enough is enough to President Trump and
Speaker 14: his cabinet, I am not afraid of you.
Speaker 1: The judge, in making this decision also made some extraordinary
Speaker 1: statements which would have huge implications not just for Madowi,
Speaker 1: but also for many of the other students who've been
Speaker 1: arrested and detained and are being threatened with deportation for
Speaker 1: their advocacy for Palestine. Let's go and put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. Jeffrey Crawford, the judge and Wednesday's ruling,
Speaker 1: wrote that those who know Madowie describe him as a
Speaker 1: peaceful figure who seeks consensus in a highly charged political environment.
Speaker 1: But Crawford added, even if he were a firebrand, his
Speaker 1: conduct is protected by the First Amendment. The court is
Speaker 1: aware he has offended his political opponents apparently given rise
Speaker 1: to concerns the State Department, he has an obstacle to
Speaker 1: American foreign policy.
Speaker 3: Just think about how preposterous that is.
Speaker 1: Such conduct is insufficient to support a finding that he
Speaker 1: is in any way a danger. As we use that
Speaker 1: term in the context of detention and release. Legal residents
Speaker 1: not charged with crimes from misconduct are being arrested, threatened
Speaker 1: with deportation for stating their views on the political issues
Speaker 1: of the day, Crawford said, citing the Red Scare and
Speaker 1: McCarthy era a targeting of people.
Speaker 3: For their political views.
Speaker 1: The wheel of history has come around again. But as before,
Speaker 1: these times of excess will pass. So, you know, we'll
Speaker 1: see if this ruling stands. We'll see if there are
Speaker 1: other judges who make similar decisions. But you know the
Speaker 1: fact that Madowi at least was able to get this win,
Speaker 1: and you have one judge, federal judge saying listen, you
Speaker 1: can't just deport someone because you don't like their opinion
Speaker 1: on a political issue, is a very significant development here.
Speaker 5: The justification for this deportation order via the State Department
Speaker 5: is very problematic, similar to the Mahmud Khalil situation in
Speaker 5: that they cite this is a Rubio memo anti Semitism basically,
Speaker 5: and they say this is from the it's the Immigration
Speaker 5: and Nationality Act. I think it's in nineteen fifty two,
Speaker 5: is what Rubio has been citing. And that's what's we
Speaker 5: were talking about this with Stephen Miller earlier and the
Speaker 5: Alien Enemies Act. I think they're right now testing the
Speaker 5: fundamental constitutionality of the State Department and the Secretary of
Speaker 5: State being able to revoke visas on the idea that
Speaker 5: somebody is a threat to the United States national security.
Speaker 5: And then you take that second layer in this case
Speaker 5: of saying that somebody's alleged anti semitism is a threat
Speaker 5: to national security is a very like they're testing the
Speaker 5: constitutionality of that, and I think rightfully so. Did you
Speaker 5: see the government I'm reading from NBC News right now.
Speaker 5: They included two exhibits in their filing which have been
Speaker 5: filed under Seal. One of the exhibits, this has been
Speaker 5: going sort of viral on x and I don't know
Speaker 5: what to think of it, which NBC News has reviewed,
Speaker 5: is a twenty fifteen report from the Windsor Police Department
Speaker 5: in Vermont where a gun shop owner told officers that
Speaker 5: Madowi supposedly told the owner that he used to build
Speaker 5: machine guns to quote, kill Jews while he was in Palestine.
Speaker 5: In his declaration, Madawi saidely that he recalled visiting a
Speaker 5: gun shop in Windsor, Vermont, but that he is quote
Speaker 5: absolutely certain that I never expressed the words the report
Speaker 5: also attributes to me in that exchange or ever, I'm
Speaker 5: a peaceful person and would never express wanting to harm
Speaker 5: or kill anyone. I'm heartbroken to have such appalling words,
Speaker 5: which Shannon complete contrasts to my philosophy of life and
Speaker 5: spiritual beliefs misattributed to me.
Speaker 4: It's such a strange.
Speaker 5: Another situation where the administration you would think would have
Speaker 5: cited that immediately if they would know about it.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: That so, I imagine there's more to come from this gunshop
Speaker 5: owner as this case goes on, but a very strange
Speaker 5: I just feel like that's a very strange part of
Speaker 5: the story or subplot in the story, because I guess
Speaker 5: if this is about anti Semitism to the Ruby Amendment,
Speaker 5: the point in the Rubio memo, if he said that
Speaker 5: he killed Jews while he was in Palestine, then I
Speaker 5: suppose you can you can prove that he's anti Semitic,
Speaker 5: but even then you have to prove the anti semitism
Speaker 5: is a harm to US foreign policy. And again like
Speaker 5: this is that would augment that argument. But quite an
Speaker 5: interesting situation where you have, what is he's Buddhist?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think so, it's very weird.
Speaker 1: Well, and if you listen to him on sixty minutes,
Speaker 1: like he's very clear about I see the you know,
Speaker 1: justice for Israelis and Palestinians and freedom for them as
Speaker 1: being linked and I abhor anti Semitism, like he's been
Speaker 1: very consistent on that.
Speaker 3: I mean, listen, I have no idea.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen or heard any thing about this, like
Speaker 1: gunshop situation. I will say that, Look, even if you
Speaker 1: say something that is horrible like that, you still shouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to deport someone just for their speech. I
Speaker 1: mean that's basically the judge's point is, like, there's no
Speaker 1: evidence that he is a firebrand. All the evidence is
Speaker 1: that he's you know, this very like peace loving, like
Speaker 1: consensus building type. But even if he was, you still
Speaker 1: can't just deport someone because you don't like what they
Speaker 1: have to say. Well, you don't like what you imagine
Speaker 1: is in their heart with regard to this group of
Speaker 1: people or that group of people.
Speaker 4: It makes there is their justification.
Speaker 5: Here is what is the like they don't have whether
Speaker 5: that justification, i should say, is legitimate. It remains the question.
Speaker 5: Even if he said that, like that their justification from
Speaker 5: reporting him, like they would have to find again, like
Speaker 5: you can try people, you can actually go through another process.
Speaker 5: But the point is just doing as many things as
Speaker 5: quickly as possible in order to sort of flood the
Speaker 5: zone and from there, yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and to use this issue as a cudgel, you know,
Speaker 1: both in their in their war against lefties generally in
Speaker 1: their war against universities, like this is the issue that
Speaker 1: they don't care about anti Semitism. They're using this issue
Speaker 1: as a cudgel to effectuate other Well.
Speaker 5: I think, I mean, I think there's a part of
Speaker 5: the sort of conservative movement that has very much been
Speaker 5: conditioned that this is the most like, this is the.
Speaker 4: Type of the spear on campus issues.
Speaker 5: So if you get rid of the alleged anti Semites,
Speaker 5: then you you've just removed the tip of the spear.
Speaker 5: And it's I think some people genuinely do believe in this,
Speaker 5: I think a lot of people don't and it's almost
Speaker 5: like half and half.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm referring specifically to Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Donald Trump does not give a shit about anti summing.
Speaker 5: I don't think he's super concerned about this, but he
Speaker 5: knows that again, like Miriam Madelson is and I'm sure
Speaker 5: Marco Rubio probably is.
Speaker 4: So it's that's how it's.
Speaker 5: But again, like I think we've talked about this recently,
Speaker 5: it's turning kind of the online. Some of the online
Speaker 5: online write people off and some of them it's like, okay,
Speaker 5: so you've turned off Candace Owens, but I guess she
Speaker 5: has a big audience.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we'll get to the Alex Jones, Nick Fuenttez, Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right.
Speaker 4: We have a good coming out.
Speaker 3: For our last block.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go and get to some of these
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight Democratic contenders in the way they're positioning themselves.
Speaker 1: We have a bunch of Democrats have been making some
Speaker 1: potential twenty twenty eight moves, so we wanted to make
Speaker 1: sure and give a little speed run through all of them.
Speaker 1: With Dave Weigel of Semaphore, who's always out on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail these folks and talk to these folks and
Speaker 1: can give us some of the inside knowledge here.
Speaker 3: So great to see you, Dave.
Speaker 13: Good to be here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So let's start with Pritzker, who is governor of Illinois.
Speaker 1: Who I mean, it looks like he wants to run.
Speaker 13: Right fair to say he was in New Hampshire. I
Speaker 13: don't think his playing got diverted.
Speaker 1: I think he wanted to be in New hampt Indeed,
Speaker 1: so he said a lot of things that a lot
Speaker 1: of Democrats were like, Oh, okay, JB, you see what
Speaker 1: you're bringing to the table. This line in particular caught
Speaker 1: a lot of attention. So let's go ahead and play that.
Speaker 13: Never before in.
Speaker 15: My life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization,
Speaker 15: for disruption.
Speaker 16: But I am now these republic cannot build a moment
Speaker 16: of peace.
Speaker 4: They help don't understand that.
Speaker 16: We will fight there with every megaphone and microphone that
Speaker 16: we have. We must have estimate them on the soap
Speaker 16: box and then punish them at.
Speaker 13: The ballance box.
Speaker 1: And I did see some Republicans melt down over the
Speaker 1: hole he's calling for violence because he said they should
Speaker 1: never know peace, et cetera. But even that I think
Speaker 1: sort of plays to his benefit because Democrats love to
Speaker 1: see a Republican sort of like melting down and getting
Speaker 1: triggered over something that a Democratic candidate says, and them
Speaker 1: standing up for themselves and not just backing down in
Speaker 1: the Faceboks this profile too too.
Speaker 13: Oh absolutely, And I was at that event in that room.
Speaker 13: Before he was talking, there was a montage of protests
Speaker 13: that had happened in New Hampshire on the screen. Maggie
Speaker 13: Hafsen was talking about the protests. It you could see
Speaker 13: from them from the kind of the hair of people
Speaker 13: getting up. It was an older crowd of Democratic donors,
Speaker 13: but these are the people showing up at Tesla takedown stuff.
Speaker 13: So he was, first of all, right, right in the
Speaker 13: sweet spot of where Democrats want to be. Yes, right now,
Speaker 13: resist Trump with everything you have, and not just Trump,
Speaker 13: but resists kicking college students of the country because they
Speaker 13: wrote the wrong essay, that sort of thing. So he's
Speaker 13: with that second part of it. So all of us
Speaker 13: in the room, reporters knew that that line would land
Speaker 13: at some level. But that was perfect for him because
Speaker 13: the next day he was at u C at Chicago,
Speaker 13: the University with students talking about Trump's challenges the university
Speaker 13: endowments over protests on campus, and he got asked about it.
Speaker 13: Guys Stephen Miller, the illinary Republican Party both said he
Speaker 13: was calling for violence, and you can see needed a
Speaker 13: defendive that. But you can see he talks about the
Speaker 13: ballot box. He is saying, make sure that you're showing
Speaker 13: up and yelling at Republicans, which is not the same
Speaker 13: as blowing things up or doing and he is in
Speaker 13: a good position. He leaned on another part of the
Speaker 13: sorry interviews with people, not the speech. He mentions he's Jewish,
Speaker 13: he has funded a Holocaust museum. He does not. He
Speaker 13: is like Jos Shapiro. He is a Jewish liberal who
Speaker 13: is critical of something is Rael is doing and has
Speaker 13: used that clout to say, don't go after students who
Speaker 13: are critics of Israel. There are other questions of an answer,
Speaker 13: like is it a genocide, et cetera, But that's one
Speaker 13: where Democrats want to be two very good for bating
Speaker 13: Republicans who attacking him, and that is how you get attention,
Speaker 13: Like you can get a bad attention from that, but
Speaker 13: that is how you get attention from having Republicans be
Speaker 13: so annoyed at you that they're attacking you and condemning you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and so you've covered him longer than a lot
Speaker 5: of people paid attention to him. So do you have
Speaker 5: a sense right now of what lane he thinks he's
Speaker 5: taking up in potential twenty twenty eight primary.
Speaker 4: It's it's so early, and it's so silly to.
Speaker 5: Even think about that because we don't know what the
Speaker 5: competition will be, and that determines kind of what lane
Speaker 5: people go in. But as of right now, what sense
Speaker 5: do you have of what he what kind of candidate
Speaker 5: he thinks he is. He's a billionaire, arguably oligarchic.
Speaker 4: I think you asked him that.
Speaker 13: I asked him, Yeah, I asked him when I asked him,
Speaker 13: when Bernie Sanders talks about the oligarchies, he's talking about you, and.
Speaker 1: But defied upon the screenwall, Dave's talking. We pulled your
Speaker 1: answer here, but go ahead, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 13: And he gave an answer, which is that, no, I
Speaker 13: when he talks people talk about the aligarchy, they're talking
Speaker 13: about people who were taking over the government giving favors themselves,
Speaker 13: and that's not me I'm about And I had asked
Speaker 13: him a separate question about he's very in favor of
Speaker 13: progressive income taxes where the administration is trying to replace those.
Speaker 13: Not really, but they're saying they're trying to place income
Speaker 13: taxes with the tariff, and he was against that, and
Speaker 13: so he's he is running as a sort of he
Speaker 13: didn't say class trader, but sort of as a class trader.
Speaker 13: I've been very successful. I'm a billionaire. I want to
Speaker 13: take the government, reorient the resource to you that is progressive,
Speaker 13: and that with some work done early on to say,
Speaker 13: but I'm yes, I'm a billionaire. I'm not like those
Speaker 13: others and there are other quite like we're two years
Speaker 13: fro him announcing maybe will he spend his own money
Speaker 13: like he has in Illinois, because that has irritated progressives.
Speaker 13: Him spending I think three hundred and fifty million dollars
Speaker 13: between all his campaigns of his own money. And if
Speaker 13: you're worth you're a billionaire. It's hard to get poor again, right,
Speaker 13: the investments compound, he keeps spending it. That does not
Speaker 13: sit well with Democrats. They had Mike Bloomberg and Tom
Speaker 13: Steyer do that in the last open primary, and it
Speaker 13: did alienate them. I think he'll alienates even more the
Speaker 13: way the mood their mood is going to be in
Speaker 13: twenty twenty eight. But he's running as a progressive saying
Speaker 13: I'm not like those other rich people. I would use
Speaker 13: my status to redistribute income to not income, redistribute wealth
Speaker 13: to everybody else. And then starting from there, what's that
Speaker 13: mean to care for all?
Speaker 9: What is?
Speaker 13: He's not a Bernie candidate, but he is a progressive candidate.
Speaker 1: Interesting, and he also had some criticism by the way,
Speaker 1: I think, you know, I actually think he should affirmatively
Speaker 1: come out and say I'm a class trader and can
Speaker 1: cast himself in the role I mean FDR was, you know,
Speaker 1: was the prototypical like class trader, and I think he
Speaker 1: could potentially get away with it. The self funding thing
Speaker 1: is a problem both in terms of the optics but
Speaker 1: also in terms of the reality of that means that
Speaker 1: you don't feel like you need to solicit funds from
Speaker 1: a grossroots base, so you don't need to be responsive
Speaker 1: to them. So it actually can end up being a
Speaker 1: problem for candidates politically just because they are a little
Speaker 1: bit removed from where the base of the party is.
Speaker 1: But I mean so far, he seems to be kind of,
Speaker 1: you know, squarely in line and finger on the pulse,
Speaker 1: much more so than some other candidates of where the
Speaker 1: Democratic base is. One of the other things that he
Speaker 1: said that you're mentioning to us is he's also critical
Speaker 1: of Democrats democratic leadership that has been you know, seen
Speaker 1: as being and I think legitimately so rather cowardly in
Speaker 1: the face of Trump this time around. So you know,
Speaker 1: talk about how that relates to how he's positioning himself.
Speaker 13: Yes, he attacked do nothing Democrats, he didn't name them,
Speaker 13: and if you're reading, if you're reading between the lines,
Speaker 13: it was hard to say who exactly was talking about,
Speaker 13: except mostly James Carvel types pundits who have been saying
Speaker 13: vaguely that the party is seen as too left wing
Speaker 13: it needs to change somehow without explaining what that means.
Speaker 13: So it wasn't saying, like Bernie might that this is
Speaker 13: because of rich donors who were who want the party
Speaker 13: to move in one direction, or because this is in
Speaker 13: United He's not saying that. It was more generally there
Speaker 13: are people in our party who are get scared of fighting,
Speaker 13: and I'm not scared of fighting, and we're going to
Speaker 13: change that, and that this has been complicated because because
Speaker 13: the Biden record on policy on what bills were prioritized
Speaker 13: was pretty progressive. Bernie had a big role in getting
Speaker 13: some stuff he wanted through, and that's kind of been forgotten.
Speaker 13: No Democrat is saying I'm going to return to what
Speaker 13: Biden was doing, or that Biden set this up by
Speaker 13: being too too far the right. And again, the gaza
Speaker 13: issue is very complicated. Wasn't part of that. But what
Speaker 13: is what is his criticism of Democrats? It's really this.
Speaker 13: It's been pretty easy for progressive to say this. The
Speaker 13: guys who were saying let's wait and fight Trump later,
Speaker 13: let's not pick every fight, let's not fight about El
Speaker 13: Salvador and Garcia, that's who he's criticizing. So it's not
Speaker 13: quite an economic argument yet. It is that there are
Speaker 13: people out there who attitude and only get worried and
Speaker 13: don't want to give a comment or don't have a quote.
Speaker 13: Here's me JB. Pritzker. I will jump out and immediately
Speaker 13: be in front of a camera condemning something that might
Speaker 13: pull badly. That was the key, and because I think
Speaker 13: that fight might be over for Democrats for now. But
Speaker 13: the Garcia thing. It was a lot of anonymous Democrats saying, please,
Speaker 13: let's not talk about this. It was I saw heckem difference.
Speaker 13: This week's already denying these saying, don't go to El Salvador.
Speaker 13: But that's what he's talking about, that attitude. Are you
Speaker 13: bold enough to just jump in and frankly, like Trump
Speaker 13: was in twenty fifteen with Republicans, are you ready to
Speaker 13: say something that everyone in the media is going to
Speaker 13: say is a bad idea? That's what he was kind
Speaker 13: of saying to Democrats.
Speaker 4: Interesting.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So let's roll Pete Bododha j Eddge a little
Speaker 5: bit a clip of his appearance on The Flagrant Podcast.
Speaker 5: One of the most powerful podcast appearances actually, Donald Trump
Speaker 5: did in the twenty twenty four cycle was on that show.
Speaker 5: So let's take a look at at Pete handling that appearance.
Speaker 5: Pretty well, this is D two.
Speaker 17: I want everyday life to be better. That's what they
Speaker 17: want to you get up in the morning. Yeah, but importantly,
Speaker 17: like all the controversies are over, what that's like, Like,
Speaker 17: I want you to be able to get up in
Speaker 17: the morning, and the first thing you do is you
Speaker 17: commute to work and by the way if you want
Speaker 17: EV I want that to be affordable for you, or
Speaker 17: if you're on public transit, not to get back into
Speaker 17: the subway situation, but I want you to have good
Speaker 17: public transition to get to where you're going. And then
Speaker 17: when you get to that job, I want you to
Speaker 17: be paid well. And if you're about to have a kid,
Speaker 17: I want you to know that you're going to have
Speaker 17: parental leave when you have that kid. And if you
Speaker 17: don't want to have a kid, I want you to
Speaker 17: have the right to choose whatever a kid, which means
Speaker 17: access to birth control and abortion and those things that
Speaker 17: give you the freedom to decide on that. And if
Speaker 17: you already have a kid, when you pick them up
Speaker 17: at school, I want that school to be good, not
Speaker 17: having its funding slash while they set fire to the
Speaker 17: Department of Education. And then when you get home, I
Speaker 17: want you to be in a neighborhood that is safe
Speaker 17: and where you can breathe the air because we didn't
Speaker 17: let them get rid of the Clean Air Act, and
Speaker 17: you don't have to think for one moment about whether
Speaker 17: the airy breathe or the water you drink clean and clear,
Speaker 17: which actually takes a lot because it means the government
Speaker 17: has to constrain those actors that would make you unfree
Speaker 17: by polluting there and polluting the water. And then when
Speaker 17: you go to bed, I want you to know that
Speaker 17: your families can be fine, even if it's family like mine,
Speaker 17: despite there being some Supreme Court justice who wants to
Speaker 17: obliterate your family because it doesn't match his interpretation of
Speaker 17: his religion. Like that's the life I.
Speaker 4: Want everybody to be able to live.
Speaker 17: Yeah, and I think we can deliver that.
Speaker 4: Sort of abundance adjacent at that point. So if people are.
Speaker 5: Listening to this, they missed that Pete sort of grown
Speaker 5: in everyman beard, which is kind of interesting. And going
Speaker 5: on a bro podcast, how did this appearance? Did you
Speaker 5: get a sense of how Democrats reacted to this appearance?
Speaker 5: And maybe from your perspective as someone who's covered this,
Speaker 5: what it says about Boodha Judge's plans for the future.
Speaker 13: Possibly that I did hear democrats say more how who
Speaker 13: else can do this? Not just ready to give the
Speaker 13: nomination to this guy, but who else can talk like this?
Speaker 13: Who else can articulate? Take this? Because you mentioned abundance,
Speaker 13: yea actually in abundance. The first chapter begins like that
Speaker 13: is a very effective rhetorical tactic to say, imagine your
Speaker 13: life minute by minute or hour by hour if we
Speaker 13: get our way.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like that name of like you know,
Speaker 1: the city looking glorious and you know, like this if
Speaker 1: Pete Booter Jedge gets elected.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, the.
Speaker 13: Original Green New Deal pitch was like that. Imagine you
Speaker 13: wake up and you take cream public transit and then
Speaker 13: you have the uh. And so that was what I heard,
Speaker 13: not not jealousy, how do we copy this? But who
Speaker 13: else can do that? Can Shapiro do that? Can That's
Speaker 13: how they saw it in terms of the next presidential candidate,
Speaker 13: in terms of rhetoric and going back to why they
Speaker 13: lost last time. They do think that there is a
Speaker 13: calcified democratic sultan class and really not shocking you saying
Speaker 13: this that that is very scared of taking a risk
Speaker 13: and saying something that might that might be hard to
Speaker 13: defend in a debate that wants to use phrases like
Speaker 13: opportunity economy, a phrase that you only mentioned anymore if
Speaker 13: you're trying to say how bad it was.
Speaker 1: Pope Brothers, what's.
Speaker 13: The what's the sound bite? And and that's what he
Speaker 13: was doing that they think other Democrats should should do.
Speaker 13: Is how do you actually make this a memorable story
Speaker 13: that stays in somebody's head and not talking point because
Speaker 13: they hear a talking point. And even liberation when you
Speaker 13: think of a concise phrase that probably sounded good in
Speaker 13: the focus group, the next time you think of, it's
Speaker 13: being made fun of generally. And that was what their
Speaker 13: last nominee did a lot of to extend Obama. Sorry,
Speaker 13: Biden had stock phrases that he'd repeat when he was younger,
Speaker 13: and he was better. He was very good at talking
Speaker 13: about good being at home at night with your kids
Speaker 13: and think about your bills and waking up and wondering
Speaker 13: how you're going to afford your family. That's very basic politics.
Speaker 13: And that's part of this discourse is how come we
Speaker 13: have so few people who are good at the basic
Speaker 13: politics at that level? They have members of Congress who
Speaker 13: are pretty good at it. But then they've got a
Speaker 13: diferent discussion the seniority issue where they have old Democrats
Speaker 13: who can't do it very well anymore. And that's what
Speaker 13: they It wasn't let's give him the nomination, he's our savior.
Speaker 13: It is how do we get Andy Basheer in that
Speaker 13: conversation because they're Democrats who just don't who. I'm not
Speaker 13: saying he can't do this, but Democrats have learned a
Speaker 13: bad way of talking, and it's only dawning on him now.
Speaker 13: This is a bad, unconvincing way of talking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean it's a it's also a sort
Speaker 1: of subtle rebuke of the Kamala Harris like how safe
Speaker 1: they were and how fraid she was and the you know,
Speaker 1: the Joe Rogan not going on there.
Speaker 3: Whoever's felt that was whatever.
Speaker 1: But she has always been a politician that is very
Speaker 1: carefully managed and very nervous about doing interviews with people
Speaker 1: she doesn't know and not knowing how it's going to go.
Speaker 1: And look, Pete, I'm a well established Pete hater, but
Speaker 1: I will say I will say he did turn out
Speaker 1: to be a pretty effective regulator in the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: and you put him on Fox News, you put him
Speaker 1: in setting like that, like the man has skills. So
Speaker 1: I definitely, you know, I think he could. I certainly
Speaker 1: think he could be a contender. He's got a lot
Speaker 1: of name recognition, a lot of good will with the
Speaker 1: Democratic base, So I think he could be well positioned.
Speaker 1: The other person you just mentioned there is Andy Basheer,
Speaker 1: who's the governor of Kentucky, who is I think still
Speaker 1: the most popular democratic governor in the country, even though
Speaker 1: he's governor of Kentucky, a state that is, you know,
Speaker 1: very Trump friendly and very Republican. And you know, Anniebscher
Speaker 1: is not a firebrand.
Speaker 3: He very much tries.
Speaker 1: To stay in the lane of like, I'm creating jobs.
Speaker 1: He ran, you know, coming out of the teacher strike
Speaker 1: wave against cuts to teacher's pensions and assault on education.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's a lot of sort of backstory
Speaker 1: there of how he's his political formation. But I just say,
Speaker 1: and you've covered him a lot too. He's never impressed
Speaker 1: me on like a charisma front. He's one who I
Speaker 1: would say, you know, he's good when he's he's studied
Speaker 1: his lines and he's got his like little you know,
Speaker 1: Kentucky style jabs ready to go.
Speaker 3: He's one that I feel like has gotten better. And
Speaker 3: he impressed me.
Speaker 1: It was just on Fox News and sparring with the
Speaker 1: host there, and I thought he was pretty nimble and
Speaker 1: handled himself pretty well. Let's go ahead and take a
Speaker 1: listen to Andy.
Speaker 18: Basheer in the contrary to build plans. We're going to
Speaker 18: hear announcements on that this afternoon.
Speaker 4: I guess all I'm.
Speaker 18: Saying is, isn't it worth kind of giving some of
Speaker 18: this a try? Since he did win all of the
Speaker 18: swing states across the country, which I know he points
Speaker 18: out quite often. But I guess the question is the
Speaker 18: things that voters were looking for and that got them elected,
Speaker 18: writing our trade situation, fixing the border. Doesn't it make
Speaker 18: sense to have at least a grace period for this
Speaker 18: American president to see if some of this will work.
Speaker 19: I believe that Donald Trump isn't president because he talked
Speaker 19: about trade policies. He's president because he talked about making
Speaker 19: it easier. This idea that we can reshore immediately when
Speaker 19: factories take three to five years to build, and even
Speaker 19: when why not.
Speaker 4: Be built, why not begin the process?
Speaker 19: Share manufactured? Hight not begin the problem a significant way,
Speaker 19: And our projects are being paused and they're being stalled
Speaker 19: because even when you're building that new factory, you do
Speaker 19: have to import certain goods. So I think you just
Speaker 19: have facts about how this is hitting the economy, and listen,
Speaker 19: I'm not trying to root against the president. I'm not
Speaker 19: trying to do this because I'm a Democratic governor, he's
Speaker 19: a Republican president. I'm doing it because I can support
Speaker 19: any administration that helps our people. But it's my job
Speaker 19: to speak out when the policies hurt our people.
Speaker 1: So what do you think of his prospects and how
Speaker 1: he's positioned himself.
Speaker 13: Yeah, he is someone you hear you heard a lot
Speaker 13: of in the Deep conversation. Uh, and he is more cautious.
Speaker 13: So the important thing that the Peed interview is that
Speaker 13: it was long and and a lot of Democratic staffers
Speaker 13: don't let their bosses go on and talk for that much,
Speaker 13: that much of a conversation because you saw this actually
Speaker 13: with Tim Wallas yesterday. You give an hour long conversation,
Speaker 13: five seconds get slipped on Twitter and that's all people
Speaker 13: talk about. They're worried about that. And by the way, yeah,
Speaker 13: I guess I'm spoiling it. But yeah, Bashier is better
Speaker 13: at the at the I've got ten minutes to make
Speaker 13: my case and make and soundbites, and very good at
Speaker 13: relating to things in Kentucky because they've had a very
Speaker 13: successful economy over the over the last six he's been
Speaker 13: governor six years uh and can can get into the
Speaker 13: weeds more than a host does, more than more than
Speaker 13: Trump does. Trump is very very blase when he talks
Speaker 13: about on shoring or Peter Navarro is and just slowing
Speaker 13: people down and saying this is not going to work
Speaker 13: because of here, let me, let me tell you this process.
Speaker 13: He's been doing that when he's running in Kentucky. He
Speaker 13: get very specific about here is how I brought this business. Here,
Speaker 13: here's how many people employ I'm here with the ribbon cutting.
Speaker 13: That is a different kind of politics that. Frankly, Joe
Speaker 13: Biden did a lot of Here I am, and here
Speaker 13: is how IRA is working. But Joe Biden was so
Speaker 13: bad articulating it for just just charisma at that point
Speaker 13: and articulation reasons that was a little redundant. But you
Speaker 13: know what I mean. But Biden would give a speech
Speaker 13: about that and all people would focus on us how
Speaker 13: we shuffled out to it, and but shere does the
Speaker 13: Biden thing of saying, here's how this actually works. Here's
Speaker 13: that seriously with with like a little more youth and
Speaker 13: a little more of ability to go back and forth
Speaker 13: in an interviewer. But that's not the exact skill that
Speaker 13: Democrats are looking for in the moment when they're trying
Speaker 13: to robut Trump and say no, we do have an
Speaker 13: economic agenda. That's part of it is can we can
Speaker 13: we explain why because I would. I mean not to
Speaker 13: be Tom Friedman, but I've been in cabs where he
Speaker 13: loved Trump and they say, I love the terrorist because
Speaker 13: he's going to bring factories back. And that is something
Speaker 13: Democrats need to respond to because they had their own
Speaker 13: bring factories back plan. It was what Biden was doing,
Speaker 13: but we just said Biden didn't convince anyone he was doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think the economy is going to, in a sense,
Speaker 1: provide his own response. Yeah, it's almost like democratic messaging proof.
Speaker 5: Okay, so let's actually put D six up.
Speaker 4: This is a voiceover.
Speaker 5: You can see Gretchen Whitmer speaking of retail politics, Gretchen
Speaker 5: Whitmer greeting President Trump as he arrived in Michigan for
Speaker 5: his rally is one hundred day rally.
Speaker 4: And it only got.
Speaker 5: More uncomfortable from there because we have this is D
Speaker 5: six b. Donald Trump basically calling the Democratic governor of Michigan,
Speaker 5: Gretchen Whitmer, to the microphone while he was speaking to
Speaker 5: a group, a military group on This was Tuesday, so
Speaker 5: let's rule D six B.
Speaker 20: Well, I hadn't planned to speak, but I'm on behalf
Speaker 20: of all the military men and women who serve our
Speaker 20: country and serve so honorably, on behalf of the state
Speaker 20: of Michigan. I am really damn happy we're here to
Speaker 20: celebrate this recapitalization at Selfridge. It's crucial for the Michigan economy.
Speaker 20: It's crucial for the men and women here, for our
Speaker 20: homeland security and our future.
Speaker 4: So thank you.
Speaker 20: I'm so grateful that this announcements me today, and I
Speaker 20: appreciate all the work.
Speaker 4: Thank you so again.
Speaker 5: If you were listening to that, you probably picked up
Speaker 5: on how awkward it was. Watching it is even more
Speaker 5: uncomfortable because at one point she as she's saying how
Speaker 5: thankful she is, she turns to look at Donald Trump
Speaker 5: as though she's about to say I'm grateful to President Trump,
Speaker 5: realizes that she should just say I'm grateful this event
Speaker 5: is happening, and that's what comes out of her mouth.
Speaker 3: I'm grateful that this is a thing that's happening.
Speaker 5: I'm grateful for the United States of America, Like that's
Speaker 5: what was going on in her mind.
Speaker 4: You can just see the wheels turning.
Speaker 5: But Dave Gretchen and Whitmer, I'll also had that incident
Speaker 5: in the Oval office not too long ago where she
Speaker 5: was photographed covering her face with a binder, very conspicuously
Speaker 5: looking like she was intentionally trying to cover her face
Speaker 5: on this.
Speaker 4: So Kentucky is a redder state than Michigan.
Speaker 5: This is a very interesting, i think dichotomy or contrast
Speaker 5: when you're looking at the way Bashir is handling the
Speaker 5: Trump second Trump administration and Whitmer is handling the second
Speaker 5: Trump administration.
Speaker 4: What do you make of her efforts to walk.
Speaker 5: The fine Trump line, especially in the midst of the tariff,
Speaker 5: up ending the terraf War, up ending Michigan's economy.
Speaker 13: It hasn't gone well for her as a perspective presidential
Speaker 13: candidate in New Hampshire. At this dinner, the Pritzkerer is
Speaker 13: at this fundraising dinner just talking to people beforehand. People
Speaker 13: brought that up as the first thing they knew about Whitmer.
Speaker 13: These democrats, and these are plugged in democrats who have
Speaker 13: see Whitmer campaign in the state before for other people,
Speaker 13: and they have an open mind, but that already was
Speaker 13: a strike against her. Why was it? It just was
Speaker 13: that it made her look weak and that not that
Speaker 13: every campaign is twenty twenty twenty, but I heard this
Speaker 13: so much when people were looking for somebody who could
Speaker 13: run against Trump. They really hated how it looked like
Speaker 13: Hillary Clinton was dominated by Trump and in the town
Speaker 13: hall debate, very superficial stuff. But I heard that again
Speaker 13: and again, and just the fact that she didn't look
Speaker 13: like she could stand up to Trump in the oval office.
Speaker 13: This is a little bit different setting that came up
Speaker 13: for her as a presidential candidate, for her as somebody
Speaker 13: in Michigan trying to keep Democrats in power in the midterms. This,
Speaker 13: I think that actually makes a lot of sense. She's
Speaker 13: doing stuff that other Democrats would politically have trouble doing.
Speaker 13: I think she has leaned into the fact that Trump
Speaker 13: sees her as a potential presidential candidate, and it is
Speaker 13: every time that she's there making a deal with him,
Speaker 13: he gets to humiliate her. What she wants is something
Speaker 13: she can come back and let, you know, Jocelyn Benson
Speaker 13: or the other candidate's run on for her as a
Speaker 13: for what the Democrats want to hear though Democrats who
Speaker 13: are most active right now were very sincere that they
Speaker 13: thought in twenty twenty four democracy was at risks. They
Speaker 13: think right now democracy is at risk. And if they
Speaker 13: see a Democrat making nice at all with Trump there
Speaker 13: against it, like Janet Mills got, she's not running for
Speaker 13: anything else. Janet Mills in Maine got like the reason
Speaker 13: there was so much of a discussion about her was
Speaker 13: because when she did not have decorum, when Trump was
Speaker 13: calling her out, she responded, She responded to him, and
Speaker 13: then he punished her state for it. Is it good
Speaker 13: for Maine that he is punishing her state? Probably not.
Speaker 13: And so I'm trying not trying to separate these two conversations.
Speaker 13: But Wittmer's doing what Democrats do not want a governor
Speaker 13: to do. It might help her party, and that if
Speaker 13: that's what she's doing, she's not running for president, She's
Speaker 13: trying to put her party in a good position. That'll
Speaker 13: pay off for Democrats. They'd be easier for them to
Speaker 13: wish Michigan if they control secretary of state, president sorry,
Speaker 13: governor in twenty twenty eight. Then if they don't, do
Speaker 13: you think she wants to run less and less.
Speaker 4: I think.
Speaker 13: So she's done the things you would do, which is
Speaker 13: a pack, she's towd around the country, she wrote a book,
Speaker 13: but it's not I wouldn't say any any female Democrat
Speaker 13: looks at the looks at their aftermath and says they
Speaker 13: won't nominate a woman next time. I do think that
Speaker 13: that is part of the conversation, part of the conversation
Speaker 13: democrats had. I heard it when I was at the
Speaker 13: Fighting Oligarchy rallies with Bernie and AOC, because I was
Speaker 13: looking to talk to people when I was at the
Speaker 13: rallies who were not diehard fans. They look like they
Speaker 13: hadn't shown up, and indeed they hadn't shown up at
Speaker 13: a Bernie rally, and I found people who were Biden,
Speaker 13: Warren or whatever voters, and that was the first thing
Speaker 13: they said aout AOC. I love her, but a woman
Speaker 13: can't win. And I do think that is part of
Speaker 13: that's that's in the air right now with Democrats. Is
Speaker 13: she now saying I'm never going to run for president?
Speaker 13: Maybe not, but I think it's it's it's clearly less
Speaker 13: in her front of vision than it is for Pritzker Shapiro,
Speaker 13: who every Democrat tells them that they they have potential,
Speaker 13: they run for president with Whitmer. She is wounded by
Speaker 13: what happened in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: So the last one we have here on our list
Speaker 1: is Governor Tim Wallas, of course, was the vice presidential pick,
Speaker 1: who you know, Republicans absolutely hate this guy. Think he's
Speaker 1: a total flaw, disaster, terrible choice of the ticket. Democrats,
Speaker 1: including myself, still have a lot of affection for him,
Speaker 1: think that he has talent, think that certainly the agenda
Speaker 1: in Minnesota is something that you know, he should be
Speaker 1: proud of and something Democrats should have leaned into. More So,
Speaker 1: he referred to this clip earlier. He recently, he's been
Speaker 1: doing a lot and one of the things that he
Speaker 1: asserted recently is that, you know, he was brought onto
Speaker 1: the ticket to basically be able to code switch and
Speaker 1: talk to white men.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 21: I knew I was on the ticket. I would argue
Speaker 21: because we did a lot of amazing progressive things in
Speaker 21: Minnesota that improved people's lives. But I also was on
Speaker 21: the ticket quite honestly, you know, because I could code
Speaker 21: talk to white guys watching football fixing their truck during
Speaker 21: that that I could put them at ease.
Speaker 17: I was the.
Speaker 21: Permission structure to say, look, you can do this and.
Speaker 4: Vote for this.
Speaker 3: So what did you make of that clip? And it's important?
Speaker 13: Yeah, I hope postishs don't stop being honest because that
Speaker 13: clip has not played well. He was doing what some
Speaker 13: politicians do, which is they've read. He's read about what
Speaker 13: happened in the campaign. He's in repeating back some of
Speaker 13: what he's heard since then. The word permission structure, term,
Speaker 13: permission structure, very good poly side term. I use it
Speaker 13: all the time. You're the usual role for candidates or
Speaker 13: governors is don't use that jargon.
Speaker 4: Say code talk or code talk.
Speaker 13: But I think he was responded. It was at Harvard
Speaker 13: i IOP audience, and he was in that. He was honestly.
Speaker 13: That's a sign that he's not thinking what's my next
Speaker 13: step for president? Because he's just very bluntly answering these questions.
Speaker 13: And I talked to him on some of the one
Speaker 13: of the town hall stops he did as he's been
Speaker 13: going these districts and have events, and he's not being
Speaker 13: very strategic. Here is our plan. It's a combination of
Speaker 13: he will vent a little bit about why not vent
Speaker 13: self analyzed why they lost, which is not he's not
Speaker 13: doing here's what we did wrong and how I figured
Speaker 13: it out. It's a bit like Evin Newsome. I don't
Speaker 13: know how he got it wrong. They have they have
Speaker 13: a similar course about the last campaign, which is I'm
Speaker 13: still figuring this out, folks, you tell me what went wrong.
Speaker 13: And he mentioned the record Minnesota a little bit. That
Speaker 13: is a difference that's already emerging is Pritzker will talk
Speaker 13: about the progressive record in Illinois, but sheer Camp because
Speaker 13: Republicans run legislature in Kentucky. His record is much more
Speaker 13: about job creation and stopping some things Republicans wanted to
Speaker 13: do or vetoing it and not stopping it like some
Speaker 13: of the trans legislation. And that's kind of the difference
Speaker 13: in this field, is that Shapiro and right now, because
Speaker 13: of the split in Michigan, Whitmer and Bisher are talking
Speaker 13: about working with Republicans. Pritzker is talking about fighting, fighting
Speaker 13: Republicans and winning for Democrats and specifically what's the policy
Speaker 13: I've done. That is already a difference because it's not
Speaker 13: going to be a very Senator heavy field. I don't
Speaker 13: think in twenty twenty eight it is going to be
Speaker 13: people who had this experience governing different skill level. You're
Speaker 13: not surrounded by Washington reported all day. This has been
Speaker 13: a problem even for Walls, who did have struggle a
Speaker 13: little bit when he was at a high level of
Speaker 13: competition and interview. But that's already a difference you're seeing
Speaker 13: is who can talk about what they did versus who
Speaker 13: can talk about how they fight Republicans. That is an anomaly,
Speaker 13: is Tim Wall saying to a by a friendly audience, Yeah,
Speaker 13: here's how the campaign thought about it. And the final
Speaker 13: part say on that you do hear no one is
Speaker 13: as we get from it from that campaign. Democrats are
Speaker 13: more comfortable blaming the very consultant, heavy thinking, the very
Speaker 13: risk averse thinking that they engaged in. And they're not
Speaker 13: naming people saying this strategist is bad, this one's terrible.
Speaker 13: They are saying that campaign was very thrown together in
Speaker 13: phony and when Biden was the ticket, dishonest about well
Speaker 13: how good Biden was on the stump, and we can't
Speaker 13: do that again. And that is how you start to
Speaker 13: get there by saying by awkward phrases like code talk.
Speaker 13: I appreciate that as a reporter that you're starting to
Speaker 13: say the party had a very lego like view of
Speaker 13: the electorate, that we need to add some things together,
Speaker 13: and that is wrong. So I think it's sophisticated what
Speaker 13: he's saying. Will it help him in a poll next week?
Speaker 13: But that's how were not somewhere's.
Speaker 1: Head at And is it your sense that AOC is
Speaker 1: building up for a run.
Speaker 13: I wouldn't have ever thought that. I always thought that
Speaker 13: it made more sense for her to run for Senate.
Speaker 13: Not that I'm not that I'm like giving her advice,
Speaker 13: but because because what she is doing now is because
Speaker 13: she's polling well in these very early polls, because people
Speaker 13: are talking about her, she has the ability to do
Speaker 13: what Sanders did in two campaigns, which is drive the
Speaker 13: conversation to progressive policy. Because if there's no one like
Speaker 13: that you saw this in twenty twenty four with Biden,
Speaker 13: if there's not a primary, then then you are not
Speaker 13: having a policy discussion. You're responding to Republicans, You're not
Speaker 13: having a discussion aside the party. You're responding to op
Speaker 13: eds and by James Carville or something. So for that
Speaker 13: role and Princeer's not doing all of that, but she
Speaker 13: hasn't really done that she has. This is the paradox
Speaker 13: of AOC right now, as she's gotten more popular, she
Speaker 13: is not saying and here is a bold new Green
Speaker 13: New Deal proposal that I have that I wanted to
Speaker 13: talk about. She is attacking Trump. So I think if
Speaker 13: she sees a way to change the party, that would
Speaker 13: make sense for her to run for president. She's doing great.
Speaker 13: It's week by week how she's responding. But we saw
Speaker 13: yesterday Lee Zelden saying the Green New Deal is dead,
Speaker 13: and as the one of the sherpas of the Green
Speaker 13: New Deal in the Congress, AOC wasn't responding to that.
Speaker 13: She was talking about whether she'd be on oversight and
Speaker 13: if that's a good role for her to have to
Speaker 13: fight Trump.
Speaker 9: It is.
Speaker 13: She's very interested in had Democrats being credible and people
Speaker 13: looking at them as a party that actually fights the
Speaker 13: super rich, et cetera. So if she sees a way
Speaker 13: to do that for his presidential campaign, sure, but she's
Speaker 13: not doing that right now. And that's been been interesting
Speaker 13: to me because getting into the discourse, change the discourse
Speaker 13: if you're not Donald Trump is pretty tricky. She can
Speaker 13: do it, and she hasn't really been doing it right.
Speaker 3: Very interesting, Dave, thank you so much. Great to see you.
Speaker 13: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a pleasure.
Speaker 5: Mark Andresen made comments on a new edition of The
Speaker 5: Ben and Mark Show about which particular professions might be
Speaker 5: best equipped to handle the oncoming the incoming onslaught of
Speaker 5: job loss from Jenner of artificial intelligence, and you know, Crystal,
Speaker 5: it's it's pretty convenient what he landed on. So let's
Speaker 5: take a look at this clip. Let's roll of the
Speaker 5: first element here.
Speaker 22: So the great vcs have a success you know, record
Speaker 22: of getting i don't know, two out of ten or
Speaker 22: something in the great companies of the decade, right, and
Speaker 22: so you know, if it was a science, you could
Speaker 22: eventually have somebody who just like dials it and he
Speaker 22: gets eight out of ten. But in in in the
Speaker 22: real world, it's not like that. Yeah, you know, it's
Speaker 22: just it's you're you're in the fluke business. And so
Speaker 22: there's there's this and there's a there's an intangibility to it.
Speaker 22: There's a taste aspect the human relationship, aspect of the psychology.
Speaker 22: By the way, a lot of it is psychological analysis,
Speaker 22: like who are these people? How do they react under pressure?
Speaker 22: How do you keep them from falling apart? How do
Speaker 22: you you know, how do you keep them going crazy?
Speaker 22: How do you keep from going crazy yourself?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 22: You know, you end up being a psychologist half the time.
Speaker 22: And so like it it is possible. I don't want
Speaker 22: to be definitive, but like it's possible that that is
Speaker 22: quite literally timeless. And when you know, when the ais
Speaker 22: are doing everything else, like that may be one of
Speaker 22: the last remaining fields that the people are filing.
Speaker 4: Crystal is absolutely losing it. We could get this. It's
Speaker 4: very convenient.
Speaker 5: It's very convenient that vcs will be those who emerge
Speaker 5: unscathed from the onslaught of job blast from AI Crystal.
Speaker 5: And you again not wrong, right that there is some
Speaker 5: element of like subjectivity involved in venture capitalism that you
Speaker 5: can't replace with machines. And it's just there are also
Speaker 5: a lot of other professions that we think we can
Speaker 5: replace with machines that actually we probably can't fully replace
Speaker 5: with machines. But it's sort of amusing that Andresen sees
Speaker 5: venture capitalism as the one that will probably be spared
Speaker 5: because it's simply too valuable.
Speaker 1: See, I think it's the total opposite. Like I think
Speaker 1: vcs would be one of the easiest things to replace
Speaker 1: with robots, right right, because the thing is like if
Speaker 1: you chumans, you know, if you have a relationship with
Speaker 1: the person.
Speaker 3: And by the way, a lot.
Speaker 1: Of these vcs, the way they invest is basically like,
Speaker 1: oh I know this person from another deed, it's very
Speaker 1: relationship in network case, which makes you inherently very biased
Speaker 1: in that process.
Speaker 3: So I think this is one of the areas.
Speaker 1: That is, you know, that is ripe to be taken
Speaker 1: over by robots who can just like crunch the numbers,
Speaker 1: what is the business done, and be able to much
Speaker 1: more effectively decide which ones are likely to succeed in
Speaker 1: which ones are not.
Speaker 5: Well, this is why I think it's funny, because that's
Speaker 5: generally my perspective on generative AI, Yeah, is that like
Speaker 5: there are things that can be done without human involvement
Speaker 5: that you can mostly outsource to these machines.
Speaker 4: But I just use the word.
Speaker 5: Mostly because I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea, whether it's
Speaker 5: a VC or journalism that's self interested of course, but
Speaker 5: you know, all kinds of difference.
Speaker 1: There is timeless it's timeless. I don't think you can
Speaker 1: replace it.
Speaker 4: You're replaceable.
Speaker 3: I think pretty much everything else you can replace, but
Speaker 3: not us.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's we did make a I say we.
Speaker 5: I did make an image for a group chat of
Speaker 5: babys and glasses and a tiny suit yesterday. So those
Speaker 5: are there are some things that they can do that
Speaker 5: they get right. The machines can do really good work, Crystal.
Speaker 5: But in all seriousness, I think the human touch is
Speaker 5: important to way more professions than a lot of people
Speaker 5: who are super bullish on AI realize. And so I'm
Speaker 5: actually sympathetic to the point that venture capitalism has a
Speaker 5: human element that's important, just like I'm sympathetic to most
Speaker 5: jobs having a human element that's important. Because even if
Speaker 5: it's true, I think it is true that VC is
Speaker 5: probably one of those areas that you could do so
Speaker 5: much of it with.
Speaker 4: The generative AI.
Speaker 5: I don't think any of these careers should have the
Speaker 5: many of these careers should actually have a lot of
Speaker 5: this outsourced without a significant chunk of the human element remaining.
Speaker 5: I don't even think it's good for efficiency, to be honest,
Speaker 5: if we define efficiency as also providing for the common
Speaker 5: good in an efficient way. So it's sort of a
Speaker 5: funny like two sides of the coin, or you know,
Speaker 5: it's almost a catch twenty two with Indresin's point there,
Speaker 5: because I do, like yes, like.
Speaker 4: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Speaker 5: But thank you for you know, saying that you, as
Speaker 5: a person who is helping orchestrate this mass transformation of
Speaker 5: the labor force, will be protected or should be protected,
Speaker 5: right because you're just.
Speaker 1: That smart, because he recognizes his own humanity, even if
Speaker 1: exactly recognize anyone else's humanity exactly, and how essential that
Speaker 1: could could be to you know, society, the.
Speaker 3: World, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Because it's also not like you know, okay, these guys
Speaker 1: will say out in the open, our goal is to
Speaker 1: effectively replace all human labor, yep, and we'll talk openly
Speaker 1: about how it's going to require a complete change of
Speaker 1: the social contract. And but you know, but they're just
Speaker 1: forging ahead without actually laying any of the groundwork for
Speaker 1: this purported massive change and destruction of the requirement for
Speaker 1: any human labor and upending of the social contract.
Speaker 3: Et cetera.
Speaker 1: They're just pushing forward with no breaks on whatsoever.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I mean, there is something really
Speaker 1: very not only anti human, but Naomi Climb makes this
Speaker 1: makes this case that it's like also anti creation because
Speaker 1: you are feeding into these AI machines, all of these
Speaker 1: like you know resources that the world, the planet, the
Speaker 1: you know, the the beings that live on this planet,
Speaker 1: not just humans need to be able to thrive in
Speaker 1: order to create our own replacements.
Speaker 3: This sort of like mirror world.
Speaker 1: Replacement for all of us, but in any case, not
Speaker 1: replacement for him, because he is essential and could never
Speaker 1: be replaced by these machines that are essential work. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's the essential worker, you know. I want to I
Speaker 1: want to actually skip forward to E three because Derek
Speaker 1: Thompson wrote a piece tracking the employment data for college graduates,
Speaker 1: and there are some potential signs there that AI is
Speaker 1: already starting to hit in terms of eliminating the need
Speaker 1: for some college graduates. He says, something alarming is happy
Speaker 1: to the job market, and some of the data that
Speaker 1: he relies on here is the same that we've been
Speaker 1: looking at at how much the how many college grads
Speaker 1: are applying to law school. Now we read that as
Speaker 1: a recession indicator of like, you know, if you are
Speaker 1: graduating from college and things are not looking too great
Speaker 1: with the whole trade war situation. You're like, you know what,
Speaker 1: let me postpone my entry into the job force by
Speaker 1: going into law school, and you know, see how things
Speaker 1: are in a few years, see if things have gotten better.
Speaker 1: But he is tracking what is called the grad grad gap.
Speaker 1: The total employment might as recent grad unemployment. So how
Speaker 1: much do you benefit from having a college degree? And
Speaker 1: basically that metric has fallen off a cliff in terms
Speaker 1: of job prospects for new college graduates. And one of
Speaker 1: the theoretical possibilities for why that is the case is
Speaker 1: that you know, instead of hiring twenty graduates, maybe you
Speaker 1: get too and chat GPT because a lot of what
Speaker 1: new college graduates do going into collar jobs is this
Speaker 1: sort of like you know, spreadsheet jocking and pulling data
Speaker 1: and doing like the work analysis for more senior people
Speaker 1: at whatever company that you're at. And that is the
Speaker 1: sort of thing that you could easily see chat GPT,
Speaker 1: your GROP or whatever helping to provide that initial research
Speaker 1: and analysis.
Speaker 3: So, you know, it's not clear that that's.
Speaker 1: What's going on here, but it is very possible that
Speaker 1: we're already seeing in the data, the way that AI
Speaker 1: is going to impact the labor force.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and the law school we talked about this yesterday.
Speaker 5: The law school applications being up is quite that's a
Speaker 5: stark indicator of what people are encountering. And it's graduation
Speaker 5: month right now, so we're going to get a whole
Speaker 5: flood of I think anecdotal reports and probably data too
Speaker 5: about where people are landing in such an uncertain environment.
Speaker 5: And you know, we remember as millennials how the recession
Speaker 5: and changed that general like that changed the general completely
Speaker 5: shaped our generation, shaped our politics and our culture. And
Speaker 5: we could be looking at another really sort of crucible
Speaker 5: type moment for gen Z.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he says, today's college graduates are entering an economy
Speaker 1: that is relatively worse for young college grads than any
Speaker 1: month on record going back for decades, So even worse
Speaker 1: than the environment that you know, millennials graduated into the
Speaker 1: financial crisis.
Speaker 5: And when there's uncertainty, and yeah, when there's when there's
Speaker 5: uncertainty at the level that there is now, you're not adding, right,
Speaker 5: You're you're sort of risk averse and you're staying with
Speaker 5: what you have and so it's it's incredibly tough right now.
Speaker 5: So it was already actually pretty hard based on how
Speaker 5: the later labor forces changed and based on what people
Speaker 5: are actually studying in college.
Speaker 4: But this is really difficult.
Speaker 1: One other piece of this that we just wanted to mention,
Speaker 1: which is pretty wild. Put the second element here up
Speaker 1: on the screen. So apparently in California, AI bots are
Speaker 1: now stealing millions of dollars in federal financial aid. They
Speaker 1: basically use AI to mass enroll in community colleges and
Speaker 1: then you know, pocket this like the PELL grant aid,
Speaker 1: and then you know, and that makes it unavailable for
Speaker 1: actual students. They call them the scammers are known as
Speaker 1: PELL runners, and they disappear after they collect their seventy
Speaker 1: four hundred dollars federal grant. This is with regard to
Speaker 1: California community colleges in particular. But you know, this is
Speaker 1: a pretty widespread, pretty widespread scam that's going on right now.
Speaker 1: As early as twenty twenty one, the Chancellor's office in
Speaker 1: California estimated that twenty percent of the applications they were
Speaker 1: receiving were fraudulent. Now increasingly sophisticated AI tools that made
Speaker 1: the problem worst recent data suggest around thirty four percent
Speaker 1: of California community college applicants are fake. Despite California allocating
Speaker 1: over one hundred and fifty million dollars since twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two towards cybersecurity help authenticate students and combat fraud at
Speaker 1: community colleges, gammers have successfully stolen more financial aid with
Speaker 1: each passing year.
Speaker 4: So shocking, cool, Yeah, it's the future, brave new world.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, indeed, should we talk about Alex Jones?
Speaker 3: Why not your fave?
Speaker 4: Let's do it so.
Speaker 1: Alex Jones recently in conversation with Nick Fuenttez, who is
Speaker 1: a Nazi and has been criticizing Fuontez has been like
Speaker 1: criticizing Trump for a while. So in any case, Alex
Speaker 1: Jones also waded into some of the waters of like
Speaker 1: beginning to a little bit timidly criticize some of what
Speaker 1: Trump's up to.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 23: You have very high priority fifteen hundred people with a
Speaker 23: legal right to be here. They're being expedited, their removal
Speaker 23: is being expedited for no reason other than they criticized
Speaker 23: the fact that you know, we're supporting this foreign war.
Speaker 4: So I think, Oh, here's where I'm at.
Speaker 15: Though in general, I see the whole a lot of
Speaker 15: the populis conservative space spinning half the time on this,
Speaker 15: and I just I mean, I think it's way more dangerous.
Speaker 15: Trump saying we're looking to deporting citizens.
Speaker 4: To El salbudor.
Speaker 15: Now, that's some constitutional and that is really bad.
Speaker 13: I agree with that.
Speaker 23: And then again, though I don't think that's a real
Speaker 23: policy that hasn't happened. What is really happened.
Speaker 15: They're talking about using the enemy combatana to do it
Speaker 15: for regular crime.
Speaker 23: It's I don't I think that's one of those throwaway comments.
Speaker 4: Do you think it's him truing.
Speaker 23: I think they're flooding the zone with pooh like ban
Speaker 23: And said, I don't know if you'd swear on the show,
Speaker 23: but they're flooding the zone with with with a bunch
Speaker 23: of nonsense bullshit, so.
Speaker 3: Kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: It feels to me like there's a little bit of
Speaker 1: like a shell game going on here with Alex Jones
Speaker 1: where he is uncomfortable with like the reason Flint has
Speaker 1: and people aligned with him object to the detentions of
Speaker 1: Mosan Dowie and others who have been critical at israel
Speaker 1: Is because they are actual anti Semites. Yeah, and they
Speaker 1: actually hate Choose and so they end up in the
Speaker 1: right position of like, we should stand against this and
Speaker 1: you should be able to criticize Israel, but they do
Speaker 1: so for you know, actually abhorrent reasons. And Alex Jones
Speaker 1: doesn't really want to get cross eyes wise with that. No, so,
Speaker 1: but so what he says is like, we're spending too
Speaker 1: much time talking about this thing when what I'm really
Speaker 1: concerned about is the threat to deport US citizens to
Speaker 1: El Salvador and you know, Fuentez comes down. Oh, that's
Speaker 1: not really happening yet, but this is really happening. But
Speaker 1: in any case, kind of an interesting dynamic playing out
Speaker 1: there on the fringes of the right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and Alex Jones posted a video last night where
Speaker 5: it's sort of summarized, so it says in this important breakdown,
Speaker 5: Alex Jones explains that his criticism of Trump on a
Speaker 5: few issues come from a place of deep respect and
Speaker 5: love designed to support Trump and his overall pro human agenda.
Speaker 5: As an example, Trump's fifty first state ongoing joke about
Speaker 5: Canada just handed the World Economic Forum even greater control
Speaker 5: than they had under Trudeau, which back check, yes, absolutely
Speaker 5: because Mark Carney central banker is now in charge of
Speaker 5: Canada and he likely would not have been Donald Trump
Speaker 5: hadn't done this ongoing fifty first state joke about Canada.
Speaker 4: And so that's.
Speaker 5: Interesting because it's Alex Jones even like taking issue with
Speaker 5: the style of trump Ism on the Israel stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 5: that like sort of handholding emoji, Like that's how I'm
Speaker 5: seeing it with the actual anti Semites and the civil libertarians.
Speaker 5: And it's not the civil libertarians like actively trying to
Speaker 5: hold hands with the.
Speaker 4: Literal neo Nazis.
Speaker 5: It's more than neo Nazis like grabbing the hands of
Speaker 5: the civil libertarians and being like, look, we're in this
Speaker 5: together now, and Alex Jones is.
Speaker 4: Trying to be like, yeah, no, we're not.
Speaker 5: But it's hard because there are serious civil liberty concerns
Speaker 5: on the tables that I was thinking about this morning.
Speaker 5: I mean, one of the I think it was it
Speaker 5: was a huge wake up call for the right where
Speaker 5: they were holding hands with the civil libertarians in twenty
Speaker 5: seventeen twenty eighteen, when people like.
Speaker 4: Carter Page were being unlawfully spied on.
Speaker 5: By our intelligence community by the FBI when they didn't
Speaker 5: take all the steps they needed to secure their FISA warrant,
Speaker 5: they lied on the fight, all of that stuff. It's
Speaker 5: like all of that has just been thrown out the window.
Speaker 5: And like that's something that the Alex Jones universe was
Speaker 5: furious about, was the FBI fudging the rules and ways
Speaker 5: they did to spy on Muslims during the Bush administration,
Speaker 5: the Obama administration. I mean, the it was all out
Speaker 5: there for everyone to see. And now it's like, just
Speaker 5: full steam ahead, don't worry about any of this stuff.
Speaker 5: We'll get back to a place and we trust Trump
Speaker 5: exactly exactly. And Alex Jones, to your point, is someone
Speaker 5: who's very much like trusting of Donald Trump. So it's
Speaker 5: very interesting. I think that's not wrong. Like this criticism
Speaker 5: of him is from.
Speaker 4: Him is very interesting.
Speaker 1: I Mean, the other dynamic that's playing out here is
Speaker 1: like there's a reason Alex Jones wants to have Nick
Speaker 1: Quantaz on a show because Nick Fantas is popular with
Speaker 1: some portion, probably a significant portion of Alex Jones's audience,
Speaker 1: Which makes sense because Alex Jones' is conspiracy theorist. That's
Speaker 1: his whole shit, and the ultimate like timeless conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: is that the Jews control every Yeah, and so Nick
Speaker 1: Fuentes is sort of like out conspiracizing.
Speaker 3: Is that a word, Alex Jones. Yeah, which is why
Speaker 3: Jon he's too He's.
Speaker 1: Too nervous to actually say, like you can't like stop
Speaker 1: fixating and saying Juice control everything and just being like
Speaker 1: an out and out anti Semite yep, because that would
Speaker 1: be very unpopular with the audience base that he's created
Speaker 1: and with his brand positioning as like the ultimate conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 1: So instead he has to couch it in just like, well,
Speaker 1: I think you're fixating on that a little too much.
Speaker 5: Well, so Fuentes is ay, he's Catholic, and Alex Jones,
Speaker 5: I'll say, as an evangelical, there are a lot of
Speaker 5: like evangelical Christians who have now after COVID fallen into
Speaker 5: at least being like Alex Jones curious, if not like
Speaker 5: big Alex Jones supporters, but Alex Jones curious.
Speaker 4: That's also a group of people that is very pro.
Speaker 5: Israel, oh yeah, and very adverse to anti Semitism and
Speaker 5: so from like a very sensitive to claims of anti Semitism,
Speaker 5: and so I think Alex Jones is in this interesting
Speaker 5: place where I mean you and I both remember like
Speaker 5: in the mid auts, Alex Jones was way more popular
Speaker 5: with people on the left because of a lot of
Speaker 5: nine to eleven stuff.
Speaker 4: He was like in those bass.
Speaker 5: Rogan gets to be friends exactly, yeah, yeah, And so
Speaker 5: he has such a strange coalition of people who follow him.
Speaker 5: I think he feels pressure, not just in substance, but
Speaker 5: like actually in being able to maintain the project that
Speaker 5: he's overseeing. He sees himself overseeing as he feels some
Speaker 5: pressure to try and like say, the Emperor has no
Speaker 5: clothes when it comes to Flint does, and to try
Speaker 5: to undercut Nick fent Flint does, or just like be
Speaker 5: seen in debate with Nick Flint does, so that it
Speaker 5: takes power away from Nick Flinty.
Speaker 1: He's you're making when you're making Alex Jones look moderate
Speaker 1: and reasonable, Well, that's a wild place to be.
Speaker 5: I do also think that, like we can talk about
Speaker 5: whatever Alex Jones's motivations are for this, he seems quite different.
Speaker 5: Even some of his followers are criticizing him for seeming
Speaker 5: different in recent.
Speaker 1: Tell me more about that, because I can't claim to
Speaker 1: be like a regular viewer or particularly in touch with
Speaker 1: his audience.
Speaker 5: No, I'm not a really viewer either, but he has
Speaker 5: been a more regular presence in some conservative circles, like
Speaker 5: he goes on talker show and I think again, like
Speaker 5: we can criticize his motivations for this, but I think
Speaker 5: he definitely was changed by his experience in court with
Speaker 5: the Sandy.
Speaker 24: Hook stuff, and there was a consequence when there was
Speaker 24: any and even if that consequence is sort of disproportionate,
Speaker 24: which I'm not even going to start debating, that's definitely
Speaker 24: Tucker's take on it.
Speaker 5: But even if that's true, he seems like, you know, again,
Speaker 5: maybe he's doing it for the wrong reasons. To paraphrase
Speaker 5: everyone on The Bachelor, but he seems like he's more
Speaker 5: careful and cautious his followers, not all of them, but
Speaker 5: there's like a sub sect. It's like funtest world, which
Speaker 5: is why he wanted to debate Alex.
Speaker 3: Jones truly became president.
Speaker 5: Yes, it's finally right, but Flint's world does criticize him
Speaker 5: for being Ah. I'm sure they call him a Zionist,
Speaker 5: and I'm sure they say that he's been like co
Speaker 5: opted by the vast Zionist conspiracy, just like Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: And I think that's where he feels pressure to debate
Speaker 5: flint Us and push back and try to put some
Speaker 5: some guardrails up at least on that. But yeah, I
Speaker 5: mean Oxtions is in an interesting place right now. Some
Speaker 5: of his people think he's not hardcore enough anymore. He
Speaker 5: definitely lost his edge. He has some guardrails obviously because
Speaker 5: of the court situation.
Speaker 4: And to your point, don't you.
Speaker 3: Also think though that because there are.
Speaker 1: So much, so many wild conspiracies on the like, it's
Speaker 1: hard for him to keep up, and not just with
Speaker 1: Fontes but also like that, you know, all the QAnon
Speaker 1: stuff and whatever.
Speaker 24: Like.
Speaker 1: He used to be the only game in town for
Speaker 1: this kind of content, and now he's got a lot
Speaker 1: of competitors. Then they're pretty fierce in terms of like
Speaker 1: the you know, remember back in the campaign they thought
Speaker 1: that the Democrats made the hurricane, Like, you know, like
Speaker 1: he used to be really kind of have a corner
Speaker 1: on that market and now there's a lot of competition
Speaker 1: in the space.
Speaker 5: But a lot of those people still sort of I
Speaker 5: don't want to say Revere, but a lot of those
Speaker 5: people still pick up on Alex Jones's cues and follow
Speaker 5: him and will like, you know, be deferential respectful of
Speaker 5: Alex Jones is sort of like the figurehead of that
Speaker 5: movement which a lot of people feel like was vindicated
Speaker 5: around the time of COVID, And that's one of those
Speaker 5: things where it's like he has been correct about certain
Speaker 5: conspiracies and it gives him this power.
Speaker 1: The funny thing now is that, like, you know, all
Speaker 1: the things they said about the World Economic Forum, they
Speaker 1: want you to like have new things and eat bugs
Speaker 1: and whatever. It's like now Trump is like, you can
Speaker 1: only have two dollars, yes.
Speaker 5: And Trump is like welcoming like Scott Bessont who comes
Speaker 5: from Sorels World into the fold. And besson is now
Speaker 5: the architect, the man who's seen is like the trusted
Speaker 5: figure of Trump's entire economic policy. So it's a very
Speaker 5: odd time. The internal politics of this are very odd.
Speaker 5: The Tucker the recent Tucker interview with Alection is quite
Speaker 5: interesting because it's Tucker marveling at the fact that Alex
Speaker 5: Jones predicted nine to eleven, which people dispute. He did
Speaker 5: have some he made some comments before nine to eleven
Speaker 5: that I think we're genuinely.
Speaker 3: Like pretty pression.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they're pretty prescient.
Speaker 5: But Tucker basically saying like, you were right about this,
Speaker 5: and ever since the government has tried to silence you.
Speaker 5: So this is where the power comes from of being
Speaker 5: prescient on a couple of different things. So he does
Speaker 5: have more competition now from the media that he helped democratize.
Speaker 4: Right, Like you said, Info Wars.
Speaker 5: Really was the only game in town and like some
Speaker 5: weird even weirder blogs, But now you know, you can
Speaker 5: say this stuff on x and you can say this
Speaker 5: stuff on Rumble, so everyone's sort of in the game.
Speaker 5: It's been democratized to the point where he does have
Speaker 5: a harder time sort of holding conspiracy worlds together.
Speaker 3: This is why I love talking to you about.
Speaker 5: Oh, I'm not even that deep, Like you should talk
Speaker 5: to some of.
Speaker 4: My friends, like Sager, my friend.
Speaker 5: You should talk to some of that, Like I'll be
Speaker 5: able to give you a much more granular reading of the.
Speaker 4: Internal might need to do that. We should do that.
Speaker 5: Usually because I'm not even that deep, people would listen
Speaker 5: to me and be like okay, yeah, yet, like.
Speaker 4: Flint is actually blah blah blah.
Speaker 5: I'm like, oh, gosh, I try to stay out of it,
Speaker 5: but we should get one of them on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I like that. That'll be fun, all right, guys.
Speaker 1: So that is a show for today. We are we
Speaker 1: have our Friday show tomorrow. It looks like so baby
Speaker 1: has not come as of ten twenty four am on Thursday,
Speaker 1: but I do think Sager is now out for his
Speaker 1: paternity leave just to be there for his wife and
Speaker 1: make sure that they are ready to go. So we
Speaker 1: are wishing him well. So you guys are going to
Speaker 1: see you know, different hosts. Oh, it's exciting switching Around'll
Speaker 1: go ahead. So on Monday, actually Glenn Greenwald is going
Speaker 1: to co host with me for a portion of the show,
Speaker 1: which would be super fun, which.
Speaker 3: I'm looking forward to.
Speaker 1: So we are going to bring in some sort of
Speaker 1: like guest outside hosts, but also we'll be you know,
Speaker 1: you and me and Ryan and we'll be mixing up
Speaker 1: the hosting duties all around to cover for Soccer while
Speaker 1: he is on maternity leave, and which is something we're
Speaker 1: going to continue into the future as well, because that
Speaker 1: has I think you guys have you know received that
Speaker 1: really well, Like everybody seems to be enjoying the different dynamics.
Speaker 1: We're enjoying the different dynamics. It's fun to get to
Speaker 1: host with all of the all of the co hosts
Speaker 1: here and so yeah, that's what's going on. So we'll
Speaker 1: see you guys Friday, and then I will see you
Speaker 1: on Monday with Glenn Greenwold.
Speaker 3: Have a great day, guys,