Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 4: Funding for the federal government runs out on Friday, and
Speaker 4: the killing of Minneapolis has shaken up what looked to
Speaker 4: be a glide path to likely avoiding a shutdown into
Speaker 4: what is now a wall that the Senate is going
Speaker 4: to crash into. We can put up this first element
Speaker 4: from Chuck Schumer. So Chuck Schumer has met with his
Speaker 4: Senate colleagues, and in the wake of the killing of
Speaker 4: Alex pretty Rank and ale Democrats have been uh livid
Speaker 4: and saying that they're drawing a red line here, that
Speaker 4: they have no intention of UH of supporting government funding
Speaker 4: if it includes money for the DHS, and so saga,
Speaker 4: what's what's going on here? So last week the House
Speaker 4: passed a bunch of different UH spending packages and then
Speaker 4: and then left like so could credit to Speaker Mike Johnson,
Speaker 4: we could say, I think this is one of the
Speaker 4: first times that the House has actually passed to normal
Speaker 4: appropriations bills the whay you're supposed to do it in
Speaker 4: like decades, practically like the Congress has been completely broken.
Speaker 4: They put it together and Democrats did this too clever
Speaker 4: by half move. This is before the killing. I think
Speaker 4: it was a Thursday night that it passed through the House.
Speaker 3: UH.
Speaker 4: What they did is they they gave Democratic support for
Speaker 4: these Republican measures that were not related to dhs US
Speaker 4: and it allowed them. That allowed Republicans and then separate
Speaker 4: out the DHS spending package. Democrats then all except for
Speaker 4: like six of them or so, voted against that. But
Speaker 4: leadership knew that the strategy that the two parties were
Speaker 4: taking was going to move federal money for all agencies through,
Speaker 4: but it allowed Democrats not to have their fingerprints on
Speaker 4: the ICE money. So that's kind of where the politics
Speaker 4: were leading up to Thursday that Democrats didn't want to
Speaker 4: be associated with DHS spending, but we're willing to play
Speaker 4: games in Washington that would allow to allow us to
Speaker 4: avoid a government shut down. That all changed because the shooting.
Speaker 4: So now what Schumer is demanding, and he has, as
Speaker 4: according to my sources in the Senate, unified support among
Speaker 4: the caucus for a strategy that says we will fund
Speaker 4: all of the government except for DHS. So we don't
Speaker 4: want to shut the government down. We want to do
Speaker 4: what we did over in the House. Pass all these
Speaker 4: bills separately, keep everything open FEMA, especially because we're in
Speaker 4: the midst of this horrific storm with you know, thousands
Speaker 4: out of power, millions affected. But we're not funding DHS
Speaker 4: until there are reforms. So what that does is that
Speaker 4: they think at least that it puts then Republican in
Speaker 4: the position of saying, no, we're going to shut the
Speaker 4: government down unless you give us money for ICE and
Speaker 4: CBP without any reforms whatsoever. And that feels kind of
Speaker 4: untenable given public position that no, this needs to be
Speaker 4: reined in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's put the tear sheet next up on the screen.
Speaker 3: And the most significant part of this is Ryan is
Speaker 3: saying it's not the Progressive Caucus, it's that senators like Cortes, Mastow,
Speaker 3: Jackie Rosen.
Speaker 1: Angus Hmming, Independent, Tim Kaine.
Speaker 3: Mark Warner, Mark Kelly Martin, Hein, Ryan Shatz Martin.
Speaker 1: These are people who don't even know for good.
Speaker 3: Reason, unless they're literally your own senator, and even then
Speaker 3: we probably don't really know who they are. When those
Speaker 3: people vote no, it's a big deal because what it
Speaker 3: means is will have at the very least a partial
Speaker 3: government shutdown. It is a bit complicated, Ryan, As I've
Speaker 3: been understanding is apparently ICE actually does have the money
Speaker 3: to continue operating because of the one big beautiful bill
Speaker 3: back in twenty twenty five. However, this would effectively create
Speaker 3: a DHS shutdown. And I mean it's basically just about
Speaker 3: inflicting pain. And they're like, look, we won't fund any
Speaker 3: of it, by the way, I mean, don't underestimate. Like TSA,
Speaker 3: all these other agencies will likely start to go without,
Speaker 3: they would go without potential paychecks.
Speaker 1: And all that.
Speaker 3: But this one could actually go on for a much
Speaker 3: longer time because it's only the DHS funding that is
Speaker 3: being held up. And I don't really see how they
Speaker 3: could possibly give in without significant concessions by the government
Speaker 3: here which are not forthcoming.
Speaker 1: Right while you and I've been talking, go ahead, good no,
Speaker 1: and you tell me.
Speaker 4: But my sense of the Republican Party is that and
Speaker 4: Senate Republicans is that they're not going to agree to
Speaker 4: pass the other spending bills unless they also get DHS,
Speaker 4: which means you would get a full government shutdown. What's
Speaker 4: your sense of whether, because then if they do, I
Speaker 4: think they would argue if we do that, Democrats are
Speaker 4: just never gonna give us DHS.
Speaker 3: I've been so focused on the shooting. I haven't worked
Speaker 3: my phones on that one. I will and try to
Speaker 3: have an update for everybody. My general sense is they're
Speaker 3: going to take the order from the White House, and
Speaker 3: the White House is going to have to decide whether
Speaker 3: they want a partial government shutdown or whether they want
Speaker 3: to have to go through another total government shutdown. My sense,
Speaker 3: this is my general reaction. If I'm the White House,
Speaker 3: the last thing I want is a total government shutdown
Speaker 3: over ice funding. That's a disaster because the entire public
Speaker 3: will be like, yeah, fuck that, or whatever it comes to.
Speaker 3: They're like, listen, you know whatever. And by the way,
Speaker 3: we just went through the longest government shutdown in US history.
Speaker 1: Wasn't that bad? Right?
Speaker 3: Everybody kind of got through it. It really was barely
Speaker 3: even a news story. Yes, it it have been bad
Speaker 3: whenever it came to the airlines. But this time around,
Speaker 3: you know, the Dems really have a much stronger thing
Speaker 3: to stand on considering the events that just happened. So
Speaker 3: if you're the White House, you actually don't want the
Speaker 3: country to really be paying a total amount of attention
Speaker 3: to a total government shutdown because the pressure will start
Speaker 3: to come on you to actually do something about Ice,
Speaker 3: which most people are to be saying is completely out
Speaker 3: of control. So you may want a more partial government shutdown.
Speaker 3: Now I could be wrong here. There could be some
Speaker 3: chicken and all of that going going around, so don't
Speaker 3: rule that out. But I think the Democrats are on
Speaker 3: ten times stronger ground this time around than they were
Speaker 3: last time around. I also think that they're starting some
Speaker 3: cracks beginning to show on the Republican side. Let's put
Speaker 3: the next one up here on the screen, and again, Ryan,
Speaker 3: this is the stuff where it's funny trying to explain
Speaker 3: Washington to people. Let's put d three guys, please is
Speaker 3: the chairman, Representative Garbarino Andrew Garberino has formally requested testimony
Speaker 3: from ICBP USCIS leaders at a full committee hearing.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 3: Congress has an important responsibility to ensure the safety of
Speaker 3: law enforcement and the people they serve and protect. So
Speaker 3: when the chairman of the Householmeland Security Committee, a guy
Speaker 3: again you've never heard of when these people to take power.
Speaker 4: For it that he's in a member of Congress and
Speaker 4: the chairman of the committee.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a chairman of a powerful committee.
Speaker 3: But when committee chairmen who have immense power but almost
Speaker 3: never use it, almost never break from the administration. In
Speaker 3: the more modern era, when those people start being like, yeah, no,
Speaker 3: you're coming before Congress and you're going to have to
Speaker 3: start asking. By the way, this was not requested by
Speaker 3: the White House. They do not want this. The very
Speaker 3: last thing they want is for their people to be
Speaker 3: in front of a House committee under oath. I mean, Ryan,
Speaker 3: why don't you explain again for people who don't watch
Speaker 3: like this means every Democrat on the committee gets five
Speaker 3: minutes to question you. On the right, it's a disaster.
Speaker 3: It's not good. Whenever you're in power, that's right.
Speaker 4: And if anybody thinks that, oh, well, maybe this is
Speaker 4: just routine and it's a coincidence, you're not sending a
Speaker 4: letter like this out on a Saturday exactly. And it
Speaker 4: begins by you know, they sort of try to suggest
Speaker 4: that there's some routine nature to the letter begins on
Speaker 4: January fifteenth, you know, uh, you know, committee staff invited
Speaker 4: you to testify, and then I said, then he said,
Speaker 4: but then he says, today I am formally memorializing the
Speaker 4: previous invitation, and to drop that on a Saturday right
Speaker 4: after the killing is sending a very clear message and
Speaker 4: it's and it's yes, so to your point, what this
Speaker 4: and he's saying, and you know, he gives them a
Speaker 4: bunch of different dates, the latest one being March eighteenth,
Speaker 4: so he's kind of allowing them to at least, you know,
Speaker 4: push it out, you know, a significant amount of time,
Speaker 4: but that March eighteenth is going to be here before
Speaker 4: you know it, and God only knows what's going to
Speaker 4: happen in cities between now and then. And you're right,
Speaker 4: this this gives you know, every member of that committee,
Speaker 4: Democrat and Republican, and Republicans I think are feeling the
Speaker 4: pressure too. You're gonna, I think you'll see some adversarial
Speaker 4: questions from Republicans by then, and then that creates.
Speaker 3: And mid terms all of Remember, all these people are
Speaker 3: gonna have to go back to their district pretty soon,
Speaker 3: and you know they have to do those mandatory meetings.
Speaker 3: It's not gonna be good, folks. I mean, I'm telling
Speaker 3: you right now, it is not going to be good.
Speaker 3: Every Republican on Capitol Hill, Ryan, as you and I know,
Speaker 3: even when they're in session, they're all going to have
Speaker 3: Mike stuck in their face. What do you think about
Speaker 3: what happened here? And every and even a single misstep.
Speaker 1: You're going viral.
Speaker 3: Congratulations. Next one, this one, this seems very significant. I'd
Speaker 3: like for you to explain it to me. So this
Speaker 3: is the ranking Committee Chairman, Benny Thompson, sorry, ranking Democrat
Speaker 3: on the committee. Guys, let's put D four up on
Speaker 3: the screen. He is saying that the Senate must vote
Speaker 3: against funding, so that's already there, but he also says
Speaker 3: the House must take immediate steps to impeach Kirsty No.
Speaker 3: So again, Benny Thompson, not a household name, not really
Speaker 3: somebody who we would all know is the top Democrat
Speaker 3: on the committee is like, no, we're going to impeach Christy. No,
Speaker 3: remember they impeached my orcis the Republicans did under the
Speaker 3: tru under the Biden administration. I could easily see this
Speaker 3: become a rallying cry if Democrats were to take control
Speaker 3: of the midterm. So could you explain the significance of this, Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well respected, a veteran Democrat, somebody that the party establishment,
Speaker 4: you know, is a member you know, you know, in
Speaker 4: good standing of the party establishment. This is not somebody
Speaker 4: who's like some some rock thrower from the sidelines. And
Speaker 4: the reporting that we're seeing this morning is that, you know,
Speaker 4: Trump himself is quite upset with the way that DHS
Speaker 4: has handled this and in particular own goals like Christy
Speaker 4: Nome going out and saying this is a guy who
Speaker 4: was trying to massacre people, he's a domestic terrorist, he
Speaker 4: brandished his weapon, when everybody can see that none of
Speaker 4: that happened. And so it goes to the credibility of
Speaker 4: the of the administration and the seriousness of it and
Speaker 4: puts then this would then put Republicans in the position
Speaker 4: of defending her when if anybody's and also she's also
Speaker 4: been an advocate her and she and her ally Corey
Speaker 4: Lowandowski an advocate for this, you know, very aggressive kind
Speaker 4: of public show of force, not just in Minneapolis, but
Speaker 4: elsewhere where they've where they've tried to deploy it. That
Speaker 4: their argument has been, this is, you know, let's let's
Speaker 4: let's bring a very loud hammer to make the point
Speaker 4: against some of the administration reporting is Tom Holmland and
Speaker 4: others have said, no, let's let's let's go, let's go
Speaker 4: after people that we know have criminal records. Let's do
Speaker 4: target and enforcements, because we need to maintain public support
Speaker 4: for this mandate that we that we have to do
Speaker 4: mass deportations. If we don't, we're going to lose the
Speaker 4: mandate and you're not going to get what you want
Speaker 4: out of that. So the idea and the execution both
Speaker 4: seem to be falling apart, and so Noam could end
Speaker 4: up being the fall woman for this. Do you think
Speaker 4: that she is vulnerable or is she protected by Trump's
Speaker 4: belief that second term you don't let you give zero scalps,
Speaker 4: give no ground.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean literally, as you and I are speaking,
Speaker 3: you may have missed this Donald Trump to sent out
Speaker 3: this truth quote. I'm sure Chrystal and I will have
Speaker 3: more to say about it tomorrow. I am sending Tom
Speaker 3: Homan to Minnesota tonight. He has not been involved in
Speaker 3: that area, but knows and likes many of the people there.
Speaker 1: Tom is tough, but fair and will report directly to me.
Speaker 3: And so what is actually even more significant than that
Speaker 3: is that the Press Secretary put out a tweet this morning.
Speaker 3: Tom Holman will be managing ICE operations on the ground
Speaker 3: in Minnesota to continue arresting the worst and the worst.
Speaker 3: In addition, Tom will coordinate those investigations into the massive,
Speaker 3: widespread fraud that's resulted in billions of tax pay dollars.
Speaker 3: So basically Tom's taking over completely. There's been a lot
Speaker 3: of reporting HEREVP, what.
Speaker 4: Like ICE keeps catching these strays for you.
Speaker 3: No, you're right, And that is kind of the funny
Speaker 3: thing is that this was entire the Border Patrol, which
Speaker 3: also Bavino is literally the head you know of CBP, right,
Speaker 3: And so this is where it gets confusing. America talks
Speaker 3: about ICE, but it's not just ice really, and in fact,
Speaker 3: there appears to be some conflict. A lot of ICE
Speaker 3: officers are pissed off at CBP because they're saying they're
Speaker 3: the ones who do all of this clownish behavior. There
Speaker 3: is a theory inside the administration. I don't know how
Speaker 3: much credence to give this that Bavino and Bavino, Kirsino,
Speaker 3: and Corey Lewandowski have all been major proponents of kind
Speaker 3: of this flood zone inside the Steaks Street strategy, like
Speaker 3: for example in Chicago or prior to that in Los Angeles,
Speaker 3: Whereas Tom Homan, who is a veteran you know, working
Speaker 3: and ICE and Immigration Enforcement, is like, no, I only
Speaker 3: want to target criminals.
Speaker 1: We'll see. Okay.
Speaker 3: We really have no idea exactly how all of that
Speaker 3: is going to look, but it's very clear that she
Speaker 3: is the fall woman in the interim, at least in
Speaker 3: Trump's eyes.
Speaker 1: But it's just not going to be enough in my opinion.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, rum, this will not end.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Homan shocked people right after the shooting of Renanicole
Speaker 4: Good by giving an interview where he said, I think
Speaker 4: we I can't I can't weigh in on this. We
Speaker 4: need to await an impartial and independent investigation and then
Speaker 4: I can have more of a comment. And the reporter said, well,
Speaker 4: Christy Noom has said this, you know, Steven Miller has
Speaker 4: said this, Jade Vance has said this. He's like, well,
Speaker 4: they can speak for themselves. I'd like to see an investigation.
Speaker 4: And it was it was very jarring for people like me,
Speaker 4: you know, who've been very critical of home in over
Speaker 4: the years, be like, Oh, that's that's like what you
Speaker 4: want from a government official in a moment, like it's
Speaker 4: a cop.
Speaker 3: Yeah, at the end of the day, you can hit
Speaker 3: a wait to investigation, right right, yeah, yeah, it's like
Speaker 3: normal cops are like, I don't you know, it's not
Speaker 3: the way that we do. I mean, by the way,
Speaker 3: you know, this is a wret com But like if
Speaker 3: you followed tom Oman, I followed him for many years,
Speaker 3: is what was this always critics He'd be talking about
Speaker 3: enforcing the law, right, like he was a big proponent
Speaker 3: of law enforcement. He was massively critical of the Biden
Speaker 3: administration for not enforcing immigration or a border law and
Speaker 3: allowing tens of millions of people to come here illegally,
Speaker 3: like that was fundamentally like he had much more of
Speaker 3: a different view.
Speaker 1: And he also always and I.
Speaker 3: Remember this because he would talk about it during the
Speaker 3: Bio Bomam administration too, a laser focused on criminal enforcement, right,
Speaker 3: which was some of the selling point originally around ICE,
Speaker 3: And at this point, I mean, we're so far from
Speaker 3: that to achieve. We can say it's about immigration, sure,
Speaker 3: but like he the rhetoric coming for the administration has
Speaker 3: always been like worse of the worst criminals and all
Speaker 3: that are the only ones being deported.
Speaker 1: Uh, And that is just simply obviously it's not the case.
Speaker 1: We've talked about that here.
Speaker 3: But I think most importantly for what the future looks like,
Speaker 3: we'll have to keep laser focused on the ground because look,
Speaker 3: I mean, at this very same time, there are internacing
Speaker 3: civil wars inside the government. All of this kind of
Speaker 3: belies the point that there's going to be a shutdown here,
Speaker 3: and I think it's going to go on for a
Speaker 3: long time. I'm curious for your view. I do not
Speaker 3: see how they could possibly break.
Speaker 4: And the key, the key key detail here is what
Speaker 4: the democratic demands are going to be when it comes
Speaker 4: to the reform of DHS and reforms with an ICE
Speaker 4: and CBP. Obviously they're not They can't demand at this
Speaker 4: moment to abolish ICE. They need to take power if
Speaker 4: they're going to abolish ICE or reform CVP. But they can,
Speaker 4: they can get reformed now through this moment that they
Speaker 4: have leverage. And the thing that I'm hearing is they're
Speaker 4: going to be demanding will be and I think the
Speaker 4: most important thing they're demanding is get it. Get rid
Speaker 4: of these daily quotas.
Speaker 1: It is. This is this.
Speaker 4: Quota that Stephen Miller has insisted on putting on the
Speaker 4: federal government, both the HS and CVP, for X number
Speaker 4: of deportations every day. And if you know how bureaucracy works,
Speaker 4: if there is a kind of accountability in that bureaucracy
Speaker 4: for a for a number, like you have to hit
Speaker 4: this number or you're not getting your promotions, you're going
Speaker 4: to be you're going to be fired, that bureaucracy will
Speaker 4: then push aside all of its other rules like protecting
Speaker 4: civil liberties and making sure you're only targeting, you know,
Speaker 4: people who are not citizens, for instance, and instead will
Speaker 4: just start sweeping up as many as they possibly can
Speaker 4: and then deal with the fallout of that later because
Speaker 4: they've got a number to hit. And so Democrats are saying,
Speaker 4: get that number out, just go after violent criminals, forget
Speaker 4: the numbers. They're also going to demand that they no
Speaker 4: longer be masked up, and I think some of the
Speaker 4: other demands are still being worked out among the caucus
Speaker 4: about what they think is, you know, a combination of
Speaker 4: like achievable and also to the public, feels feels reasonable
Speaker 4: to put Republicans in a position of saying, no, we're
Speaker 4: shutting the government down to make sure that these guys
Speaker 4: can still wear masks and that they have to hit
Speaker 4: their quotas.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, I mean, honestly, they'd be smart. Mass alone
Speaker 3: will be a massive victory. They could even extract that, and.
Speaker 1: I could see a world. Look.
Speaker 3: Trump, here's the thing. Here's the funniest thing about Trump.
Speaker 3: Trump yesterday did in a Wall Street Journal interview. He
Speaker 3: didn't even defend the icy.
Speaker 1: He was like, I don't know, I don't like this.
Speaker 3: It goes we'll see, you know, they'll be an investigation.
Speaker 3: So like he is the one most out of step
Speaker 3: with his own government, which is of course, like part
Speaker 3: of the madness of the entire thing. But just to
Speaker 3: show everybody like he may be willing to cut a
Speaker 3: deal very different than some of the other people in
Speaker 3: the administration might be willing and able to.
Speaker 1: So we'll see. I think this is going to be
Speaker 1: at his opening bit.
Speaker 4: His opening bid seems to be he wants, as you
Speaker 4: were mentioning earlier, he wants sanctuary laws banned.
Speaker 1: Right, fine, you can do that through Congress.
Speaker 4: Christy Ahead, Christy nom had some sent some weird letter
Speaker 4: to Minnesota where she said I'll leave if you give
Speaker 4: me voter access to voter role.
Speaker 3: Pamp BONDI okay, that was a very strange letter. I
Speaker 3: did read through. It was like a three ring thing,
Speaker 3: was like end sanctuary policies, cooperate with us, and also
Speaker 3: something about like we need to evaluate your voter database
Speaker 3: to ensure there hasn't been election fraud. Yeah okay, yeah, yeah, right,
Speaker 3: well that's not happening obviously, and so that is I
Speaker 3: don't know, I'm curious. I'm really curious to see how
Speaker 3: the administration so far, already they're showing signs of weakness.
Speaker 3: Tom Homan being sent over. I mean, clearly it's like
Speaker 3: a message of like okay, we're sending somebody new. So
Speaker 3: that's interesting in itself, But with the shutdown, they have
Speaker 3: to make an explicit choice or whether they want the
Speaker 3: entire government to shut down over ice at a moment
Speaker 3: of incredible public outrage, and whether they'll be able to stomach,
Speaker 3: you know, supposedly standing up against the Democrats on something
Speaker 3: like that for a prolonged period of time.
Speaker 1: I suspect that they would lose that battle personally.
Speaker 4: So we're starting to see cracks in the foundation of
Speaker 4: maga's support for some of these mass deport from people
Speaker 4: in that world or adjacent to it. Whether we got
Speaker 4: Tim Dylan, Marjorie Taylor Green, or Dave Smith and some
Speaker 4: others who go through some of these Marjorie Taylor Green,
Speaker 4: I have to check myself because I'm constantly seeing things
Speaker 4: from Marjorie Taylor Green that I don't just like, not
Speaker 4: disagree with. I'm like, that was extremely well said. Where
Speaker 4: is this coming from?
Speaker 3: She is there's a mean we're calling it strange new
Speaker 3: respect from marjor reala Green.
Speaker 4: Strange new respect, banger after banger. So here is now
Speaker 4: now former congresswoman, and she asks people to go through
Speaker 4: an exercise, a mental exercise, to try to figure out
Speaker 4: how they would feel if the pictures were reversed. She says, MAGA,
Speaker 4: consider it like this, We lost our minds when we
Speaker 4: watched Biden's FBI tracked down and tracked down. Sorry, jumped
Speaker 4: around a little bit there, but basically she's saying, imagine
Speaker 4: if Biden's FBI, which was rounding up people who participated
Speaker 4: in January January sixth, imagine if you have conservative either
Speaker 4: protesters or independent media figures who are outside the home
Speaker 4: of somebody where the Biden's Biden's FBI is like smashing
Speaker 4: the door in and they're filming what they see is
Speaker 4: tyrannical overreach from Biden's do oj. Biden's FBI agents then
Speaker 4: throw two women down onto the ground for no discernible
Speaker 4: reason whatsoever, just because they're they're filming and the agents
Speaker 4: can't can do it. The the MAGA guy who's filming,
Speaker 4: then gets in between the two women and the FBI agent.
Speaker 4: FBI agent then bear sprays all of them, throws them
Speaker 4: to the ground, and within a matter of seconds has
Speaker 4: shot the MAGA guy in the back repeatedly. Then steps
Speaker 4: back and empties the clip into them. And then instead
Speaker 4: of uh, providing and I'll add this, instead of providing
Speaker 4: medical or they start go counting bullet holes that they
Speaker 4: put into the mag of person. She's like, try to
Speaker 4: put yourself in that position, and then once you have
Speaker 4: an ethical foundation, then respond how you would politically. Where
Speaker 4: is MTG Now I see the Marjorie Trader Green like
Speaker 4: has she gone? Has she hit him too many times
Speaker 4: to still be able to pack a punch? Or is
Speaker 4: the fact that she's standing up on principle allowing her
Speaker 4: to maintain some of that credibility because it's I don't Yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Don't know Marjorie's game.
Speaker 3: I really have no idea. She's rich, she's got a fiance.
Speaker 3: I think she's probably just going to live a good
Speaker 3: life in Georgia and she'll keep posting through it. I'm
Speaker 3: not really sure if she has any bigger ambitions. It'd
Speaker 3: be interesting to see if she did. The important point
Speaker 3: beyond it is to give look, this is kind of
Speaker 3: the point of this block. There needs to be a
Speaker 3: permission structure for people who are like, I'm not liberal,
Speaker 3: but I'm really really upset.
Speaker 1: You know about this?
Speaker 3: That is the eight way I think for Margie Taylor
Speaker 3: Green and for a few others.
Speaker 1: You know that we're about to cover, and.
Speaker 3: I think that's actually the most important part of watching
Speaker 3: this is to see the fish like the fissures start
Speaker 3: to break, and to also see some juxtapositioning and positioning
Speaker 3: for where things may end up. Our producer Griffin thinks
Speaker 3: that this is the most important one. So we're gonna
Speaker 3: put this one up here on the screen.
Speaker 1: E three. Uh.
Speaker 3: And you know I've been thinking about I think he
Speaker 3: might be right. Let's put E three Megan Kelly's tweet
Speaker 3: up here. She says real Donald Trump should pull ICE
Speaker 3: out of Minnesota and announce that there will be no
Speaker 3: more immigration enforcement in Minnesota at all. All legals in
Speaker 3: the US aren't curson move there. If any illegal is
Speaker 3: found outside of Minnesota gets deported, they can never apply
Speaker 3: for re entry. Moreover, every single asylum seeker should be
Speaker 3: told no application we consider unless the person is living
Speaker 3: in Minneapolis Saint Paul. So basically doing the equivalent of
Speaker 3: Texas and all of them busting illegals to states. One
Speaker 3: of the most brilliant political moves that the Republicans pulled
Speaker 3: throughout the Biden years because it created immigration chaos across
Speaker 3: the nation, and it made it a salient issue and
Speaker 3: kind of spread and showed and highlighted what was going on.
Speaker 3: This is the own This is the solution that I
Speaker 3: see has the most likelihood of happening, because it's a
Speaker 3: sneaky way of saying, Okay, we're done, we give up,
Speaker 3: we clearly lost. Let's pivot to this type of situation,
Speaker 3: and I've seen it now. Echoed by Katie Pavlich, another
Speaker 3: conservative commentator, I really think that these these are sneaky
Speaker 3: ways for them to try to declare victory, and this
Speaker 3: is very Trumpian way to try and do it while
Speaker 3: trying to accomplish your point of you know, drawing attention
Speaker 3: to sanctuary city, while at the same time tacitly having
Speaker 3: to admit this shit is not working and it's a disaster.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: This is the you can't fire me because I quit
Speaker 4: move uh, And it's it's perfect because it's like, oh,
Speaker 4: you want to be a hell hole. We're too good,
Speaker 4: We're too good for you anyway, Like we were just
Speaker 4: trying to help, but clearly you don't want our help,
Speaker 4: and so you don't deserve our help. And so no,
Speaker 4: we have open borders within the United States, So I
Speaker 4: don't exactly know how they would enforce this policy, Like
Speaker 4: you saise if you say you have to live in Minnesota,
Speaker 4: like there's an open border between Minnesota and it's surrounding states.
Speaker 4: You can just drive right across it. I don't have
Speaker 4: anybody's ever driven around the United States we have open borders.
Speaker 4: Drive from Maryland right into Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: No, yeah, no border. You could just border guards.
Speaker 3: I could see that. I think Griffin is right. I
Speaker 3: think that sneakily might be exactly the way. Other than
Speaker 3: this entire thing ends up, let's move now to Tim Dillon.
Speaker 3: People have complained that we play too many Tim Dillon cliffs,
Speaker 3: but sorry, I mean, he's very entertaining, and of course
Speaker 3: he is also a you know, he's a load star
Speaker 3: if you will this demographic of you know, look, he's
Speaker 3: a cultural kind of libertarian, anti DEI left.
Speaker 1: And ridicule and all of that.
Speaker 3: And I think what he also signifies, this is the
Speaker 3: most important thing I've been thinking about. It was transgressive
Speaker 3: to be pro Trump and or a right wing in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four right the dominant culture was pro Biden
Speaker 3: or pro komm Law. It was genuinely transgressive, especially in
Speaker 3: the Internet, you know, to be like, no, I hate
Speaker 3: the left for X, Y and Z reason. Now, I
Speaker 3: think it's genuinely transgressive in a moment of you know,
Speaker 3: federal governments trampling on Second Amendment rights and Ice and
Speaker 3: all of this other stuff to actually just be a
Speaker 3: like a left wing lib and so to watch, you know,
Speaker 3: to be tit to see to Tim what I see.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying he's been calculating or anything like that.
Speaker 3: What I see is very clear, clearly with the you know,
Speaker 3: with these statements, which again is somebody who is fundamentally
Speaker 3: you know, suspicious of like establishment and or bigger powers,
Speaker 3: is looking and locking in on the Trump administration and
Speaker 3: kind of using that for purposes not just for comedy,
Speaker 3: but also for political rhetoric.
Speaker 1: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 5: Everything is a scripted reality show. I criticize Ice, people
Speaker 5: get mad at me. They're like, well, how do you
Speaker 5: think people should be deported? Da?
Speaker 1: Da da da.
Speaker 5: Number One, you can pass legislation, which they haven't done.
Speaker 5: All of the stuff they've done on immigration is through
Speaker 5: executive orders, a lot of it it will be reversed
Speaker 5: immediately by democratic president.
Speaker 1: That's number one.
Speaker 5: Number Two, if you pass legislation and then attach enforcement
Speaker 5: to that, you pass laws.
Speaker 1: You then have laws.
Speaker 5: By which the country is governed that will prevent illegal immigration.
Speaker 5: If you do a reality show spectacle where you're grabbing
Speaker 5: people here and they are left and right, and it
Speaker 5: revs everybody up, and you then have protests everywhere, and
Speaker 5: you have violence, and you have ice responding to that
Speaker 5: with deadly force, you don't have a long term solution.
Speaker 5: What you do is you're stirring the pot and creating
Speaker 5: like many civil wars all over the country that people
Speaker 5: are watching on television. But you don't have like the
Speaker 5: enforcement of laws. And you're not going after employers that
Speaker 5: are employing illegal labor.
Speaker 1: You're not going after Steve Wynn.
Speaker 5: You're not going after the big hotel magnets that you
Speaker 5: know employ illegal labor. You're not going after big agricultural
Speaker 5: firms that do the same thing. Now agriculture has a
Speaker 5: lot of illegal labor use in agriculture. Well, then the
Speaker 5: food should be cheap, right, Well, no, the food's not cheap.
Speaker 5: It's the most expensive it's ever been. Well what about
Speaker 5: the houses, they're the most expensive if they've ever been.
Speaker 1: Huh, what about.
Speaker 5: Staying at hotels and eating out at restaurants? I mean,
Speaker 5: all of this has come down, surely because of all
Speaker 5: the illegal labor No, that's more expensive than it's ever been.
Speaker 3: Right, right, Yeah, I mean I think that explicitly proves
Speaker 3: the point he's talking about housing, how it's most expensive.
Speaker 1: Everything is very expensive. It doesn't seem like things are
Speaker 1: getting better.
Speaker 3: He's talked about how Alex Jones warned for years in
Speaker 3: the past about mass agents in the streets. He's like,
Speaker 3: that's what's literally happening right now. I mean, you're watching
Speaker 3: all of this all take place. And then in that
Speaker 3: same context, they want to give a shout out to
Speaker 3: my good friend Dave Smith. Let's put E four up
Speaker 3: here on the screen again. Look, I think Dave was
Speaker 3: a very influential, prominent person in the podcast discourse in
Speaker 3: a lead up to the twenty twenty four elections subsequently
Speaker 3: on foreign policy and more. And here's what he says, quote,
Speaker 3: I'm going to be immigration restrictionists. I believe we have
Speaker 3: the right to remove any and all people who enter
Speaker 3: our country illegally. Also, ICE is out of fucking control.
Speaker 3: A bunch of pussies drunk on going around intentionally escalating
Speaker 3: violent interactions, intimidating US citizens.
Speaker 1: They create these tragic situations.
Speaker 3: And after this giganic show of force, they won't deport
Speaker 3: a fraction of the illegals who entered under Biden. This
Speaker 3: is simply not worth it. And I do think that
Speaker 3: this sentiment is very common amongst a lot of people.
Speaker 1: It includes me.
Speaker 3: I think this sentiment is very very common again for
Speaker 3: a lot of people who are deeply concerned, upset about
Speaker 3: the chaos of the border under Biden. About look, and
Speaker 3: do fundamentally have a very different view of immigration than others.
Speaker 3: And while it may be true that some two hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty thousand people have been deported, let's say and
Speaker 3: look at it as a fraction of the tens of
Speaker 3: millions of people who enter the country illegally under Biden
Speaker 3: and or were present in the country. And then though,
Speaker 3: you have to ask the question about not just the tactics,
Speaker 3: but now the two subsequent deaths in Minnesota and then
Speaker 3: this latest one, which is as egregious as it possibly gets,
Speaker 3: And to say, yeah, no, no, this is not the
Speaker 3: correct response. Is Tim lays out very clearly, and he's correct,
Speaker 3: is that the biggest beneficiaries of illegal labor are big corporations,
Speaker 3: hotel chains and all these other people find use the RRS,
Speaker 3: you can find all of them two hundred and fifty thousand.
Speaker 3: I can guarantee you if you start finding and arresting
Speaker 3: people who employ illegal labor, you don't even need e verify.
Speaker 1: It will be over tomorrow.
Speaker 3: You could end remittance, you could end all remittances, put
Speaker 3: one hundred percent tax on remittances let's say sent by
Speaker 3: Wells Fargo. It would collapse the economy of Mexico overnight,
Speaker 3: as well as a lot of these other Latin American countries,
Speaker 3: and a lot of.
Speaker 1: People would just leave.
Speaker 3: All of that makes it so that you don't need
Speaker 3: a singleized agent in the street if you did something
Speaker 3: like Nope, can't do that, why because of big donor
Speaker 3: So that is the egregious part of all of this.
Speaker 3: Not only could it have been avoided, I think it's
Speaker 3: politically set back the cause of immigration restriction for decades,
Speaker 3: most likely as a result of this bullshit. But most importantly,
Speaker 3: what you're all watching these canaries, Tim, Marjorie Taylor, Green, Dave,
Speaker 3: all of these others who speak out on this, What
Speaker 3: you should notice is not just that they're willing to
Speaker 3: speak out, but that those are popular positions. Those are
Speaker 3: people who are starting to you know, make independent voters,
Speaker 3: others people who potentially may have voted for Trump. That
Speaker 3: is fundamentally the demographic ryan that really helped Donald Trump
Speaker 3: dominate the culture and win the White House in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four.
Speaker 1: Yeah and yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4: And I think that's why it's important to hear from
Speaker 4: people like Tim Dillon and Dave Smith on these questions
Speaker 4: because because of who they are, they're not their brains
Speaker 4: have not been soaking in this like partisan soup, and
Speaker 4: so they're a true they care about issues like they like,
Speaker 4: which is a crazy way for like people to think, Wait,
Speaker 4: you can actually it's not about it. It's not a team sport.
Speaker 4: You actually have an issue you care about and you
Speaker 4: vote on that issue. And one of the issues for
Speaker 4: these folks was the immigration restrict And what they're saying
Speaker 4: is if you do it this way, you're not accomplishing
Speaker 4: your own agenda. Now what I think there is an
Speaker 4: opportunity for the Trump administration here to say, to declare
Speaker 4: some form of victory because okay, let's say there's only
Speaker 4: been two hundred and fifty thousand deeportations, I would suspect,
Speaker 4: and we don't have the numbers yet, the number of
Speaker 4: self deportations because of the fear that is like really
Speaker 4: ripping through immigrant communities.
Speaker 1: Yeah, is a lot.
Speaker 4: If they if they then transition say Okay, you know,
Speaker 4: we're going after violent criminals, and we're not going to
Speaker 4: go through home depot parking lots and ask every brown
Speaker 4: person that we see for their papers. We're going to
Speaker 4: kind of passively investigate and look for violent criminals. When
Speaker 4: we find them, we're going to deport them, and we're
Speaker 4: going to make sure that border is secure within a
Speaker 4: period of time, they would be back to probably having
Speaker 4: a mandate again for that position. What they don't have
Speaker 4: a mandate for is this like like whatever, whatever they're
Speaker 4: doing is like violent crackdown on the American public and
Speaker 4: killing you know, two American citizens within three weeks and
Speaker 4: shooting three people within three weeks. And I think we're
Speaker 4: at seven deaths in ice or cb DHS custody.
Speaker 1: In January.
Speaker 4: Alone, and the you know, the month isn't over yet.
Speaker 4: Like that's that's more than the public is willing to bear.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and look at a certain especially in the wake
Speaker 3: of the shooting, like yeah, they shouldn't bear it, Like no,
Speaker 3: you can't. And that's where public opinion and watching these
Speaker 3: signifiers like again, like for not just influencers and others.
Speaker 3: By the way, even Tim Poole, you know, who has been.
Speaker 1: Very supportive of the administration. He was like, guys, I
Speaker 1: don't think there's a good shoot. He says, what do
Speaker 1: you say?
Speaker 3: He was just like Trump ain't winning this one or
Speaker 3: something like that, Like, yeah, obviously he's right, you know.
Speaker 3: By the way, Tim, also somebody's very pro gun. You
Speaker 3: can't remotely be somebody who's pro the Second Amendment. And
Speaker 3: then look, not again, not just the shooting, but the government,
Speaker 3: their narrative, the standards they're trying to be set, and
Speaker 3: then you put all that stuff together and if you're like, look,
Speaker 3: if this is what they're willing to do, then no, no, no, right,
Speaker 3: then that's something that's going to be a real break
Speaker 3: point I think for the culture in all this. But
Speaker 3: you know, we'll see I could be wrong, but maybe
Speaker 3: we'll be right back to Trump domination. I can only
Speaker 3: speak for myself and to look at you know, people
Speaker 3: like my friends Dave and just say wow, you know,
Speaker 3: first of all, credits Dave, it's not exactly it's easy
Speaker 3: to put that out on Twitter and inevitably get piled
Speaker 3: on by some of the low IQ commentariat. But it is,
Speaker 3: you know, courageous for him to be able to say
Speaker 3: something like that, especially considering the positions he took before
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four. And it's also again though, you know,
Speaker 3: I think the fact that his popularity in the interim,
Speaker 3: when he's been on our show and denounced Trump over
Speaker 3: Iran and now this, these are important, important, important things. Okay,
Speaker 3: let's get to China, all right. Last thing here that
Speaker 3: I just had to get out here in the show again,
Speaker 3: enormously consequential, huge shake up at the top of the CCP.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up here on the screen from the
Speaker 3: Wall Street Journal. China's top general accused of giving nuclear
Speaker 3: secrets to the US. Bribery allegations have leveled against General Jean.
Speaker 3: I'm not going to try and say it I apologize.
Speaker 3: I'm just going to call it General Jeong, whose downfall
Speaker 3: carries implications for the country's military readiness. I mean, this
Speaker 3: is literally his senior most senior, most general, so the
Speaker 3: equivalent of like kind of like the vice president or
Speaker 3: the Joint chiefs of Staff, who is being accused by
Speaker 3: Shehanpaning of selling nuclear weapons seecrets to the US, of
Speaker 3: accepting bribes for official acts, for including the promotion of
Speaker 3: an officer to defense minister. Is shock it shock it
Speaker 3: because it is part of an ongoing kind of military
Speaker 3: purge at the very top level by the CCP. Let's look,
Speaker 3: there's a lot of various theories kind of behind all
Speaker 3: of this. Why don't we start first with the coup rumors.
Speaker 3: Let's put F four up here on the screen. No
Speaker 3: one is taking seriously the idea that he actually leaked
Speaker 3: nuclear secrets.
Speaker 1: It was more that they're.
Speaker 3: Willing to accuse him Ryan of leaking military secrets. So
Speaker 3: here's here's what he says the best compilation of coup
Speaker 3: rumors circulating Chinese diaspora. Again, these are rumors, not confirmed,
Speaker 3: but there's no leaks that come out of China. And
Speaker 3: as part of the difficulty of dealing with all this,
Speaker 3: he says, democracy activists posts on social media revealing conversation
Speaker 3: from inside the Great Firewall where they disclosed that they
Speaker 3: had planned to move against Chishingping and capture him on
Speaker 3: the evening of January eighteenth, Beijing time, when he was
Speaker 3: set to stay at hotel in Beijing. Now for the
Speaker 3: fast few years. Quote he has been homeless, changing locations
Speaker 3: every few days. Details of the capture g operation, citing sources,
Speaker 3: originally planned to strike on that evening. However, two hours
Speaker 3: before the operation they were betrayed by an informant and
Speaker 3: Chishingping immediately evacuated instead of an ambush or a counter capture,
Speaker 3: and allegedly he's even claiming that there's some sort of gunfight.
Speaker 3: Now this is again, this is something from beyond the firewall,
Speaker 3: but it was elevated by some China like some China
Speaker 3: watchers whom I respect. It would be absolutely right, exactly
Speaker 3: literally like serious people who take.
Speaker 4: But they weren't saying it's true. But it is a
Speaker 4: it's a story that's being told.
Speaker 3: It is a story is being told, you know, in
Speaker 3: the act of a community and others. Our our other
Speaker 3: friend Arnault Uppertron, who you contacted Ryan has shot that down.
Speaker 3: I do want to make sure that we put his
Speaker 3: up here on the screen if we can.
Speaker 1: Yep, here we go. Yeah, I've got it available.
Speaker 4: One he's saying. The idea that he actually sold or
Speaker 4: gave nuclear secrets to the US, right, pretty preposterous because
Speaker 4: in order to do that this general would have had
Speaker 4: to vice chairman, the second most powerful person in China
Speaker 4: would have to like somehow do it like and how
Speaker 4: you do that under the mass surveillance. You know, you
Speaker 4: have mass surveillance, but you also have very specific surveillance
Speaker 4: of everybody who's at the very upper echelons, not just
Speaker 4: for you know, controlling them, but looking for foreign, foreign
Speaker 4: adversarial efforts to penetrate and surveil those officials. Like so
Speaker 4: they are the idea that they'd be able to get
Speaker 4: some burner phone and like get to the nuclear center
Speaker 4: and like download the data and then somehow exfiltrated. It
Speaker 4: is like like something out of like Adjacent Bourne, like
Speaker 4: type of situation that isn't like remotely believable.
Speaker 1: The idea that.
Speaker 4: There was that chairman, she doesn't have a place to
Speaker 4: stay in Beijing, Arna also argued, was kind of preposterous, right,
Speaker 4: and so dismissed the coup rumors. All you can do
Speaker 4: is say the fact that these announced, these investigations have
Speaker 4: been announced bad news for the people being investigated. Very
Speaker 4: rarely do you get these investigations announced and there's, oh,
Speaker 4: we cleared them. What's going on here is that this
Speaker 4: is some type of power struggle the uh for whatever
Speaker 4: reason she is moving against the figures. There's appears to
Speaker 4: be some corruption angle to it. She has made like
Speaker 4: rooting out corruption kind of a centerpiece of his his
Speaker 4: his attempt, you know, his his effort here, and so
Speaker 4: twenty twelve, you know, twenty twelve on, he's going after
Speaker 4: enormous amounts of corruption within the party and within you know,
Speaker 4: the economy written large whether and you know these folks,
Speaker 4: you know, have power bases that go back many many decades.
Speaker 4: The vice chairman goes back to the you know, his
Speaker 4: father was like a hero in the you know, the
Speaker 4: People's Liberation Army, like the founding of it. That means
Speaker 4: they have their networks, and if those networks have been
Speaker 4: engaging in some sort of soft draft, either he found
Speaker 4: that out or he didn't think he was cracking down enough,
Speaker 4: or it's just a straight up power play as he's
Speaker 4: you know, continuing to concentrate power and put loyalists underneath it.
Speaker 4: So that's that's our over trends, right.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, both both perspectives are very important, and
Speaker 3: I think his main point of but we have no
Speaker 3: idea is potentially the most important. I think though what
Speaker 3: we do know is extraordinary enough to remove the top
Speaker 3: general is just is crazy. I mean again, like you,
Speaker 3: I can't even think of an American parallel of just
Speaker 3: coming in and arresting the chairman of the Joint chiefs.
Speaker 3: Arnault even noted that the language that they used in
Speaker 3: the arrest or in the charging statement was that he
Speaker 3: trampled on like the trampled on like directives from the chairman,
Speaker 3: which he was saying, is just like, I mean, it's
Speaker 3: very very extraordinary language, more than they've used in even
Speaker 3: other prior corruption investigations and departures. We have multiple members
Speaker 3: now of this military committee over the last few years
Speaker 3: who have now been purged and or are either in
Speaker 3: jail or been removed. By the way, my favorite Wall
Speaker 3: Street Journal euphemism is could not be reached for comment
Speaker 3: when talking about people who have been purged, I'm like.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's one way of putting it. Certainly true.
Speaker 3: We have no idea, you know, whether it could be
Speaker 3: in prison, could be dead, exactly what it all looks like.
Speaker 3: But let's all keep an eye on it. The world
Speaker 3: is still very unstable. Who knows this could have implications
Speaker 3: for Taiwan, right, this could have implications internally who we
Speaker 3: have no whether it was a coup or not. I
Speaker 3: tend to lean against coup just because it doesn't even
Speaker 3: seem possible at this point within the Chinese.
Speaker 4: Cyst like, that's not how the system.
Speaker 3: She is so overwhelmingly powerful, Like the time for a
Speaker 3: coup would have been years ago, wouldn't be now when
Speaker 3: he has an iron cloud control over not just the
Speaker 3: country but over the CCP. Obviously, though it could be
Speaker 3: totally wrong. There could be competing power centers, and there
Speaker 3: always have been within their power structure. But look, this
Speaker 3: is a nuclear armed, potential almost superpower here in age,
Speaker 3: undeniably the great power that even remotely rivals the United States.
Speaker 3: And so it's not just political turmoil. What ends up
Speaker 3: happening as a result of this, and what the potential
Speaker 3: implications behind it might be for their military, for their posture,
Speaker 3: for how and what.
Speaker 1: They're thinking about.
Speaker 3: I tend not to think it is a accident accusing
Speaker 3: him of nuclear secrets, which could mean that they could
Speaker 3: lead to some change of their nuclear posture, right, or
Speaker 3: some sort of command and control change over that. So
Speaker 3: because they say that it's been compromised by the US.
Speaker 3: All of that very very significant, so we need to
Speaker 3: pay attention to all of us. Just want to make
Speaker 3: sure that we mentioned it because it could have major,
Speaker 3: major implications. Yes, Ryan, thank you so much for today,
Speaker 3: for big here with me. Man value more than ever,
Speaker 3: especially in such an insane time. Value the show, crystal Emily,
Speaker 3: the ability for all of us to work together, and
Speaker 3: thank you to the audience for everybody.
Speaker 1: We're probably going to be remote tomorrow, guys. I was
Speaker 1: just looking.
Speaker 3: I don't even think my roads or any of that
Speaker 3: are going to get plowed. We're not yet high on
Speaker 3: the priority list, so very likely another remote show. Also,
Speaker 3: we have a crew. We have to worry about their
Speaker 3: safety and all of that as well. So we'll see
Speaker 3: you all tomorrow.
Speaker 4: You know, hard for them to get into see something
Speaker 4: one way or another. We'll see you