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 coverage.
Speaker 3: That is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 3: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. We have
Speaker 2: an extra amazing show. Chrystal balls back from her honeymoon
Speaker 2: after a beautiful wedding.
Speaker 3: It's great to see Crystal.
Speaker 1: It is nice to be back. I enjoyed the time off.
Speaker 1: It's always good to be back in the chair. So indeed,
Speaker 1: we do have a good show. I had to work
Speaker 1: that in there was people would be very disappointed in
Speaker 1: me for show back. So lots of things going on
Speaker 1: to catch up on. First of all, round the Santis
Speaker 1: looks set to launch any moment, and he kind of
Speaker 1: got a little one up on Trump in iOS. That
Speaker 1: will tell you about that first good news cycle for
Speaker 1: him for a while.
Speaker 4: I would say so we'll break that down.
Speaker 1: Also, elon deciding to allow censorship of some content in
Speaker 1: Turkey ahead of a critical election. We also have some
Speaker 1: results from that election, so we'll tell you about that
Speaker 1: new reporting mainstream media a little bit late to the game,
Speaker 1: but adding on to what Sagar and I had already
Speaker 1: previously reported from those leaked documents about how far Zelenski
Speaker 1: is willing to go and the sort of audacious attacks
Speaker 1: that he wanted to engage in but was short the
Speaker 1: long range missiles that we had failed to provide them.
Speaker 1: Now the UK is providing him with those long range missiles,
Speaker 1: and we are already seeing some potential fallout from all
Speaker 1: of that. We've also got a new report about just
Speaker 1: how far back the problems with Diane Feinstein go and
Speaker 1: just how widespread the knowledge of this was on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill and among journalists. I mean, you really can't make
Speaker 1: it up. You've got John Stewart weighing in on the
Speaker 1: big Trump town hall controversy, the debate, big piece that
Speaker 1: I missed last week, So I'm excited to talk about
Speaker 1: that as well.
Speaker 4: So lots to get to this.
Speaker 1: Morning, but before we do any of that, we are
Speaker 1: very very excited because we are getting super close to
Speaker 1: having a new set in here.
Speaker 2: That's right, everybody, the set is officially in production fabrication.
Speaker 3: We have seen the warehouse photos. We are clearing out
Speaker 3: space here.
Speaker 2: We've got timelines and work contracts and all that stuff.
Speaker 2: So if you guys can help us out with the
Speaker 2: production of that new set, we deeply appreciate it. The
Speaker 2: biggest expense ever in the history of Breaking Points, and
Speaker 2: all of you really are a part of it. So
Speaker 2: as we said, any monthly, yearly or lifetime members who
Speaker 2: sign up are especially helping us in our financial hour
Speaker 2: and we are so excited to debut all of it
Speaker 2: to you. It really is like a level up in
Speaker 2: terms of what we're going to be able to offer
Speaker 2: everyone for the incoming twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 4: Yes, that is right, very excited about all of that.
Speaker 2: So Breaking Points dot com, if you are able, let's
Speaker 2: start speaking of that twenty twenty four election and all
Speaker 2: the fun plans not only in the studio that we've
Speaker 2: been cooking up. I think you guys are really going
Speaker 2: to enjoy some of the things that we're going to
Speaker 2: be able to offer you. Is Ron DeSantis and DeSantis
Speaker 2: for the first time in a long time, as you
Speaker 2: alluded to, had a pretty good news cycle for himself
Speaker 2: in Iowa. He visited Iowa officially under not a pretense
Speaker 2: of running for president, but it's pretty obvious what exactly
Speaker 2: is going on here, and he had especially some good
Speaker 2: moments on the trail where he was able to speak
Speaker 2: to multiple events and even show up Trump in the
Speaker 2: face of a cancelation.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to what he said.
Speaker 5: Thank you, thank you so much, Congressman, thank you for
Speaker 5: doing such a great job. As some Republicans get into
Speaker 5: office and they basically act like potted plants. They don't
Speaker 5: want to lead, They worry about what the media is
Speaker 5: going to say about They just kind of hope to
Speaker 5: not have to make decisions until something they're actually forced
Speaker 5: to do it. I said, that's not what we're doing
Speaker 5: in Florida. We're going on offense in the state of Florida.
Speaker 5: I'm going to get out in front of issues. I'm
Speaker 5: going to be leading on this show. Use I don't
Speaker 5: care what the left says, I don't care what media says.
Speaker 5: We are going to deliver big victories. And I'll tell
Speaker 5: you when you're on offense. It's hard for them to
Speaker 5: keep up with you because they don't know what we're
Speaker 5: going to do next.
Speaker 2: That is the core of the DeSantis pitch is that
Speaker 2: Trump is about drama, and I'm all about offense. I'm
Speaker 2: all about substance, I'm all about action. Now, obviously, I've
Speaker 2: been skeptical of that because you know, unfortunately, I don't
Speaker 2: think a lot of Republican base actually wants action offense,
Speaker 2: and they'd like the drama. That said, there are people
Speaker 2: out there who do like it, and he did get
Speaker 2: a standing ovation and multiple of these events. But really
Speaker 2: the big show up of Trump in Iowa, let's put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen, is that after President
Speaker 2: Trump actually canceled a rally in Des Moines citing quote
Speaker 2: possible dangerous weather, which by the way, did not materialize,
Speaker 2: Ron DeSantis actually added an unscheduled stop in the very
Speaker 2: area that Trump had been scheduled to speak. Not only
Speaker 2: did he have a pit stop by basically embarrassing the
Speaker 2: former president by saying, I'm willing to come up whenever
Speaker 2: you said that you were going to, but then you
Speaker 2: bail on this event, but he had spoken to two
Speaker 2: other events in Iowa while he was there, and this
Speaker 2: is just very classic retail politics, Crystal. This is one
Speaker 2: of those where and part of why I actually am
Speaker 2: sad to lose Iowa from the Democratic side, because Barack
Speaker 2: Obama would need to never be present without it. You know,
Speaker 2: he visited what is it all ninety nine counties in
Speaker 2: Iowa and he spent basically a year on the ground.
Speaker 2: Iowa is what made him Dysantis is offering his playbook
Speaker 2: where he sees his path to a nomination, if possible
Speaker 2: at all, through victories in the early states.
Speaker 3: Don't forget that Trump did not win Iowa.
Speaker 2: He only got third place to Marco Arrubio and to
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz before he eventually won the New Hampshire primary.
Speaker 2: So if DeSantis could have a victory in the Iowa
Speaker 2: CAUCUSUS over Trump, it would obviously just be a titanic
Speaker 2: media event. And more importantly, I think it would give
Speaker 2: permission to other Republicans to vote for him because they're like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: maybe he actually could win this thing.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, we've been skeptical of Ron DeSantis for
Speaker 1: a long time when he was riding high when some
Speaker 1: of the poles showed him beating Trump, because we always
Speaker 1: had this question mark of okay, but how's he going
Speaker 1: to handle the national spotlight? Okay, what is his actual
Speaker 1: case against Trump? And we also had seen with the
Speaker 1: mar A Lago raid, the way that when Trump is
Speaker 1: under fire from the justice system or the liberal media
Speaker 1: or anyone else, the way the base always rallies back
Speaker 1: to him. So we've long been skeptical. But I think
Speaker 1: if you're going to make the best case that you
Speaker 1: can for rond DeSantis, you would say, Okay, he's placing
Speaker 1: a bet on people. They may still like Trump, but
Speaker 1: they are kind of tired of the chaos and they're
Speaker 1: ready to move on. That's the bet that he's placing.
Speaker 1: The one thing that I think he has in his
Speaker 1: corner right now is, you know, the media doesn't really
Speaker 1: want the primary to be over before it's ever begun began,
Speaker 1: because that's less interesting for them. So the fact that
Speaker 1: they took this little one upsmanship that he was able
Speaker 1: to have in Iowa and turned it into a whole
Speaker 1: national story, I think indicates that they do want to
Speaker 1: kind of root for him in a way, just so
Speaker 1: that they have an interesting, theoretically competitive primary on the
Speaker 1: Republican side to cover since they've ared decided that they're
Speaker 1: going to just pretend the Democratic primaries not interesting for
Speaker 1: them at all. So he's got that going for him.
Speaker 1: And in a way, his path that he has mapped
Speaker 1: out in his mind and that consultants are leaking to
Speaker 1: the press now, is kind of similar to the Barack
Speaker 1: Obama bet, which is that, Okay, sure, the polls are
Speaker 1: what they are before people start voting, but if we
Speaker 1: can show some strength in these early states, and by
Speaker 1: the way, we think some of these early states are
Speaker 1: particularly good for us, then.
Speaker 4: Maybe that flips things.
Speaker 1: Maybe that changes the whole game, and we get a
Speaker 1: head full of esteem. These other contenders, the Nikki Hales,
Speaker 1: the Tim Scott's, the Whoever's, they drop out, they coll us,
Speaker 1: and that's our shot. And you can see he's placing
Speaker 1: a big bet on that. Go ahead and put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen from Politico. He's rolling out a
Speaker 1: major slate of Iowa endorsements, you know, a huge roster here,
Speaker 1: including more than half a dozen party leaders, state Senate President,
Speaker 1: Senate Majority Whip, Assistant House majority Leader, House majority Leader,
Speaker 1: House speaker, pro tempore is that how you say it?
Speaker 1: Pro tempore, pro tempore pro tempoar. There we go House majority, Whip,
Speaker 1: assistant leader, etcetera, etc. So very impressive state level roster.
Speaker 1: And the other thing I would say is, while DeSantis
Speaker 1: getting one over on Trump in this, you know one,
Speaker 1: Trump cancels the rally and Desanta shows up, is this
Speaker 1: going to move the polls from a national perspective. No,
Speaker 1: But Iowa is different and people there locally do pay
Speaker 1: attention to these sorts of things. Retail politics and the
Speaker 1: grassroots do matter. So if he's able to show more
Speaker 1: dexterity there and more attention to the state, yeah, maybe
Speaker 1: that does pay off.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I mean, look at the end of the day, like
Speaker 2: these types of endorsements and all that were dismissed very
Speaker 2: early on by the Hillary campaign around Obama and they
Speaker 2: didn't end up mattering.
Speaker 3: And a lot of people also forget this.
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz poured an enormous amount of resources into Iowa.
Speaker 2: Jeff Row, his campaign manager, who actually is now currently
Speaker 2: running the Never Back Down superpack backing Ron DeSantis before
Speaker 2: that ran the Glenn Youngkin campaign, is famously established like
Speaker 2: cruise camps, and poured all of this data and all
Speaker 2: of this into winning the Iowa caucuses. Is still is
Speaker 2: probably the coude Gras of the entire Ted Crow Cruz
Speaker 2: campaign from twenty sixteen. Well, he's got Iowa veterans in
Speaker 2: his camp who are backing him. They know how to
Speaker 2: play this game. Iowen famously, especially Republican voters there. They
Speaker 2: are not the mean Republican voter, as evidenced by the
Speaker 2: fact that they voted for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio,
Speaker 2: whereas in most of the other primaries, Trump not only won,
Speaker 2: but he won big. So I think that, you know,
Speaker 2: given the very given the unique dynamics of the state,
Speaker 2: given the fact that they really do like to take
Speaker 2: their time, like get to know their politicians, if Trump
Speaker 2: does take them for granted, which it's very possible that
Speaker 2: he certainly could. If Desanta is going to go all
Speaker 2: in on the state, he could face a problem. At
Speaker 2: the same time, what did I just say, he lost
Speaker 2: Iowa the first time, It just didn't matter. Yeah, he
Speaker 2: still won New Hampshire, and he still won Super Tuesday,
Speaker 2: and he became the nominee very quickly after.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, that's the difference.
Speaker 1: Is the reason it worked out for Barack Obama is
Speaker 1: very specific to the Democratic side, which is that you
Speaker 1: had a lot of black voters in South Carolina who
Speaker 1: wanted to be with him but didn't think that he
Speaker 1: had the you know, the ability to overcome the Clinton machine.
Speaker 1: And once he demonstrated like, look, I can get these
Speaker 1: white folks in Iowa to vote for me, then poles
Speaker 1: flipped dramatically, specifically among black voters in South Carolina. There
Speaker 1: are very few black voters that vote in the Republican primaries,
Speaker 1: and there just aren't that There isn't that same dynamic
Speaker 1: that's obvious to see, at least in terms of the
Speaker 1: Republican primary. So that's why, you know, I continue to
Speaker 1: be skeptical here. But it was definitely a good, much
Speaker 1: better news cycle for him. He was certainly well received
Speaker 1: in the state of Iowa. I don't think there's any
Speaker 1: doubt that the Republican base overall has a lot of
Speaker 1: positive feelings towards him.
Speaker 4: They like him.
Speaker 1: If Trump wasn't there, I think he would be, you know,
Speaker 1: the odds on.
Speaker 4: Favorite, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: But I still continue to believe that it's not going
Speaker 1: to be enough to be the Trump alternative without making
Speaker 1: some sort of affirmative case that really lands with the
Speaker 1: Republican base against Trump or somehow Trump disappearing from the
Speaker 1: scene or completely melting down, of which we just see
Speaker 1: no sign.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's put the last one up there on the screen, please,
Speaker 2: because what they show here is that they cancel the
Speaker 2: outdoor a rally in Des Moines. But something that Ron
Speaker 2: DeSantis actually said on Saturday really is what resonated with
Speaker 2: a lot of people on the ground. He said that
Speaker 2: the Republicans must quote reject a culture of losing and
Speaker 2: embrace a positive vision for the future if they want
Speaker 2: to win in twenty twenty four. Quote, both Florida and
Speaker 2: Iowa show strong leadership and a bold agenda can defeat
Speaker 2: the left in this country. There's no substitute for victory.
Speaker 2: We must reject the culture of losing that's infected our
Speaker 2: party in recent years. The time for excuses is over.
Speaker 2: We've got to demonstrate the courage to lead and the
Speaker 2: strength to win. Now, look on his merits, I think
Speaker 2: he's right. I think that's a great pitch for maybe
Speaker 2: somebody like me, But all the evidence that we have
Speaker 2: crystal this message basically only really resonates with college educated Republicans,
Speaker 2: of which there are a lot in Iowa, but of
Speaker 2: which nationally there are actually not a lot. Whenever it
Speaker 2: comes to the Republican based, working class voters love Trump.
Speaker 2: We're working class voters specifically who are new to the
Speaker 2: Republican Party.
Speaker 3: Trump Ish style voters especially love Trump.
Speaker 2: But then the more traditional mitt Romni type Republicans, they
Speaker 2: like Trump, they have affection for Trump, They're willing to
Speaker 2: entertain more cannons. But unfortunately for DeSantis and for really
Speaker 2: anybody who's making their bet on that group, they really
Speaker 2: just they don't. They're outnumbered almost dramatically by non college
Speaker 2: educated white voters in the Republican Party. So look, once again,
Speaker 2: we could be totally wrong. It's very possible that a
Speaker 2: DeSantis Iowa victory, if it were to materialize, would eventually
Speaker 2: give people permission in New Hampshire and in South Carolina
Speaker 2: and in Florida. Actually, Florida will be the real test
Speaker 2: whether DeSantis can win in his own home state against Trump.
Speaker 2: That's basically the whole ball game. It's why Marco Rubio
Speaker 2: dropped out in twenty sixteen. It's why Ted Cruz was
Speaker 2: able to stay in the race because he did win
Speaker 2: the Texas primary. It's why John Kasick was able to
Speaker 2: win the Ohio primary.
Speaker 3: You have a case for doing that.
Speaker 2: So a lot of it is also a road to
Speaker 2: Florida from where it all starts in Iowa.
Speaker 1: DeSantis is making an intellectual case to the Republican base.
Speaker 1: He bet on I'm going to have this you know,
Speaker 1: policy roll out. That's why he wanted to wait until
Speaker 1: after the Florida legislative session was finished before he jumped
Speaker 1: into the presidential race. And that lands with some slice
Speaker 1: of the Republican base. There's no doubt about it. The
Speaker 1: Trump pitch is much more visceral, and today that visceral
Speaker 1: pitch is winning the day. Will that change over time?
Speaker 1: I sort of doubt it, because I think the landscape
Speaker 1: as we move forward is just going to continue to
Speaker 1: be you know, what's going to happen in the Documents Probe,
Speaker 1: what's going to happen with the you know, the Georgia
Speaker 1: Fulton County prob, what's happening with the special Counsel, and
Speaker 1: all of those things are going to continue to dominate
Speaker 1: the news. And I think you saw in that CNN
Speaker 1: town hall, you know the way the base feels about anything,
Speaker 1: whether it has merit or not, that any sort of
Speaker 1: attack on Trump as far as the Republican base goes.
Speaker 1: This is different from the general elector. But in terms
Speaker 1: of the Republican base, it only makes Trump stronger. So
Speaker 1: I don't see that dynamic really stopping.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't really see it changing or stopping either.
Speaker 2: But listen, who knows. You know, it could be wrong,
Speaker 2: and at the very least it'll be interesting. Let's go
Speaker 2: to the second part here, which is a little bit interesting,
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen. This is
Speaker 2: the actual DeSantis theory of the case from Jonathan martinover
Speaker 2: at Politico. Why the Desanti's brain trust thinks that it
Speaker 2: actually can beat Trump. Now, What they effectively say here
Speaker 2: is they say yes. They say yes, we understand where
Speaker 2: the poles are going. We understand that this is something
Speaker 2: which looks like it shouldn't be feasible, but we have
Speaker 2: extensive internal polling and a gusher of money that they
Speaker 2: predict will come when DeSantis will enter the race.
Speaker 3: They point to the fat crystal that DeSantis has.
Speaker 2: A very very high internal approval rating amongst Republicans.
Speaker 3: In other words, he's a very high affection rating.
Speaker 2: They look at the unpopularity for Trump amongst voters that
Speaker 2: they find in Iowa, in New Hampshire and elsewhere. They
Speaker 2: find quote twenty four percent of Republicans of an unfavorable
Speaker 2: view of Republican of Trump, while only fourteen percent of
Speaker 2: Iowa feel unfavorably towards DeSantis. Perhaps most notable in their
Speaker 2: dominated caucuses, they say that DeSantis is viewed favorably by
Speaker 2: nearly eighty percent of who call themselves quote very conservative,
Speaker 2: and they point to the fact that DeSantis himself, at
Speaker 2: least on a personal level, doesn't seem to have the
Speaker 2: level of drama and the level of chaos. He does
Speaker 2: have a proven record. He genuinely is a winner. I mean,
Speaker 2: won by almost twenty points in the gubernatorial election. There
Speaker 2: is zero arguing with that electorally. So really it comes
Speaker 2: down to Trump has a very very high tail risk.
Speaker 2: We have high levels of affection, we will have gobs
Speaker 2: of money by the conservative billionaire class who want to
Speaker 2: see something, who want to see at least some alternative
Speaker 2: to Trump, and he's got his legal problems. It's basically
Speaker 2: a I would say that they estimated as the risk
Speaker 2: is high enough with Trump that somebody else has to
Speaker 2: try and be The alternative question is is that are
Speaker 2: they right or are the odds really on their side?
Speaker 2: I would say no, like on a probabilistic scale, But
Speaker 2: reading this, I get it.
Speaker 3: I get where they're coming from.
Speaker 2: But you know, the risk is also very high for
Speaker 2: DeSantis on a personal level of this will humiliate him
Speaker 2: and basically relegate him to Chris Christy level status if
Speaker 2: he does lose.
Speaker 1: That, Yeah, could very well happen. And I have heard
Speaker 1: people coming on saying, you know what, he should just
Speaker 1: take a pass, like this is not.
Speaker 4: Panning out for him.
Speaker 1: The polls are sliding Trump is like it's becoming increasing Linklear.
Speaker 4: This is Trump's race to lose. It's like a foregone conclusion.
Speaker 1: But you know, I have to say, if I was him,
Speaker 1: I'd probably still take the shot because you just never
Speaker 1: know what's going to happen in politics. You know, there's
Speaker 1: enough chaos in the air with these investigations, and Trump
Speaker 1: is an old man as well. God only knows what's
Speaker 1: going to happen with him. That if you don't jump now,
Speaker 1: you do probably miss your best window and your best opportunities.
Speaker 1: So you know, is he even at a fifty percent
Speaker 1: chance in my opinion, not even close.
Speaker 4: But I disagree with people who are saying.
Speaker 1: Like it's so obvious that he should just stay out altogether,
Speaker 1: because I don't know that he gets another window of
Speaker 1: opportunity that is as clear he's riding it as high
Speaker 1: as that he's ever going to ride right now. So
Speaker 1: if you don't take the shot now, you're probably going
Speaker 1: to miss your chance.
Speaker 4: New York Times has a.
Speaker 1: Piece that has some of these details that's going to
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen, also about Iowa and
Speaker 1: their pitch and their thought of how this could all
Speaker 1: work out into Santis's favor. They also, though, include some
Speaker 1: of the downside risk and some of how the wheels
Speaker 1: have already come off before he's even gotten to the
Speaker 1: starting line. They say, why we're on DeSantis is limping
Speaker 1: to the starting line. They describe his central electability pitch
Speaker 1: as Maga without the mess, but they say that's been
Speaker 1: badly bruised, and specifically they point to a book tour
Speaker 1: that was supposed to have introduced him nationally but had
Speaker 1: a lot of missteps and called into question his readiness
Speaker 1: for the national stage. They point to his comments on
Speaker 1: Ukraine and his comments on abortion as causing some turbulence
Speaker 1: in particular among the donor class, and it really highlights
Speaker 1: how he has a very difficult coalition to put together
Speaker 1: here because he's trying to appeal number one, to sort
Speaker 1: of the most hard right ideological part of the Republican
Speaker 1: base with things like, you know, really stringent abortion restrictions,
Speaker 1: and he's also trying to appeal to the more moderate
Speaker 1: part of the Republican base that is done with Trump.
Speaker 1: And if you can't put all of those pieces together,
Speaker 1: you just don't have nearly enough to you know, get
Speaker 1: over the fifty percent threshold, which is what you will
Speaker 1: likely need. So it shows just how tricky it is
Speaker 1: to hold those pieces together.
Speaker 4: They've got a quote.
Speaker 1: From a metals magnate who had given Dysanta's fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars last year, who said, I was in the DeSantis camp,
Speaker 1: but he started opening his mouth and a lot of
Speaker 1: big donors that his views are not tolerable. This donor
Speaker 1: sited specifically abortion and Ukraine. There was reports of a
Speaker 1: couple of big donors who actually took meetings with the
Speaker 1: Ramaswami Yeah as well. So people are weighing their options
Speaker 1: now as Ronda Santa's gonna have plenty of money. Yes,
Speaker 1: But again, I think what this underscores is the inherent
Speaker 1: tensions in groups of people, the very disparate groups of
Speaker 1: people that he is trying to put together to build
Speaker 1: this campaign.
Speaker 2: Exactly, how are you going to appease Ken Griffin who
Speaker 2: hates Trump, hates any Trumpian position on our conservative position
Speaker 2: on abortion, and hates any conservative position on Ukraine, when
Speaker 2: at the same time you need his money to run
Speaker 2: because you also need to if you're going to be
Speaker 2: the Republican nominee win over people who are Trump voters.
Speaker 3: I just think it's a very very difficult case.
Speaker 2: And also these donors, as you know and as evidence here,
Speaker 2: they're the most fickle people on earth. If you don't
Speaker 2: fet them constantly, then they go to somebody else. And
Speaker 2: actually this gets to a level of not even retail politics,
Speaker 2: but internal operational politics, which is DeSantis by all accounts,
Speaker 2: is bad at I mean, we've covered the stories here
Speaker 2: about how the guy who sat next to him for
Speaker 2: several years in the House said literally, quote, he's an
Speaker 2: a hole because he didn't talk to him. You had
Speaker 2: other congressmen, you had that one congressman who knew him
Speaker 2: while he was in Washington, took a meeting with him
Speaker 2: and then immediately after the meeting endorsed Trump because basically
Speaker 2: made it known. He's like, yeah, DeSantis was not one
Speaker 2: of the guys when he was in Congress.
Speaker 3: He didn't like to hang out with us. He wasn't
Speaker 3: particularly nice to us.
Speaker 2: Now he's coming to us and he wants our vote,
Speaker 2: and we're like, hey, we remember whereas Trump would call
Speaker 2: me when I was in the hospital.
Speaker 3: He called me when I was sick.
Speaker 2: These are, unfortunately, like, this is how politics runs. This
Speaker 2: is a game of human beings. And I even saw,
Speaker 2: you know, internal some of these stories. They're like Desanti's
Speaker 2: a's have acknowledged, like he needs to smile more and
Speaker 2: he needs to call people.
Speaker 3: It's like, listen, man.
Speaker 2: If you have to be told to call people and
Speaker 2: you're if you're Eisenhower and you're one of the most
Speaker 2: popular figures in America, that's a different story.
Speaker 3: You can learn some of this game.
Speaker 2: But when you are the underdog, then you need to
Speaker 2: be doing all of this stuff and not just now,
Speaker 2: you need to even doing this for twenty years.
Speaker 3: That's the Bill Clinton came.
Speaker 1: I think it's telling that he does better with endorsements
Speaker 1: in a state like Iowa, where people don't really know
Speaker 1: him than.
Speaker 4: In his home state.
Speaker 1: I mean in Florida, there was a landslide of endorsements
Speaker 1: towards Trump, and like in a really pointed in your face,
Speaker 1: f you kind of way where they were telling the
Speaker 1: press you know this guy. He told me to come
Speaker 1: to his like hurricane press conference, that I was going
Speaker 1: to be there, and when I show up, they're like, nope, sorry,
Speaker 1: you can stand in the back. We don't want to
Speaker 1: say anything about you or have you up next.
Speaker 4: To the governor, Like what are you thinking with that?
Speaker 3: What do you think?
Speaker 1: And I would also say, I mean that's on him,
Speaker 1: that's also on his staff, because that is a bad situation.
Speaker 1: You lose that endorsement, that's embarrassing in your home state.
Speaker 1: He also means to get his facial expressions under control,
Speaker 1: because some of these photos are you know, Howard Dean's
Speaker 1: scream level kind of bad. The bobblehead thing we played
Speaker 1: for you, that was probably the worst. But even out
Speaker 1: of this very good news cycle for him coming out
Speaker 1: of Iowa, positive reception or whatever, there are some photos
Speaker 1: that came out of there too, that you're like, oh
Speaker 1: what do you like? What is your face doing right now?
Speaker 1: So any of the things like you can't really retrain.
Speaker 2: I was about to say, people are gonna be like, oh,
Speaker 2: you guys are being petty. No, I mean, listen, we
Speaker 2: have decades of politics to understand that all of these things,
Speaker 2: unfortunately end up mattering, sometimes more than a position on Ukraine.
Speaker 3: The scream literally took out Howard Dean.
Speaker 2: Which is, you know, in retrospect, is insane considering some
Speaker 2: of the things he was saying about the Iraq War.
Speaker 3: Maybe those two things were combined. Who knows.
Speaker 2: These are all conspiracies from a long time ago. The
Speaker 2: point just is is that with these you know, ridiculous
Speaker 2: you know, small charismatic moments in.
Speaker 3: Politics, some of those actually can end.
Speaker 2: Up mattering a hell of a lot. Combined with a
Speaker 2: mass media that's going to focus on these things.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so we will see.
Speaker 1: But Desantas said apparently to launch very very soon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it'll come soon because the legislative season
Speaker 2: is eventually is up in Florida. All the accounts where
Speaker 2: he wanted to wait until they was done, so he
Speaker 2: had had a bunch of checkmarks on things that he
Speaker 2: was getting done. So the moment it ends, basically he's
Speaker 2: ready to roll all the accounts, say like he's in
Speaker 2: it to I guess to run it, maybe to win it,
Speaker 2: and we'll see.
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, let's talk about Elon Musk Twitter and
Speaker 1: the Turkish elections. A lot going on. Am I sick
Speaker 1: of talking about Twitter?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 1: I am, But they're keeping things that we have to cover.
Speaker 3: This is important.
Speaker 1: This is actually incredibly important because it goes to the
Speaker 1: heart of what Elon has claimed he's doing over at Twitter,
Speaker 1: which he says he's a free speech absolutist. He said
Speaker 1: he was buying Twitter, I mean, was sort of forced
Speaker 1: into it ultimately, but buying it to establish it as
Speaker 1: a beacon of free speech. And lo and behold, let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. So Turkey just had elections.
Speaker 1: We'll give you those results in just a moment. The
Speaker 1: Turkish government mere days before this critical and very close
Speaker 1: election asked Twitter to censor certain content that was unfavorable
Speaker 1: to art one, and Twitter just went ahead and complied.
Speaker 1: They say, in response to legal process to ensure Twitter
Speaker 1: remains available to the people of Turkey. We've taken action
Speaker 1: to restrict access to some content in Turkey today. So
Speaker 1: that's all the information we got. Glacias here highlighting the
Speaker 1: Turkish government ask Twitter to censor its opponents right before
Speaker 1: an election, and Elon must complied. Should generate some interesting
Speaker 1: Twitter files reporting, he snarkily adds, to which Elon responds,
Speaker 1: did your brain.
Speaker 4: Fall out of your head?
Speaker 1: The choice is have Twitter throttled in its entirety or
Speaker 1: limit access to some tweets?
Speaker 4: Which one do you want? Now?
Speaker 1: These choices are, you know, I guess difficult. You can
Speaker 1: either decide to go with the government censorship and do
Speaker 1: what the incumbent government wants, in effect to impact the
Speaker 1: results of an election, something that Elon Musk and many
Speaker 1: others have been very critical of Twitter under Jack Dorsey,
Speaker 1: engaging with the US government in particular, but other governments
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: Here, Elon, who's supposed to be the beacon of free speech,
Speaker 1: just immediately caves and is extraordinarly defensive about it and
Speaker 1: doesn't even consider the possibility that, Yeah, the principal thing
Speaker 1: to do would be, if that's really your choice, the
Speaker 1: principal thing would be to allow Twitter to be taken
Speaker 1: down rather than just see to the government's wishes. Ken Roth,
Speaker 1: who we've had on the show, said too clever by half.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk just gave away the store. By making clear
Speaker 1: he prioritizes Twitter's presence in a country over the platform's
Speaker 1: free speech principles, He's invited endless censorship demands to gain compliance.
Speaker 1: Governments will just threaten to expel Twitter. So now they
Speaker 1: know what they have to do, they'll just say, hey,
Speaker 1: we'll cut Twitter off, and he will bend to their wishes.
Speaker 1: And then he continued, go ahead and put this next
Speaker 1: piece up on the screen.
Speaker 4: He says.
Speaker 1: What makes this even worse is that must try to
Speaker 1: justify his acquiescence to censorship demands by saying people can
Speaker 1: change the law allowing censorship, but must accepted censorship on
Speaker 1: the eve of today's election, making it harder for people
Speaker 1: in Turkey to change the law. So listen, whatever Elon
Speaker 1: Musk is wanting to do with Twitter, and what he's
Speaker 1: wanting to turn it into, and whatever changes he wants
Speaker 1: to make from the Jack Dorsey era, I think we
Speaker 1: can all put to bed the idea that this is
Speaker 1: a committed free speech play. Because between this between censorship
Speaker 1: in India between taking off random journalists that piss them off.
Speaker 1: I mean, anyone, I think at this point has to
Speaker 1: acknowledge that whatever is going on here, it is not
Speaker 1: at its core about free speech.
Speaker 2: Well there, the capriciousness of taking journalists you don't like
Speaker 2: off is one thing, but acquiescing to government demands is
Speaker 2: actually a whole other thing.
Speaker 3: And once again, I actually think this is a fine.
Speaker 2: Position if you don't bill yourself as a free speech platform.
Speaker 2: This is basically the position of YouTube, of Facebook, and
Speaker 2: of Google.
Speaker 3: They comply with local law.
Speaker 2: In fact, anytime you ask Apple, you're like, hey, why
Speaker 2: did you do this thing on behalf of the CCP,
Speaker 2: They're like, listen, we do business in China. If you
Speaker 2: want to do business in China, you got to abide
Speaker 2: by Chinese law. I'm like, okay, I mean I don't
Speaker 2: agree with that necessarily. I think that we should actually
Speaker 2: set standards to make it so that some companies don't
Speaker 2: do that. But at the end of the day, I
Speaker 2: think it's a defensible capitalist position. Yeah, but this was
Speaker 2: not their reason why you say you were going to
Speaker 2: buy And on a principles level, like now he's in
Speaker 2: our world. Quote, by free speech, I simply mean that
Speaker 2: which matches the law. I'm against censorship that goes far
Speaker 2: behind the law. If people want less free speech, they
Speaker 2: will ask the government to pass laws to that effect.
Speaker 2: A that presumes that all governments are democracies. Considering what
Speaker 2: we know about corruption around this world, that sounds pretty ridiculous. Now,
Speaker 2: in some cases, it is true that democratic places like
Speaker 2: India genuinely do push censorship, and they're probably vastly supported
Speaker 2: by the population.
Speaker 3: But to argue that in China, to argue that in Vietnam,
Speaker 3: to argue that in Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 2: Bahrain, Qatar and the other is ludicrous. There's no democracy.
Speaker 2: There are literal monarchies, I mean, and that is where
Speaker 2: I think that that is where Elon's position falls apart.
Speaker 2: I mean, frankly, by this policy, the very thing which
Speaker 2: gave so much hope to social media, the Arab Spring,
Speaker 2: never would have happened, because under that rule they would
Speaker 2: have complied with the Mubarak government orders and they would
Speaker 2: have taken down Twitter, you know, so that you wouldn't
Speaker 2: maybe you wouldn't have had an Arab Spring at all.
Speaker 2: I mean, by people forget, you know, before a lot
Speaker 2: of a lot of the US government censorship resim was
Speaker 2: architected under ISIS because ISIS was very active on Twitter
Speaker 2: as a recruiting tool, and Twitter actually held up a
Speaker 2: free speech defense from two thousand and probably like thirteen
Speaker 2: or so from the very emergence of ISIS for at
Speaker 2: least a year or two for a while before they
Speaker 2: were able to comply. Now once again, you know this,
Speaker 2: maybe it was redtecision or not, but at the very
Speaker 2: least that architecture was used to eventually build up the
Speaker 2: censorship regime after the Trump election in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: So look, there's no question about it.
Speaker 2: This is not a free speech position period, zero at all,
Speaker 2: especially with the idea that if you know countries want it,
Speaker 2: then they'll get it. I'm like, first of all, it's
Speaker 2: not even true in.
Speaker 3: Our own country. We live in a pretty democratic place.
Speaker 2: Now imagine it in like a place which is genuinely
Speaker 2: just full scale authoritarian.
Speaker 1: Yes, And you know, there was some information that came
Speaker 1: out from independent Turkish journalists about who exactly was being censored.
Speaker 1: Lo and behold it was investigative journalist who're exposing things
Speaker 1: the Ertuwan regime didn't like in particular, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of questions about exactly what happened in that previous
Speaker 1: coup attempt. This information was supposed to be released on Saturday,
Speaker 1: and lo and behold, that's when the censorship demand comes
Speaker 1: in and Twitter caves to it. I think there's a
Speaker 1: few more things to say about it.
Speaker 4: One is that.
Speaker 1: It's particularly important in a country like Turkey where almost
Speaker 1: all of the media has been bought by Erdowan allies,
Speaker 1: so there is very little independent media inside of that country,
Speaker 1: and so social media becomes all that much more important.
Speaker 4: That's number one.
Speaker 1: Number Two, Elon has business dealings in Turkey with the
Speaker 1: Turkish government, as he does with the Indian government, as
Speaker 1: he does with many other governments around the world. Again,
Speaker 1: that is not illegal, but it calls into question is
Speaker 1: your commitment to Twitter, is your commitment to free speech,
Speaker 1: is your commitment to your broader you know, business ventures
Speaker 1: and bottom line? Because those are all very different things
Speaker 1: that are going to result in very different outcomes. And
Speaker 1: then the last point to make here is that actually
Speaker 1: there's some indication that previous Twitter was better on these
Speaker 1: sorts of demands.
Speaker 4: This is from jud Legam.
Speaker 1: He said in the six months following Must take Over,
Speaker 1: Twitter did not report a single request from governments in
Speaker 1: which the company refused to comply, whereas they did refuse
Speaker 1: to comply with three requests in the six months before
Speaker 1: must take over and five requests in the six months
Speaker 1: before that. Also last month, Twitter stopped sharing the censorship
Speaker 1: demands that it even receives from governments, So by that metric,
Speaker 1: Twitter under Jack Dorsey was also was actually better at
Speaker 1: standing up to these government censorship demands than the supposed
Speaker 1: free speech absolutency.
Speaker 2: It's a very very foolish and it's one of those
Speaker 2: where it really just doesn't make any sense. You know,
Speaker 2: we this was flag to us. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: Jimmy Wales was the founder of Wikipedia, said what Wikipedia did.
Speaker 2: We stood strong for our principles and we fought this
Speaker 2: to the Supreme Court of Turkey and won. This is
Speaker 2: what it means to treat freedom of expression as a
Speaker 2: principle rather than a slogan. And that is, you know,
Speaker 2: that's basically it, which is he was like, Okay, we're
Speaker 2: not going to comply. Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia said we're
Speaker 2: going to take this all the way to the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court of Turkey and they actually won even in that country,
Speaker 2: So that proves that Emon could have fought this if
Speaker 2: he wanted to, and basically just caved to the initial
Speaker 2: demand of the air to wander. Maybe it honestly just
Speaker 2: came from confusion. He was like, oh, airedon Wan is
Speaker 2: a dictator. We don't have any avenue, so we'll just
Speaker 2: go ahead and do what he wants. Whereas others, you know,
Speaker 2: just look at their legal team, they're like, Okay, well,
Speaker 2: actually we can we have some level of challenge here,
Speaker 2: and if we don't win, then we'll see what happens
Speaker 2: and we can make a decision. But at least challenge
Speaker 2: the order, especially in the middle of a goddamn election
Speaker 2: when it probably matters the most.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and some of these government threats of like, oh,
Speaker 1: we're going to take the whole platform down if you
Speaker 1: don't comply, don't come to fruition number one in the
Speaker 1: case of Wikipedia did though apparently Wikipedia was down in
Speaker 1: Turkey for years while this was being resolved. But they
Speaker 1: were committed to the principle, and since they fought it,
Speaker 1: guess what other governments are going to be less likely
Speaker 1: to come to them with these demands, because they know
Speaker 1: that they're not going to just instantly cave when you say, oh,
Speaker 1: take down your platform. They know they're not going to
Speaker 1: just instantly cave and acquiesce. As we've mentioned a few times,
Speaker 1: the reason this was so important right in this moment
Speaker 1: is because Turkey is in the midst of a hotly
Speaker 1: contested re election fight for Ertawan. We do have some
Speaker 1: results here. Let's put this up on the screen from Broiders.
Speaker 1: That election is so close that it is actually headed
Speaker 1: now to a runoff. Neither of the candidates were able
Speaker 1: to achieve the fifty percent that would be needed in
Speaker 1: order to avoid a runoff. Now, Erdawan did outperform somewhat
Speaker 1: the polls. He has about a five point lead over
Speaker 1: his opponent, whose name I am sadly not even going
Speaker 1: to attempt to pronounce. But the reason that Irtawan was
Speaker 1: apparently in trouble here is because the economy has been trash.
Speaker 1: They've had up to eighty percent inflation, so devastating levels
Speaker 1: of inflation, and then they also had that horrific, tragic earthquake.
Speaker 1: And obviously no one can control mother Nature. But some
Speaker 1: of the construction projects that have been undertaken under Ertawan
Speaker 1: were really shoddily done, and so that contributed, some are
Speaker 1: saying to the death toll.
Speaker 4: There was also a lot.
Speaker 1: Of consternation about the initial response not being.
Speaker 4: Aggressive or effective enough.
Speaker 1: So that's why he was in and continues to be,
Speaker 1: you know, in such trouble here. There was a third
Speaker 1: candidate in this race. Of course, he'll be out now
Speaker 1: for the runoffs, so they'll be head to head who
Speaker 1: that person who got like five percent of the vote
Speaker 1: who they endorse, is going to ultimately be very critical.
Speaker 1: But you can see how this is a game of inches,
Speaker 1: and so you know, you take some critical journalists who
Speaker 1: are about to drop some significant reports off of social
Speaker 1: media and make it very difficult for the public to
Speaker 1: be aware of what's going on there, especially with the
Speaker 1: state media, with the local media in Turkey being basically
Speaker 1: state propaganda. At this point, you see why these decisions
Speaker 1: really really matter.
Speaker 4: I mean, if you thought the Hunter.
Speaker 1: Biden laptop situation was egregious, which of course we did,
Speaker 1: the level of censorship that's going on in Turkey is
Speaker 1: far and beyond that and far and more far more
Speaker 1: critical in terms of potential election.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's why it matters exactly.
Speaker 2: It actually arguably matters way more over there than it
Speaker 2: does even here, just because the level of control that
Speaker 2: the state has exactly over official communications. I think it's
Speaker 2: really a tragedy, you know, to bring these again. Like
Speaker 2: you said, you have no idea how these things can go.
Speaker 2: But I do think that these platforms, the ability to
Speaker 2: express yourself and all that they matter the most in
Speaker 2: some of these because they can make the biggest impact
Speaker 2: when you have zero voices of dissent, and that's part
Speaker 2: of why these governments are so obsessed with policing them
Speaker 2: at all times.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's right.
Speaker 1: Other big names with regard to Twitter, which is that
Speaker 1: you will recall some time ago, many months ago, Elon
Speaker 1: did his little Twitter Bowl and said should I step
Speaker 1: down a CEO? And the yes, you should step down
Speaker 1: position one, But we hadn't gotten much movement there in
Speaker 1: terms of him moving aside, while we do now have
Speaker 1: a CEO who has officially been chosen.
Speaker 4: Her name is Linda Yakarino.
Speaker 1: She works She's a high level executive at NBC Universal
Speaker 1: in charge of basically bringing in all of their advertising dollars.
Speaker 1: So she's very well versed in the world of advertising,
Speaker 1: the world of corporate sponsors. That's where all her relationships alied,
Speaker 1: not so much on the tech side, and she's kind
Speaker 1: of coming in for criticism from here from all corners
Speaker 1: in terms of how she's likely to run Twitter, in
Speaker 1: terms of what her politics are. One of the things
Speaker 1: that really caught our eye is she actually interviewed Elon
Speaker 1: not that long ago, and she was pushing him on
Speaker 1: behalf of advertisers corporations to reinstate this influence council so
Speaker 1: that you know, corporate marketing heads could be in constant
Speaker 1: communication with Twitter and trying to push them and shape
Speaker 1: their decisions on things like content moderation. Elon here takes
Speaker 1: the principle like I don't think that'd be a great
Speaker 1: idea stance, But just listen to how she positions and
Speaker 1: frames her views.
Speaker 4: Take a listen to some of us.
Speaker 6: For example, you've said you probably shouldn't tweet after three am.
Speaker 4: Well, I've got good advice for all of us.
Speaker 7: I've got myself into trouble a few times.
Speaker 6: I'm very aware of those. So after three am you
Speaker 6: travel all over the world. Lord knows how you handle
Speaker 6: time zones in space. Will you commit to be a
Speaker 6: little more specific and not tweet after three am? People
Speaker 6: in this room would like to see that.
Speaker 4: We'll make them fear more.
Speaker 7: I will aspire to tweet less after three am. But
Speaker 7: I mean it is important that you know. I mean,
Speaker 7: if I were to say, yes, you can influence me,
Speaker 7: that would be wrong. That would be very wrong. That
Speaker 7: would be a diminishment of freedom of speech.
Speaker 6: But I want to be specific about influencing. It's more
Speaker 6: of an open feedback loop for the advertising experts in
Speaker 6: this room to help develop Twitter into a place where
Speaker 6: they will be excited about investing more money.
Speaker 7: It's totally cool to say that you want to have
Speaker 7: your advertising appear in certain places in Twitter and not
Speaker 7: in other places. But it is not cool to try
Speaker 7: to say what Twitter will do, and if that means
Speaker 7: losing advertising dollars, we lose it. But freedom of speech
Speaker 7: is paramount.
Speaker 6: Twitter one point zero had a very well populated, much
Speaker 6: loved influence counsel. I know, I don't. I think we
Speaker 6: need to change the Elan does not want to be influenced.
Speaker 1: So the influence council may not be coming back. But
Speaker 1: instead he just decided to get one of the advertising
Speaker 1: executives to run the whole joint.
Speaker 3: I think it's just very clear what happened here about it.
Speaker 2: For forty four billion, he paid probably fifteen to twenty
Speaker 2: billion more than it was actually worth after the downturn.
Speaker 2: Now he's stuck with it, couldn't get out of it
Speaker 2: after suing, and it.
Speaker 3: Had his fun.
Speaker 2: Tried to Twitter Blue was a disaster by all accounts.
Speaker 2: He's not bringing in more than a couple million dollars
Speaker 2: per month, which is not going to cover the five
Speaker 2: billion dollars in revenue that they were already making per
Speaker 2: year anim on advertising. And don't forget the five billion
Speaker 2: dollar revenue that they were making actually was not enough
Speaker 2: to turn a profit. They were still running at a loss,
Speaker 2: so they probably need to make six billion. Well, I
Speaker 2: since he fired ninety percent of the staff or whatever,
Speaker 2: let's say it was less than that because staff at
Speaker 2: the end of the day still was not some of
Speaker 2: the more significant operations that they were spending. So who
Speaker 2: do you turn to. You turn to the only other
Speaker 2: revenue that you can tap. You tried direct subscription, It
Speaker 2: didn't work out. You got to go to the advertisers.
Speaker 2: If you're going to the advertisers, you got to get
Speaker 2: a Madison Avenue beloved figure. Let's go and put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. That's exactly what the Wall
Speaker 2: Street Journal and the Business Press are describing her as, quote,
Speaker 2: meet Linda Yacarino and Elon Musk, new Twitter CEO and
Speaker 2: the ad world's velvet hamp billionaire bets the NBC Universal
Speaker 2: executive with Madison Avenue ties will bring advertisers back to Twitter.
Speaker 2: And what do we learn from Linda Yacarino. This is
Speaker 2: a long term, longtime New York City kind of aligned
Speaker 2: Madison Avenue executive with deep ties to the media industry.
Speaker 2: They say she's regarded as sales machine, the velvet hammer
Speaker 2: because of her hard nosed negotiation tactics come wrapped in
Speaker 2: a friendly package.
Speaker 3: Ideologically, they say that she is aligned with Musk.
Speaker 2: I don't really know what that means for somebody who
Speaker 2: literally worked at NBC, but according to them her track record,
Speaker 2: she had a two thousand plus advertising sales team and
Speaker 2: they have generated more than one hundred billion dollars in
Speaker 2: ad sales over the last twelve years, which is crazy
Speaker 2: for NBC Universal. Before that, she worked at Turner Broadcasting,
Speaker 2: Warner Brothers Discovery. She steered the company through decline in television.
Speaker 2: So this is a very This is as like swampy
Speaker 2: as it gets. I think whenever it comes to the
Speaker 2: ad business, not saying that necessarily in a bad term,
Speaker 2: because that's kind of what you need. Yeah, if that's
Speaker 2: the way that you want to go. Now, is this
Speaker 2: the free speech executive?
Speaker 3: No? No, not even question.
Speaker 1: I mean it fits with the previous segment of like,
Speaker 1: is this a smart choice? If you're just looking at
Speaker 1: the bottom line, I think it's a smart choice. That's
Speaker 1: great because they desperately need to bring advertisers back.
Speaker 4: She has deep.
Speaker 1: Relationships within the industry. She can call them up, she
Speaker 1: can smooth them. Things are going to be different. I've
Speaker 1: got your back. They tell a story actually in this
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal article, just to give you a sense
Speaker 1: of how she would operate.
Speaker 4: Over at NBC Universal.
Speaker 1: There was some big placed, you know, expensive ad for
Speaker 1: I think it was General Motors that ran during the
Speaker 1: Today's Show, but ran next to an advertisement that you know,
Speaker 1: painted some negative picture of like lithium, and they thought
Speaker 1: it was it was bad to have those two things together.
Speaker 1: So she immediately calls up GMS. This I'm going to
Speaker 1: make it right. We're going to run it again on
Speaker 1: the Today Show. So she's heightened sensitivity towards how these
Speaker 1: corporate executives and corporate advertisers are going to think about
Speaker 1: where their ads are and what it's put up next to.
Speaker 1: That's going to be her priority. She's going to tell
Speaker 1: them I have your back. And as we've said from
Speaker 1: the beginning, there's a reason why all of these platforms
Speaker 1: are run from in a very similar way when it
Speaker 1: comes to content moderation, and it is not because of
Speaker 1: the government, actually, I mean that's a piece of it.
Speaker 1: It's really overwhelmingly shaped by what are advertisers. What is
Speaker 1: corporate America going to be comfortable with?
Speaker 4: She's the expert at that.
Speaker 1: So again, is it an intelligent business decision to try
Speaker 1: to lure advertisers back, Yes, I absolutely think so. It's
Speaker 1: not like Twitter is like a complicated tech play. They've
Speaker 1: got their platform, they know generally what they're doing.
Speaker 4: They don't need a tech expert.
Speaker 1: They need someone who's going to be competent and has
Speaker 1: these relationships in the ad world. Is that remotely what
Speaker 1: Elon promised when he purchased his platform? Of course, not
Speaker 1: not remotely, and you know, there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: reading the tea leaves of what her politics are, and ultimately,
Speaker 1: with someone like this who's just, you know, at heart
Speaker 1: like a hard charging capitalist executive, I don't know that
Speaker 1: the underlying what she thinks about stop the stealer whatever
Speaker 1: actually matters, because the bottom line is going to be
Speaker 1: the bottom line with this person.
Speaker 4: But there was a lot of upset to put this up.
Speaker 1: On the screen among a lot of Elon Musk fans
Speaker 1: that she's very involved with the World Economic Forum. She
Speaker 1: chairs a committee there and has been involved for a.
Speaker 4: Number of years.
Speaker 1: And then on the other side, there was also upset
Speaker 1: from a lot of liberals and people on the left.
Speaker 1: It's some of the people that she follows and whose
Speaker 1: tweets she likes. I guess this is the part where
Speaker 1: maybe her politics theoretically are in line with Elon's, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, she follows people like Lynn Wood and Sydney
Speaker 1: Power and a lot of other right wing figures as well.
Speaker 1: But again I sort of think those pieces are to
Speaker 1: a distraction from her core function, which is to make
Speaker 1: Twitter a place once again that is going to be
Speaker 1: comfy for advertisers and basically just bring it back to
Speaker 1: the old regime.
Speaker 2: People like this, their personal politicies don't literally matter at all,
Speaker 2: like what they they're in many ways, they are the
Speaker 2: ultimate chameleons.
Speaker 3: Like whenever you're selling somebody, you don't sell one hundred.
Speaker 2: Billion dollars with the ads without being at all things
Speaker 2: to all people. You can be conservative when you need to,
Speaker 2: it can be the biggest lib whenever you need to.
Speaker 2: That's probably honestly that she was probably able to smooth him.
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 2: The other thing is for somebody like this, I don't
Speaker 2: know why you would leave a multi billion dollar corporation
Speaker 2: to work for one of the most capricious people on
Speaker 2: the planet who famously is hard charging with a tremendous
Speaker 2: level of risk. I mean, I guess if you do
Speaker 2: turn it around, you look like a genius. But almost
Speaker 2: nobody else has been able to last. I mean, so
Speaker 2: many other people who have worked for Elon, for example,
Speaker 2: there's a reason you don't really know the names of
Speaker 2: the other the junior executives at SpaceX or at Tesla.
Speaker 2: Elon is always the star at his companies. He'll work
Speaker 2: people into the ground. He takes I'm not going to
Speaker 2: say he takes credit because he is intimately involved and
Speaker 2: works just as hard as all of them, but it
Speaker 2: is clear in all these companies it's all about Elon.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: On the other hand, I never heard her name before
Speaker 4: and now I have.
Speaker 3: Yeah Fair.
Speaker 1: You know, she's the subject of a lot of news
Speaker 1: articles and a lot of speculation and a lot of interest,
Speaker 1: and so according to the Wall Street at Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal report, she was really miffed that she hadn't been
Speaker 1: promoted higher within NBC Universal. There was a position that
Speaker 1: came open that she wasn't even considered for, and she
Speaker 1: was upset with that. She made no secret of the
Speaker 1: fact that she wanted to be in a CEO position.
Speaker 1: So I guess she feels like this is her shot
Speaker 1: and has a lot of confidence in her ability to
Speaker 1: be able to turn things around, a lot of confidence
Speaker 1: in the relationships that she has in the ad world
Speaker 1: to try to bring those advertisers back to the platform,
Speaker 1: and so she's going to take her shot.
Speaker 3: She will take her shot.
Speaker 2: We will see how it all works out. Okay, let's
Speaker 2: go ahead and head to the next one. On Ukraine,
Speaker 2: A really crazy piece of news that we want to
Speaker 2: spend a little bit of time on because it fits
Speaker 2: very neatly with some other news that you already heard
Speaker 2: here on Breaking Points with the Washington Post is just
Speaker 2: catching up with Let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen from the drive, which is a fantastic publication.
Speaker 2: They say four Russian aircraft were shot down within their
Speaker 2: own borders.
Speaker 3: Now there are.
Speaker 2: Quote multiple possibilities as to what brought these aircraft down.
Speaker 2: Most would mark a major change in Ukraine's counter air abilities.
Speaker 2: So what they point to is that the Russian Air
Speaker 2: Force has allegedly had one of its worst days of
Speaker 2: the war in the year on Saturday. Details remain limited,
Speaker 2: It appears that Russia has lost two helicopters, a strike
Speaker 2: fighter and a fighter jet with no survivors. What makes
Speaker 2: quote this all is troubling for the air force is
Speaker 2: that all of these losses happened in its own countries
Speaker 2: areas not too far from the border with Ukraine. All
Speaker 2: four of the aircraft came from well within Russian territory
Speaker 2: opposite of northeastern Ukraine. Video shows one of the helicopters
Speaker 2: breaking up after what looks like a missile hits it
Speaker 2: near the town of Klinsky, fifty kilometers north of the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian border. Russia has now confirmed that some of these
Speaker 2: were shot down, with all nine.
Speaker 3: Aboard and four down of the aircraft were killed.
Speaker 2: Moreover, some have claimed at least one and possibly both
Speaker 2: were extremely.
Speaker 3: Rare electronic warfare variants.
Speaker 2: So anyway, this is a big problem for the Russian
Speaker 2: aircraft and for the Russian air force. Now what brought
Speaker 2: these things down? Initial claims suggested friendly fire had downed
Speaker 2: the aircraft and yet another case of fratricide by the
Speaker 2: Russian air defenses. But Russian authorities have begun hunts for
Speaker 2: quote saboteurs who were involved in the shootdowns, potentially partisans
Speaker 2: or Ukrainian special forces armed with manpads. That war has
Speaker 2: increasingly come now to this area of Russia and has
Speaker 2: could be involved in possible cross border incidents. So what
Speaker 2: the drives is that it's possible Ukrainian special forces and
Speaker 2: partisans managed to ambush these aircraft with these manpads. Now
Speaker 2: they say, if it not fractricized or manpads, Ukraine may
Speaker 2: have moved longer range surface to air missile systems closer
Speaker 2: to the Russian border, and that these air defenses are
Speaker 2: exceedingly valuable to Ukraine and stretch across the countries. These
Speaker 2: newer systems which were provided from the West, including the
Speaker 2: Patriot missile systems and others, are thought to be rapidly
Speaker 2: dwindling and this may be a change in the overall
Speaker 2: defense architecture. So once again, the Drive is a fantastic publication.
Speaker 2: They do a lot of air specific analysis and the
Speaker 2: reason why I think it was important to highlight this
Speaker 2: crystal is that, as they say, losing air superiority, which
Speaker 2: they haven't had over Ukraine now for a long time,
Speaker 2: but at the very least the ability to launch air
Speaker 2: attacks in combination with their cruise missiles and others has
Speaker 2: been a major strategic advantage for the Russians. Part of
Speaker 2: why the Ukrainians want these jets so badly because they
Speaker 2: want to be able to do battle and strike Russia
Speaker 2: as well, which I guess they are at least open
Speaker 2: up or at least to our policymakers. But the point
Speaker 2: is is that the escalation here by using US provided
Speaker 2: weapons systems to shoot down stuff inside of Russia. Yes,
Speaker 2: by the way, it is headed to Ukraine, no question
Speaker 2: about it. Morally not saying it isn't a fair game,
Speaker 2: only saying strategically, this marks a major change in the war,
Speaker 2: because if you start seeing major Russian assets not only
Speaker 2: get bombed but shot down inside of Russia, could change
Speaker 2: the calculus. Yeah, for the level of force of the
Speaker 2: Russians are willing and start to use.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 1: And it also shows you just the constant creep of
Speaker 1: this war, our involvement in it, what the Ukrainians are
Speaker 1: willing to do, what they're willing to admit to doing.
Speaker 1: I mean, we saw that drone strike on the Krumlin
Speaker 1: potential putin assassination.
Speaker 2: At should say that the Ukrainians denied. They denied, Oh,
Speaker 2: we had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 4: They deny all of this.
Speaker 1: But I mean early in the war, when there were
Speaker 1: reports of potentially strikes outside of Ukraine, this was a
Speaker 1: huge deal. Now this sort of news comes and goes
Speaker 1: like it's nothing, but it shows you if indeed the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians were behind these attacks, it shows you how brazen
Speaker 1: they're willing to be and how much they are willing
Speaker 1: to push and continue to escalate.
Speaker 4: And as we previously.
Speaker 1: Reported, some of the more brazen plans of Zelenski and
Speaker 1: his advisors have been short circuited just by the fact
Speaker 1: that they didn't have those longer range missiles. Well, guess
Speaker 1: what Britain has decided to send them now, long range
Speaker 1: attack drones with a range of over two hundred kilometers.
Speaker 1: So that opens up whole new possibilities for what they
Speaker 1: could do inside of Russia, and whole new set of
Speaker 1: risks of you know, potential dramatic escalation that could draw
Speaker 1: us even deeper into this conflict or lead to horrific
Speaker 1: you know, outcomes like Russia feeling forced into using a
Speaker 1: nuclear weapon, Not that I'm justifying if they ever did that,
Speaker 1: but feeling that their hand is forced in that sort
Speaker 1: of way. So this is a very dangerous set of circumstances.
Speaker 1: And Asaga alluded to, you know, one the things that
Speaker 1: I think maybe the most dramatic takeaway we had from
Speaker 1: those leaked documents was Zolenski plotting attacks and basically being
Speaker 1: unable to execute them just because we hadn't shipped him
Speaker 1: those longer range missiles. Well, the mainstream press is finally
Speaker 1: picking up on some of this reporting as well. I
Speaker 1: can put this up on the screen. This is from
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. Zelenski in private plots bold attacks inside
Speaker 1: of Russia. The leak shows US intercepts revealed the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: leader's aggressive instincts, a marked contrast to his public facing
Speaker 1: image as the stoic statesman weathering Russia's brutal onslaught. So
Speaker 1: they picked up on the incident we had inside those
Speaker 1: leak documents. From the documents, we were able to get
Speaker 1: a holdup. But the Washington Post has far more documents
Speaker 1: than we were even able to obtain, and they see
Speaker 1: a number of instances within those documents of Zelensky pushing
Speaker 1: really aggressive and Belko's action.
Speaker 2: Let me read this, Ukraine's leader has proposed going in
Speaker 2: an audacious direction, occupying Russian villages to gain leverage over Moscow,
Speaker 2: bombing a pipeline that transfers Russian oil to Hungary, bombing
Speaker 2: a pipeline interesting a NATO member privately pining for long
Speaker 2: range missiles to hit targets inside Russian borders. The documents,
Speaker 2: which they say previously not previously disclosed, they reveal a
Speaker 2: leader with aggressive instincts, as sharply contrast with his public
Speaker 2: image as the calm and stoic statesman weathering Russia's brutal
Speaker 2: on site. The insights were gleaned through these intercepted digital
Speaker 2: communications at the level to which US policymakers are forced
Speaker 2: to spy on Ukraine because they do not actually have
Speaker 2: any real insight into what he's doing. Once again, we
Speaker 2: told you all of this about a month ago. Put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. There's a screenshot that's
Speaker 2: our video that we did exactly on this one. And
Speaker 2: at the time, the reason that we did the story
Speaker 2: with the headline that we did was because we knew
Speaker 2: that it.
Speaker 3: Was so significant. Took the press a month to catch up.
Speaker 4: They had to do their witch hunt first.
Speaker 3: Ye first they had to the one.
Speaker 2: First, we had to do the witch hunt for the
Speaker 2: leaker and brandom and white supremacist, gun toting racist. Then
Speaker 2: we can able get to the news. But I'm not
Speaker 2: a defense to the guy, just saying that that's what
Speaker 2: they found. More, which is insane to me.
Speaker 4: Possible World War three, right.
Speaker 2: The leaker itself is the least interesting part of the
Speaker 2: entire story. The most important store are the docks to
Speaker 2: which they have decided to catch up to. I mean, look,
Speaker 2: it's clear as day, you can see it right here.
Speaker 3: This is what he wants to do.
Speaker 2: And you know, everyone always criticizes anyone who points this
Speaker 2: out as dangerous because they're like, well, wouldn't you Yes,
Speaker 2: I would, I would if I were him. But we're
Speaker 2: the ones who are providing him with all the weapons.
Speaker 2: So that means that we have a stake. Now, are
Speaker 2: you willing to have US provided weapons occupy a Russian
Speaker 2: village because that sounds like a pretty good pretext for
Speaker 2: the Russians to widen the war.
Speaker 3: Same thing whenever it comes to bombing and NATO, this
Speaker 3: is the other thing.
Speaker 2: He literally is proposing bombing a pipeline which provides oil
Speaker 2: to a NATO country. That is not only an act
Speaker 2: of war technically, that would be like an Article five
Speaker 2: level attack on the the NATO and the United States.
Speaker 3: Don't ask me.
Speaker 2: Go and look at the way that the US and
Speaker 2: NATO were reacting whenever they were blaming Russia for bombing
Speaker 2: the nord Stream pipeline. If suddenly that's all gone away,
Speaker 2: So they're floating these level of attacks which could very
Speaker 2: easily spiral into disaster if it.
Speaker 3: Was just them on their own. Go for it.
Speaker 2: Do what you want, because at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: the risk is all yours, but it's not. They've socialized
Speaker 2: the risks to all of us effectively, and so that
Speaker 2: means we have to have some level of concern. It's
Speaker 2: existential for them, it's not existential for us. That's the
Speaker 2: level of This is why you can have empathy for
Speaker 2: somebody and also not necessarily want to put your entire
Speaker 2: nation or put aside the nation let's say, hundreds of
Speaker 2: billions of dollars more. Is it really worth it for
Speaker 2: the dun boss? You know, I'm going back to reread
Speaker 2: one of my favorite books about World War One, and
Speaker 2: at the time there was a lot of consternation about
Speaker 2: Alsace Lorraine, a portion of France which used to be Germany,
Speaker 2: which changed hands multiple times between the nine hundreds and
Speaker 2: the eighteen hundred, and the level of fervor and the
Speaker 2: hundreds of thousands of French and Germans who died over
Speaker 2: this scrap of land and the city of Strasbourg.
Speaker 3: Was it really worth it? I mean, we're one hundred
Speaker 3: years later.
Speaker 2: Who cares about Alsace Lorraine. I'm sure the people there
Speaker 2: certainly do, But the generals and all them, they're like, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: it would be it would dishonor France to give up
Speaker 2: a scrap of Alsace and saying vice versa. For the Germans,
Speaker 2: it was like it reminds me so much of the
Speaker 2: dun Boss and the level of like insanity through which
Speaker 2: they were literally willing to risk the existent I mean,
Speaker 2: in the German case, quite literally, we're willing to destroy
Speaker 2: their entire regime for a scrap of territory which they
Speaker 2: only recently won.
Speaker 3: Back in the eighteen seventies. It sounds insane when you
Speaker 3: talk about it. Now.
Speaker 1: Let's also I mean crete has been destroyed, yes, the
Speaker 1: number of people who have been killed, civilians and military
Speaker 1: age men, which by the way, now if you are
Speaker 1: a military aged man, like even if you want to
Speaker 1: leave the country, you were banned from travel.
Speaker 4: The economy has been decimated. I mean, this has.
Speaker 1: Been our desire for this war to continue in the
Speaker 1: foolish aim of weakening Russia. Has been devastating for this country.
Speaker 1: I mean that at bottom is this is just it's
Speaker 1: a catastrophe for humanity, and the Russian losses are a
Speaker 1: catastrophe as well. You said something important, Soccer, which is
Speaker 1: that this war is existential for them. It's not for US,
Speaker 1: and that's exactly why Zelenski is so.
Speaker 4: In his mind.
Speaker 1: Again, I don't blame him, because I totally understand where
Speaker 1: he's coming from. I blame us, I blame our leadership.
Speaker 1: But he wants to make this war existential for us
Speaker 1: because that draws US into the conflict, and that makes
Speaker 1: it so that is their best chance to actually take
Speaker 1: back all of the territory that has been lost to Russia.
Speaker 1: So when he thinks about, you know, when we're thinking
Speaker 1: about an escalation and some sort of you know, direct
Speaker 1: involvement with Russia, we're thinking that's a disaster. He's thinking
Speaker 1: that could be a positive in my favor, because that
Speaker 1: could really strengthen my hand. So it just shows you
Speaker 1: how our interests are not the same. And you know,
Speaker 1: if you are have deep empathy for the Ukrainian people,
Speaker 1: which I truly, truly do, you have to want this
Speaker 1: war to be brought to a conclusion because this has
Speaker 1: been nothing but a disaster and a slaughter for everybody
Speaker 1: that is involved.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2: And look, I mean so even by all accounts, they
Speaker 2: have expended tremendous amounts of men and material that is
Speaker 2: going to dry up eventually in the city of Bakbu.
Speaker 2: I was just reading this morning. They're like, Ukraine makes gains,
Speaker 2: but Russia controls ninety percent of the city. What so
Speaker 2: you have poured tens of billions of dollars of Western
Speaker 2: aid into a battle where you still control less than
Speaker 2: ten percent of the entire city. Now the argument on
Speaker 2: the Ukrainian side as well, we're killing a whole bunch
Speaker 2: of Russian so they got millions of them. You're the
Speaker 2: ones with dwindling population and you have to literally close
Speaker 2: your borders in order to plug your holes. Russia has
Speaker 2: international allies, it's a great superpower. They've got an industrial base,
Speaker 2: they have nothing. Their city and economic base has been
Speaker 2: has been basically wiped out. I mean, using the World
Speaker 2: War One analogy, it literally is like you've got Russia here,
Speaker 2: which is a great power status its ability to have
Speaker 2: trade on the sea and have negotiations with other countries
Speaker 2: in draw from others, as well as have its own base.
Speaker 2: And then you basically got Ukraine, which is almost like
Speaker 2: a central power level one, which is expending in this
Speaker 2: existential conflict, but has vastly dwindling resource as well.
Speaker 3: Eventually, in some side of World War One style conflict.
Speaker 2: The one that does not have the capacity to continue
Speaker 2: to wage war both on a political and economic level
Speaker 2: is the one that's going to fold and eventually lose,
Speaker 2: and so pouring all of your men and resources existentially
Speaker 2: into a conflict over Bakmun is insane. And we even
Speaker 2: know that from the leaked Pentagon documents that they're like, look,
Speaker 2: we don't think this is the right thing to do.
Speaker 3: It seems like it's a screw up. Look I could
Speaker 3: be totally wrong.
Speaker 2: Maybe he's the greatest military genius since like Frederick the
Speaker 2: greater Napoleon.
Speaker 3: All Right, it's possible.
Speaker 2: He certainly pulled off the counter offensive, but it is
Speaker 2: May fifteenth. We continue to wait for what this counter
Speaker 2: offensive is going to look like. And if that is
Speaker 2: the last one, well he better plays cars right because
Speaker 2: if he doesn't, now what looks like Bakbut you're not
Speaker 2: even going to have the resources to try and do
Speaker 2: that again next year. The Russians will. They got plenty
Speaker 2: of money, they got plenty of men. If they want
Speaker 2: to do conscription again, they certainly can. So keep that
Speaker 2: in mind.
Speaker 1: Bach Mode is like a smoking hole in the ground
Speaker 1: at this point, and it's the photos still controlled ninety
Speaker 1: percent by the Russians. Yeah so, and we did warn
Speaker 1: against putting so much of his resources and focus into
Speaker 1: this battle, which is now the longest and bloodiest battle
Speaker 1: of this entire war, where.
Speaker 4: Again they're making small gains.
Speaker 1: But this is according to the New York Times too,
Speaker 1: by the way, Russia still controls about ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the largely ruined city. So is that impacting their ability
Speaker 1: to even launch this, you know much valley hoods spring
Speaker 1: offensive that we haven't seen yet.
Speaker 4: I mean, it certainly would. It has to be having
Speaker 4: an impact.
Speaker 1: And the whole idea has been, all right, let them
Speaker 1: do the spring offensive and strength in their hand and
Speaker 1: then maybe we can talk about negotiations. But if the
Speaker 1: spring offensive doesn't come together or isn't very effective, then
Speaker 1: what we're going to hear is like, oh, well, now
Speaker 1: we have to do even more because their hand wasn't strengthen,
Speaker 1: Russia's in too strong of a position. Of course, if
Speaker 1: the spring offensive does go well, then they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians can win.
Speaker 4: We got to keep pushing, We got to keep going.
Speaker 1: So so far up to this point, all roads have
Speaker 1: just led to more war, more conflict, push peace negotiations
Speaker 1: off for another day.
Speaker 3: That's right, Okay, let's go to the second party here,
Speaker 3: one of my favorites in a long time.
Speaker 2: Everybody in the West is applodding Germany. Germans, they say,
Speaker 2: if they have woken up to the criticism, they have
Speaker 2: decided we will provide Ukraine with more military aid.
Speaker 3: I said, oh, that's great.
Speaker 2: You know, it's your continent. You actually have fought wars
Speaker 2: with Russia. You're only ones have the most to lose.
Speaker 2: Maybe the more you gave, the less we have to.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: They have announced three billion dollars in military aid for
Speaker 2: Ukraine ahead of the expected Zelenski visit. Now that includes tanks,
Speaker 2: anti aircraft systems, ammunition. Zelenski is expected to visit Germany
Speaker 2: for the very first time since the Russian invasion. Berlin
Speaker 2: says they want to show that Germany is serious in
Speaker 2: its support for Ukraine. Germany quote will provide all the
Speaker 2: help it can, as long as it takes. I just
Speaker 2: want to again put this into perspective, how pathetic this
Speaker 2: is from the largest power on the European continent, the
Speaker 2: largest economic powerhouse, Germany, with its three billion dollars does
Speaker 2: not even match what the United Kingdom has given, does
Speaker 2: not come close to the level of military aid even
Speaker 2: provided by all the other EU institutions combined, and with
Speaker 2: their three billion is now one fortieth of what the
Speaker 2: United States has provided the Ukraine in military aid in
Speaker 2: terms of we have provided forty three billion dollars just
Speaker 2: in military aid. In some combination, it's been hundreds of
Speaker 2: billions in terms of explicit and implicit aid to Ukraine
Speaker 2: because all of US took a massive hit on our
Speaker 2: gas prizes, on economic supply chain issues globe worldwide, but
Speaker 2: especially here in the US, and on top of all
Speaker 2: of these other countries. But Germany with its three billion dollars,
Speaker 2: it's completely ridiculous, or three billion euros is completely ridiculous
Speaker 2: to consider this in any way something that's game changing,
Speaker 2: because what.
Speaker 3: Did I just lay out?
Speaker 2: The Ukrainians are pouring tens of billions of AMMO and
Speaker 2: of weapons and material into Bakmut. Three billion is like
Speaker 2: a month on the Bakmut front. If there's no way
Speaker 2: it's gonna plug any of the holes that they need.
Speaker 2: And this just shows you the titanic level of this conflict.
Speaker 3: If you want them to win.
Speaker 2: It would cost billions, like a billion, sorry, it would
Speaker 2: cost hundreds of billions of dollars, which we.
Speaker 3: Are not prepared to give.
Speaker 2: And the Ukrainians can barely cough or the Germans in
Speaker 2: the French and all think can barely cough up a
Speaker 2: billion or three.
Speaker 3: So then you only have one option, which is negotiation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's probably easier to just get to that
Speaker 2: point sooner rather than expending billions, expending lives, and then
Speaker 2: eventually coming to that point.
Speaker 3: Anyways.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, in the Wall Street Journal had a report
Speaker 1: put this next tweet up on the screen about how
Speaker 1: much we're really driving the train here, because they say
Speaker 1: the story suggests a lot of Western European support for
Speaker 1: Ukraine is a performance for Washington more than a response
Speaker 1: to real security fears. And you know, in that context,
Speaker 1: Germany making a big show of their three billion dollar
Speaker 1: contribution makes sense because if we're the ones, and this
Speaker 1: is how it has appeared from the beginning, we're driving
Speaker 1: the train. The UK is our junior, ally junior, even
Speaker 1: more hawkish ally, by the way, and this whole thing
Speaker 1: has unfolded according to our plan and our wishes and
Speaker 1: our desires. So yeah, if you're Germany or France or whoever,
Speaker 1: you're like, Okay, well you're into this thing, go ahead,
Speaker 1: you can do it. We'll throw in a little bit
Speaker 1: when you pressure us and shame us into doing it,
Speaker 1: or Asalunci come a visit so that we can keep
Speaker 1: up appearances. But go ahead, Americans and fund your conflict,
Speaker 1: your proxy war that you apparently seem to be so into.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, I probably would do the same thing
Speaker 2: of our with them, Like why wouldn't you fund your
Speaker 2: massive welfare state whenever you can only throw a few
Speaker 2: billion or whatever into a conflict which is genuinely important
Speaker 2: to you. It's just, you know, I always try and
Speaker 2: flip it around. If something was going on in Mexico,
Speaker 2: you think, really think that Germans would be spending X
Speaker 2: amount of their GDP and military aid.
Speaker 3: To help us out? No, never go ask that.
Speaker 2: Go find out if you want to go in google
Speaker 2: how much the Germans did in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: Almost nothing.
Speaker 2: The only NATO ally which really helped us out at
Speaker 2: all was the UK, to which I will give them
Speaker 2: tremendous amount of credit. They fought, died, and fought very bravely,
Speaker 2: but the rest of them, you know, all these other countries,
Speaker 2: they barely showed up. They had all these rules of
Speaker 2: engagement where they barely helped in the US campaign on Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: and that was when we were directly attacked and technically,
Speaker 2: you know, needed them as supposed to be some big
Speaker 2: NATO effort. You can go see, you know, in terms
Speaker 2: of the number of NATO advisors and troops. Once again,
Speaker 2: you know, you don't necessarily blame somebody for taking advantage
Speaker 2: of the situation, but just to show you, like in
Speaker 2: quote unquote our hour of need didn't show up all
Speaker 2: that well, of which a lot of people will tell.
Speaker 3: You about well.
Speaker 1: But Germany and France also, you know, at the beginning,
Speaker 1: really didn't seem to agree with our approach either, so
Speaker 1: you know, they were much more interested in negotiations and
Speaker 1: trying to avert this conflict to start with. They have
Speaker 1: been consistently more interested in, you know, bringing back together
Speaker 1: some sort of ceasefire negotiations.
Speaker 4: So they don't even view this the same.
Speaker 1: Way that we do, which is why I think, you know,
Speaker 1: they're reluctant to give more than what they're pressured into
Speaker 1: doing because they don't even they don't even really agree
Speaker 1: with the direction that we've taken the conflict in.
Speaker 2: So then let them do it the way that they
Speaker 2: want to, because it's their country and it's their land,
Speaker 2: and we don't, we barely have anything to do with
Speaker 2: it anyway.
Speaker 3: That's what it is.
Speaker 2: What it is, three billion dollars congratulation to Berlin.
Speaker 1: All right, So we have some new reporting about just
Speaker 1: how far back the issues with Senator Diane Feinstein go.
Speaker 1: Rolling Stone has a report here which just underscores a
Speaker 1: lot of people in DC, all the media. They all
Speaker 1: knew that she was not doing this job, that her
Speaker 1: staffers were doing this job, that she was in severe
Speaker 1: cognitive decline for years and years, and it's only recently
Speaker 1: that anyone has said anything about this. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen from Rolling Stone. Their headline is, Feinstein's
Speaker 1: health crisis goes back farther than we knew. Staff or
Speaker 1: the high ranking Democrat have four years had a system
Speaker 1: to keep her from walking the halls of Congress alone,
Speaker 1: sources tell Rolling Stone. This was, according to multiple sources,
Speaker 1: unbeknownst to Feinstein herself. They would have a staff member
Speaker 1: ready at any given moment to up and walk with
Speaker 1: her wherever she was going, because they were so worried
Speaker 1: about what she would say to reporters or anyone else
Speaker 1: she stumbled across if she was left unsupervised. So a
Speaker 1: literal babysitting plan to make sure that she doesn't have
Speaker 1: any exchanges that are not watched over by some staff
Speaker 1: member or another. And as they say, the system has
Speaker 1: been played in place for years. This one former staffer
Speaker 1: who left in sort of a very tense, conflicted circumstances.
Speaker 1: He spoke on the record to Rolling Stone and says
Speaker 1: they won't let her leave by herself, but she doesn't
Speaker 1: even know it. They talk also in this piece about
Speaker 1: how obviously Center's juggle a heavy schedule of votes, hearing
Speaker 1: some meetings on a wide range of subjects, Momentary lapses
Speaker 1: and mix ups about a topic are far from unheard of,
Speaker 1: But over the last several years, interviews with Feinstein devolved
Speaker 1: into confusion. On a near daily basis, a familiar pattern
Speaker 1: would emerge. Findzein would make an unexpected stance on a
Speaker 1: bill or policy position, only for her staff to quickly
Speaker 1: follow up by email to correct the record.
Speaker 4: Listen to this.
Speaker 1: It got to the point where reporters would pause before
Speaker 1: rushing to publish an otherwise newsworthy declaration because of the
Speaker 1: inevitability of staff reversing or statement.
Speaker 4: So what does that tell you?
Speaker 1: Every journalist who interacted with her over the past number
Speaker 1: of years, and every.
Speaker 4: Staffer who was working for her over the past.
Speaker 1: Number of years knew exactly how bad it was, and
Speaker 1: they didn't say a word to you. They did not
Speaker 1: tell the voters of California or anyone else anything about
Speaker 1: what everybody knew was a complete open secret. Perly, This former,
Speaker 1: a grief staffer, described office meetings were an issued be
Speaker 1: discussed for several minutes, only for findsein to bring up
Speaker 1: the same topic later in the same meeting, and then
Speaker 1: staff would have to go over it again like they
Speaker 1: had never talked about it. Because this was all brand
Speaker 1: new to her. And this is really astonishing, they said.
Speaker 1: She They began to have to noticeably restructure around her
Speaker 1: mental limitations in twenty nineteen because junior staff were making
Speaker 1: jokes about her cognitive decline. Interns were noticing it, so
Speaker 1: they made sure that there was no junior staff in
Speaker 1: meetings with her so that they could not see.
Speaker 4: How bad it was.
Speaker 1: And they cut off any of schedule events after mid afternoon.
Speaker 1: There's a quote in here where they say her days
Speaker 1: are all bad days. Now, now, this is sad to
Speaker 1: see in any human being. But what has been done,
Speaker 1: the lies and the cover up here to the American people,
Speaker 1: is an absolute disgrace.
Speaker 3: Oh, it is a disgrace.
Speaker 2: And you know, I kept saying that Feinstein herself is
Speaker 2: a disgrace, but others are pointing out now at this point,
Speaker 2: she really may be so far gone that she has
Speaker 2: no limited ability over her faculties and is so it's
Speaker 2: at that level where she has no probable understanding of
Speaker 2: how bad her situation is. So she just doesn't know
Speaker 2: now at this ry right, at some point she did
Speaker 2: certainly make a decision, and I do think that the
Speaker 2: ultimate authority lands with her, But now at this point
Speaker 2: it lands with her family, and it lands with her staff.
Speaker 3: I mean, at the very least with the staff.
Speaker 2: It's like, you need to just be very honest in
Speaker 2: these types of situations and be like, look, she can't
Speaker 2: do the job.
Speaker 3: It's just not gonna work.
Speaker 2: And they should have done that in twenty nineteen pre COVID.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's been over four years now of inauthentic
Speaker 2: representation for forty million people from the state of California,
Speaker 2: which is the ultimate disgrace. She's eighty nine years old,
Speaker 2: She's got two hundred million dollars in the bank. She
Speaker 2: could retire peacefully with her grandchildren and family in a beautiful,
Speaker 2: you know, mansion and NAPA. That's all anybody's asking here, right,
Speaker 2: That's all we're asking you that you give up, which
Speaker 2: is what most people would dream for in their retirement,
Speaker 2: and yet refuses to stop clinging to power. And now
Speaker 2: maybe at that point where she's angry, you know, and
Speaker 2: I think that you can actually kind of see that
Speaker 2: in some of her commentary where she wants to fight
Speaker 2: back with a press. She hates any suggestion that she
Speaker 2: should go or any of that. And at this point,
Speaker 2: I mean, you've got to have somebody responsible step in
Speaker 2: and call on her to resign, and nobody will do so.
Speaker 2: Rocanna got so much heat for doing it. I mean,
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsen needs to come out and just be like, look,
Speaker 2: I'm governor. I can barely get anything done with this woman.
Speaker 2: Like this is just not gonna work. I can't do
Speaker 2: it anymore. But he can't do it because of identity politics.
Speaker 2: What happened immediately, They suggested that Rocana was anti feminist,
Speaker 2: anti woman for suggesting that he's like, would you say
Speaker 2: the same thing about a woman? Yeah, I venture to say, yes,
Speaker 2: actually I do, especially for somebody who is this far gone.
Speaker 2: She's almost ninety years old. People, she's been in declining
Speaker 2: health now for four years. I mean, I said this
Speaker 2: in our last show, but the queen looked better two
Speaker 2: days before she died than finds I did.
Speaker 3: A queen could walk.
Speaker 2: You know, this is craziness whenever you're looking at her.
Speaker 3: I was shocked.
Speaker 2: We were on the editorial call when you were gone
Speaker 2: when that photo come out, and I literally yelled out
Speaker 2: the producers can I said, you guys aren't gonna believe this,
Speaker 2: and I sent them photo and we were.
Speaker 3: All like, oh my god, wow at what she what
Speaker 3: she and I'm not don't deceive you.
Speaker 1: Rogue got a lot of heat for what he said,
Speaker 1: which she said the right thing and the obvious thing
Speaker 1: that everyone by the way, yeah, everyone else on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill has been thinking for years, not for days, months, weeks,
Speaker 1: for years, they've been thinking this, he actually said. And
Speaker 1: he gets smeared as being sexist. I know, Ken Clippinstein
Speaker 1: got a lot of heat for putting the staffers on blasts,
Speaker 1: but you don't want these senior level staffers in particular.
Speaker 1: Come on, no one elected you, no one voted for
Speaker 1: you to be making these decisions and put in this
Speaker 1: position of power you are, first of all, I mean,
Speaker 1: what you're doing to her is egregious in and of itself, because,
Speaker 1: like you said, I think at this point she's too
Speaker 1: far gone to even know how bad things are. But
Speaker 1: the lies that you're perpetrating on the American puplist that
Speaker 1: is shameful. That is truly disgraceful. And guess what, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of jobs on Capitol Hill. You can
Speaker 1: get another job. Okay, It's going to be all right.
Speaker 1: So yeah, justice for Ken. Hashtag justice for Ken on
Speaker 1: this as well, because I think he pointed out an
Speaker 1: important piece and I think he's sort of forced to
Speaker 1: handle some of the media to report more on the
Speaker 1: dynam that are going on here behind the scenes.
Speaker 4: And it just makes you wonder.
Speaker 1: With this incredibly aged group of senators in particular, but
Speaker 1: legislators in.
Speaker 4: General, who else, what else are they hiding? What else
Speaker 4: do we not know? About these people and the way
Speaker 4: that DC.
Speaker 1: Runs, because apparently this was an open secret for years,
Speaker 1: and Nancy Pelosi will still get up there and lie
Speaker 1: to our faces that, you know, things are just fun
Speaker 1: and we shouldn't pressure her to retire because of.
Speaker 2: Sexist This is a repoken problem too. There was a
Speaker 2: guy Thad Cochrane. He had dementia and he very clearly
Speaker 2: was on his way out for years before he eventually
Speaker 2: did retire.
Speaker 3: I mean, he did the honorable thing, and he did
Speaker 3: retire at the end of the.
Speaker 4: Day after somebody finally reported off, after.
Speaker 2: People reported yeah on it, and people and even some
Speaker 2: of his staff were like, hey, man, like you gotta go,
Speaker 2: like it's just not working on and he said, okay,
Speaker 2: all right, I'll finally relinquish it. But a lot of
Speaker 2: these guys, I mean, they just are so power hungry
Speaker 2: that they refuse to let go. So yeah, I really
Speaker 2: do vacillate it. As to how much responsibility lies in
Speaker 2: her hands.
Speaker 3: I think it's probably twenty.
Speaker 2: Nineteen, right on that edge where she had to have
Speaker 2: the level of self knowledge at that point when she
Speaker 2: you know, right, when.
Speaker 3: She was right, when she was right for reelection running
Speaker 3: for re election.
Speaker 2: You should have had the level of knowledge to say,
Speaker 2: I'm at the end of my rope, I'm old, my
Speaker 2: husband is in declining health, it's time to go.
Speaker 3: And she made the decision to stay.
Speaker 2: Then it's also shameful that the people around her decided
Speaker 2: to proper up. Yeah, she's not a king, you know,
Speaker 2: she's an elected official. Yeah, you expect this behavior in
Speaker 2: the courts of Europe. You don't expect it from an
Speaker 2: elected politician.
Speaker 1: And Obama and Pelosi and co. Rescued her in that
Speaker 1: last reelect because the California Democratic Party had endorsed another
Speaker 1: candidate who had a very decent shot of unseating her
Speaker 1: and probably would have prevailed if the national Democrats, led
Speaker 1: by Obama hadn't swooped.
Speaker 4: In to her rescue. And now here we are.
Speaker 1: So we have a new contribution to the discourse over
Speaker 1: the CNN Trump town hall that we wanted to cover
Speaker 1: for you. This one is from John Stuart got and
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. He says, dear TV,
Speaker 1: the problem with the Trump town hall wasn't platforming or
Speaker 1: a fragile, siloed audience unable to be exposed to news
Speaker 1: where the opinion's antithetical to their own. The problem was
Speaker 1: an event that was clearly negotiated to Trump's approval, an
Speaker 1: ode to access. We promised good, sir, we are no
Speaker 1: longer fake news and enemy of the people.
Speaker 4: Let us prove it to you. We are fair and good,
Speaker 4: and we'll do this however you would like, just come back.
Speaker 1: I learned nothing from this town hall, he says about
Speaker 1: Trump and his most ardent supporters that I haven't known
Speaker 1: since twenty sixteen. I learned a lot about CNN, I
Speaker 1: have to say, Sager, I was a little surprised by
Speaker 1: how much of a freak out there was just over
Speaker 1: the idea of even having the town hall. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of things you could say about the
Speaker 1: way that it was conducted. I think, you know, the
Speaker 1: questions were questions that CNN's liberal audience wanted to hear,
Speaker 1: some of which needed to be asked, but which you
Speaker 1: were not going to get anything new. So the amount,
Speaker 1: and I think that point Stewart makes here is really apt,
Speaker 1: the amount that you were going to gain from those
Speaker 1: particular lines of questions. You knew that you weren't going
Speaker 1: to get him to admit that the twenty twenty election
Speaker 1: wasn't rigged. You knew generally what he was going to
Speaker 1: say about Egen Carol though that was newsy. You had
Speaker 1: to get his reaction to that, right, But the fact
Speaker 1: that they spent so much of their time on those
Speaker 1: topics that you knew you weren't going to gain any
Speaker 1: ground on that. You also know that listen, you may
Speaker 1: want it to be otherwise, the Republican base doesn't care.
Speaker 1: And actually they liked his response and they like where
Speaker 1: he stands. To me, that was the wasted opportunity and
Speaker 1: the place for critique of the way the town hall
Speaker 1: was conducted. The idea of, oh, you can't platform the
Speaker 1: former president who was very likely to be the Republican nominee. Again,
Speaker 1: I just I will never understand that line of thinking whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and actually Tara Pelmieri had some great insight from
Speaker 2: an audience member. Let's gohea and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen from Puck News inside the Trump CNN Thunderdome.
Speaker 2: So apparently the audience was actually told you're not allowed
Speaker 2: to blue boo, but you can applaud, you can cheer,
Speaker 2: which is definitely pretty weird. Yeah, because what she points
Speaker 2: out is that there were some people who were in
Speaker 2: the audience who definitely were not on board the Trump train,
Speaker 2: who were cringing. Now, don't get us wrong, like many
Speaker 2: people in the audience did love Trump and were cheering
Speaker 2: at some of the things that he were saying.
Speaker 3: But it's very odd that they were basically.
Speaker 2: Told you can only have positive It's like a positive
Speaker 2: ViBe's only side, except it's at a political event.
Speaker 3: That one is very odd.
Speaker 2: CNN claims that they had no that they agreed to
Speaker 2: no terms from Trump. I'm just I'm not so sure
Speaker 2: it's true, and I think also I'm not sure if
Speaker 2: you were aware, Crystal, they were supposed to go for
Speaker 2: ninety minutes. They actually cut it short at seventy minutes
Speaker 2: of broadcast, which is insane.
Speaker 3: Who does that.
Speaker 2: When you have the foreign president put Usually you wait
Speaker 2: until the guy cuts you off and then you're willing
Speaker 2: to go. Clearly, the producers in the room were like,
Speaker 2: this is a disaster, this is not working out for
Speaker 2: us well at all, and they pulled out from the event.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure, though I necessarily agree with John in
Speaker 2: terms of I learned nothing from this town hall about Trump,
Speaker 2: So I think CNN and Kaitln spent way too long
Speaker 2: on stop the Steal and on Egene Carroll's actually twenty
Speaker 2: five minutes by my account.
Speaker 3: That said, it's still as important politically.
Speaker 2: We did get an answer on the debt ceiling, which
Speaker 2: is crazy.
Speaker 3: Trump they spent.
Speaker 2: A crazy amount of money while he was president taxes
Speaker 2: for corporations and ballooned the deficit. Says we've been spending
Speaker 2: too much money, Like really, because he cut taxes quite
Speaker 2: a bit while you're in office. That seems pretty odd. Also,
Speaker 2: this is a criticism I think of the moderator. Somebody
Speaker 2: who actually knows anything about policy would have been like,
Speaker 2: what are you talking about? You ballooned the deficit by
Speaker 2: x amount while you were president. That's probably a good
Speaker 2: follow up question. Second, on abortion, so I'm not sure
Speaker 2: if he saw his abortion answer. It was the most insane,
Speaker 2: all over the place answer that I have ever seen
Speaker 2: him give. He's like, well, I was honored to do it,
Speaker 2: but I belie even the exceptions, the three exceptions, and
Speaker 2: also the Democrats are radical. And you're like, what, what,
Speaker 2: so are you proud of it or are you defending it?
Speaker 3: Do you agree with a ban or not? And he's
Speaker 3: like well, we'll see.
Speaker 2: I don't know the particulars. Everybody's got an answer. He
Speaker 2: is twisting himself in enoughs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was horrible.
Speaker 2: It was a horrible answer, of which politically will be
Speaker 2: a disaster for him. And then finally on Ukraine. I mean,
Speaker 2: the Ukraine answer was incredibly important, the first time he's
Speaker 2: really said it in a CNN type setting and clearly,
Speaker 2: you know, showing his belief around negotiation and diplomas. To
Speaker 2: the point is is that I actually think we did
Speaker 2: learn quite a bit politically. Also, I'm talking about this
Speaker 2: in my monologue, so preview. One of the dumbest reasons
Speaker 2: to say that platforming him was bad is that there
Speaker 2: is ample evidence to state that platforming him is the
Speaker 2: best thing you can do if you want.
Speaker 3: Him to lose.
Speaker 2: Like this, the abortion answer, they will be clipping. I
Speaker 2: was honored to overturn Roe versus Wade and play it
Speaker 2: in every battleground state on repeat from now until election day.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they should same with the stop the Steel answer.
Speaker 3: He's crazy. He actually believes it.
Speaker 2: So that's why I think, Look, politically it was good
Speaker 2: for the Democrats and media wise. Yeah, man, I mean,
Speaker 2: when you interview Trump, Like, sure, he's a loose cannon,
Speaker 2: you can't treat him, you know whatever, in the same way,
Speaker 2: But democratically, I didn't see any problem with you.
Speaker 1: I also think there's a lot of cope around why
Speaker 1: from Democrats, yes, around why Trump won in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: And one of the lines of cope is the media
Speaker 1: gave him too much attention, and that ignores like, oh,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats ran a horrendous candidate that they rigged
Speaker 1: the primary to make sure that they got, who ran
Speaker 1: a horrendous campaign, who didn't even like really campaign and
Speaker 1: certainly didn't campaign effectively in the you know, the blue
Speaker 1: wall states, in the industrial Midwest, who was seen as
Speaker 1: being totally out of touch.
Speaker 4: All of those like.
Speaker 1: That just gets totally swept under the rug, and it's like, well,
Speaker 1: they shouldn't have just they shouldn't have covered Trump so
Speaker 1: much and taken his rally so much. And look, I'm
Speaker 1: sure there's a lot of critique of the media in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. I'm not saying that they got it all right,
Speaker 1: But I also think that a lot of that is
Speaker 1: cope for some of the rot in the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: that contributed to that loss. That they've never wanted to
Speaker 1: deal with, and so now their response to Trump isn't okay,
Speaker 1: here's an effective way to combat him. Here's some of
Speaker 1: his insanity that is going to really turn people off.
Speaker 4: It's like, let's just.
Speaker 1: Pretend he's not there. It's like, guys were way pa
Speaker 1: at that point. This man was president of the United States.
Speaker 1: This man is way up in the polls. There is
Speaker 1: no chance that we can just like pretend he doesn't
Speaker 1: exist and hope that he goes away.
Speaker 4: It's just not going to work.
Speaker 1: Clearly, the Biden campaign at least agrees with your assessment,
Speaker 1: Sager that the more that Trump is the center of
Speaker 1: attention and the more Biden is not the center of attention,
Speaker 1: the better that is for them. That is the formula
Speaker 1: that they want. And so, in a sense, CNN did
Speaker 1: with this exactly what the Biden campaign would want them
Speaker 1: to do, which is to put on display, you know,
Speaker 1: the worst of the Trump insanity.
Speaker 3: Trump.
Speaker 2: Biden had a great tweet afterwards, not saying he tweeted it.
Speaker 2: He was just like the campaign tweeted out, It's simple, folks,
Speaker 2: you want four more years of that?
Speaker 3: If not join me at Joe Biden Dot com I
Speaker 3: was like, Eh, that's a great answer. It's like drama
Speaker 3: not drama. Now.
Speaker 2: I think there's a lot of criticisms of Biden and
Speaker 2: all that. I still think he has a lot of problems.
Speaker 2: And if you ran a policy focus and anti Trump campaign,
Speaker 2: that sounds better. But they've decided to go only in
Speaker 2: one direction. Okay, that's you know, their perilous thing. That said, though,
Speaker 2: something that drives me nuts exactly about the analysis is
Speaker 2: where do the voters factor in here? CNN showing an
Speaker 2: empty Trump podium didn't cause sixty five million people to
Speaker 2: pull a lever for Trump. It's multifaceted. And Caitline actually
Speaker 2: said something was drove me insane. She said, you cannot
Speaker 2: say that on our air, mister president. And I remember
Speaker 2: being like, really, did somebody elect the CNN like a
Speaker 2: CNN now more important than the president of the United States.
Speaker 2: It's like, who are you to say you cannot say
Speaker 2: that on our air, as if it's like the sacred
Speaker 2: air of CNN. Never seen any lies on the CNN
Speaker 2: platform before they all feel this way.
Speaker 3: I have a clip of Stephanie Rule.
Speaker 2: I've been playing my monologue, which just shows you the
Speaker 2: same thing about We're not going to talk about it
Speaker 2: at all. Nobody liked you people. You're just as sanctimonious
Speaker 2: and annoying as everybody else. In fact, you deserve each other.
Speaker 3: And that's why Trump went to CNN in the first place.
Speaker 2: He wanted to jab Fox, and he wanted to go
Speaker 2: on the network and show that he could own them
Speaker 2: on their territory.
Speaker 3: And he won.
Speaker 2: I mean, the MAGA people loved that town hall. It
Speaker 2: was the best thing that has happened for them. So
Speaker 2: I feel like everybody won from that. CNN got three
Speaker 2: million people to actually watch their crappy network, MAGA got
Speaker 2: all these moments of Trump owning CNN, and then the
Speaker 2: Biden campaign got all these clips that they can play on.
Speaker 4: I guess Ron DeSantis lost.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, actually even he only I mentioned one time
Speaker 2: that Trump actually went after him, which was kind of
Speaker 2: interesting too, considering that's a primary, that's another thing.
Speaker 1: But just the fact that the focus is all on travels,
Speaker 1: that's a loss for the sand I agree.
Speaker 2: That the big failure actually from CNN was not drawing
Speaker 2: more contrast on policy visa DeSantis and trying to trying
Speaker 2: to tease out what the actual differences between the two
Speaker 2: are if we ever get the chance he interview Trump
Speaker 2: or if we can ever line up something, That's one
Speaker 2: of the things I'll be hammering. I'll be like, all right,
Speaker 2: so you said you're going to do this, and Stances
Speaker 2: actually did it, So why shouldn't even believe.
Speaker 3: That you're going to do it.
Speaker 2: I don't think he's ever been asked a question in
Speaker 2: that in that form, and that's because most of the
Speaker 2: people are interview Trump are idiots, or are playing to
Speaker 2: CNN's media calmness about the plane fall audience or another
Speaker 2: as opposed to the actual voters who are making this decision.
Speaker 3: Anyway, I think that's what matters. Else, Crystal, what youre
Speaker 3: going to look at.
Speaker 1: An amazing moment on MSNBC is host Chris Jansing invited
Speaker 1: former twenty twenty presidential contender Hole and Castro to weigh
Speaker 1: in on the twenty twenty four Democratic primary.
Speaker 4: Didn't quite get.
Speaker 1: What she was expecting from this former Obama cabinet official
Speaker 1: and card carrying Democratic Establishment member.
Speaker 4: Just take a listen.
Speaker 8: I'm none as confident as a lot of people in Washington,
Speaker 8: and the Democratic establishment seem to be that Joe Biden
Speaker 8: is to do well against Donald Trump are concerning. Yeah,
Speaker 8: I mean, I think it's worrisome when you have a
Speaker 8: president that does have a record on the economy and
Speaker 8: other things that folks can be proud of, that he
Speaker 8: could be proud of, and yet you have him polling
Speaker 8: either right about tide in the margin of error with
Speaker 8: Trump or behind Trump in the ABC News Washington Post
Speaker 8: Pole a few days ago. And that's related to concerns
Speaker 8: that Democrats and some independents have with the president and
Speaker 8: something that has been unable to actually assuage the fears
Speaker 8: and the doubts that Democrats have. You cannot ignore the
Speaker 8: fact that more than half of Democrats in several polls
Speaker 8: over the last year have said that they wanted somebody
Speaker 8: other than Joe Biden to run. And right now, I
Speaker 8: think that the Democratic establishment is sort of trying to
Speaker 8: wipe that away, to sweep that under the rug. I'll
Speaker 8: give you a good example of that. The DNC have
Speaker 8: a lot of respect for him, like a lot of
Speaker 8: the people there, but then deciding that there will be
Speaker 8: no primary, no debate.
Speaker 3: I think they actually need to give Joe.
Speaker 8: Biden a chance to get out there and to show
Speaker 8: the American people what he can do. Then he can
Speaker 8: run that campaign and you know, be whoever runs in
Speaker 8: the primary, whoever those opponents are, even if it's just
Speaker 8: RFK Junior and Mary Anne Williamson, I don't think that
Speaker 8: they want to wait until the fall of twenty twenty
Speaker 8: four to have those debates.
Speaker 1: Now, my favorite part of that whole clip is Jansen's
Speaker 1: audible shock adharing Castro articulate the most.
Speaker 4: Basic and obvious facts, but facts that.
Speaker 1: Rarely if ever make it onto MSNBC's airwaves. His argument is,
Speaker 1: after all, indisputable. First of all, Castro points out diplomatically
Speaker 1: that it is pathetic, given Trump's finality incompetence and criminality,
Speaker 1: that Biden is at best tied with the man. Second,
Speaker 1: he makes the case that if Democrats are serious about
Speaker 1: actually beating Trump, a man they consider, or at least
Speaker 1: claim to consider, an existential threat, they better have a
Speaker 1: thoughtful process to assess every available candidate, or at the
Speaker 1: very least to allow Biden to sharpen his skills as
Speaker 1: best he can before he is up against the former
Speaker 1: president who still appears to fully have his wits about him.
Speaker 1: And finally, Castro points out that the DNC can't just
Speaker 1: sweep under the rug the fact that a majority Democratic
Speaker 1: voters do in fact want a Joe Biden alternative. By
Speaker 1: the way, even among MSNBC's propaganda fed faithful, it is
Speaker 1: very likely that a majority of their audience agrees fully
Speaker 1: with Julianne Castro.
Speaker 8: Here.
Speaker 1: After all, seventy nine percent of Biden's own twenty twenty
Speaker 1: voters want the Democratic Party to hold debates so that
Speaker 1: they can evaluate their alternatives.
Speaker 4: They actually believe in democracy.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's likely that the prevalence of this view
Speaker 1: gave Castro some level of comfort to bring up a
Speaker 1: point that is obvious to nearly everyone, but somehow unheard
Speaker 1: of in MSNBC green rooms. Both Chris Chansing and JULYI
Speaker 1: and Castro actually bring some interesting history to this exchange.
Speaker 1: So Chansing, you might recall, was the MSNBC host who
Speaker 1: famously looked like she was going to openly weep when
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders dominated the Nevada caucuses.
Speaker 4: Remember this moment.
Speaker 9: These, again, are people who work on the strip within
Speaker 9: two and a half miles of the Bellagio, largely people
Speaker 9: of color. Of those, the majority are Latino, and they
Speaker 9: are at least from eyeballing it strongly in favor of
Speaker 9: Bernie Sanders, with Joe Biden coming in second.
Speaker 1: So while Chris does hold herself out as a neutral journalist,
Speaker 1: she has led the mask slip in a particularly obvious
Speaker 1: way about where her loyalties actually lie. Now Houldian Castro
Speaker 1: is also kind of interesting. He's been willing to criticize
Speaker 1: Biden at times, especially on immigration and the border issues
Speaker 1: that are central part of his political identity. But you
Speaker 1: might also recall that Castro pretty overtly called Biden too
Speaker 1: old to be president in the last election.
Speaker 4: Take a listen.
Speaker 10: That's a big difference, because Barack Obama's vision was not
Speaker 10: to leave ten million people uncovered. He wanted every single
Speaker 10: person in this country covered.
Speaker 3: My plan would do that. Your plan would do not
Speaker 3: have to buy in. They do not have to buy
Speaker 3: you you.
Speaker 5: Just said that.
Speaker 10: You just said that two minutes ago. You just said
Speaker 10: two minutes ago that they would have to buy in.
Speaker 10: You said they would have to buy in and to
Speaker 10: buy in if you qualify. Are you forgetting what you
Speaker 10: said to Maddison being for Are you forgetting you already
Speaker 10: what you said just two minutes ago? I mean I
Speaker 10: can't believe that you said two minutes ago that they
Speaker 10: had to buy in and now you're saying they don't
Speaker 10: have to buy You're forgetting that.
Speaker 4: Looks kind of prescient, doesn't it now?
Speaker 1: To be fair, last time around, Castro's attacks on Biden's age,
Speaker 1: they obviously didn't work. His decline didn't end up being
Speaker 1: a factor in the primary, or at least not a
Speaker 1: significant one in the general election. It's worth remembering that
Speaker 1: because it could end up being a non factor again.
Speaker 1: We should be honest about that. But that's not what
Speaker 1: the poll suggests today. Because Biden's a few years more
Speaker 1: infirmed now, American people have had more of an opportunity
Speaker 1: to assess his fitness, and they have notably found it
Speaker 1: quite lacking. In twenty twenty, Biden basically had the primary
Speaker 1: wrapped up for him by Cliburn, Obama and co. After
Speaker 1: dismal performances in the first several states, and in the
Speaker 1: general election, he was able to use COVID as an
Speaker 1: excuse to stay off the campaign trail and was able
Speaker 1: to win based on people's feelings of disgust and exhaustion
Speaker 1: towards the Trump chaos. Now, the landscape this time, it's
Speaker 1: quite different. His approval rating is already a lot lower.
Speaker 1: In fact, a recent Axios focus group found that Biden
Speaker 1: voters were not inclined to give him a pass. Every
Speaker 1: single participant indicated they wanted him to debate, with one
Speaker 1: explaining specifically, quote, I want whoever is representing me as
Speaker 1: president to be able.
Speaker 4: To put together thoughts and cohesive.
Speaker 1: Arguments without needing flash cards or something notably coming off
Speaker 1: the heels of a rare moment of honesty breaking through
Speaker 1: MSNBC's DNC propaganda. Chris Jansen then decided to cover this
Speaker 1: focus group, but this time she brought on a Biden
Speaker 1: senior aide to make sure she got the answer that
Speaker 1: she actually wanted. First, listen to how she sets up
Speaker 1: this conversation. It's amazing.
Speaker 9: There are new questions today about whether President Biden should
Speaker 9: debate his twenty twenty four Democratic primary challengers, even though
Speaker 9: they barely register in any polls.
Speaker 1: Barely register in the polls. Now that is either complete
Speaker 1: ignorance or an outright lie. Marian and RFK Junior are
Speaker 1: both polling higher than the vast majority of the GOP contenders,
Speaker 1: So then Chris has the Axios reporter on to set
Speaker 1: up the focus group and brings in the Biden twenty
Speaker 1: twenty advisor to respond. Let's listen to how the Biden
Speaker 1: aid tries to spin all of this.
Speaker 11: I honestly do not think seam Biden should reconsider on
Speaker 11: the debate piece because to the point that you made earlier,
Speaker 11: we have not seen an income at president running for
Speaker 11: reelection having a debate with this major party your pons
Speaker 11: since I think that will blendia.
Speaker 9: To be fair, never had a president of this age,
Speaker 9: and we've never had a president with these kinds of.
Speaker 4: Questions about his age and mental acuity.
Speaker 11: Sure, and I think that's a fair question, and Biden
Speaker 11: has said it's a fair question. But the reality is
Speaker 11: debating people on the same side is actually not going
Speaker 11: to strengthen the candidate. It tends to weekend the candidate.
Speaker 11: When the president, let's be very honest, and we've talked
Speaker 11: about this on this show and over the past few years,
Speaker 11: he's actually done a lot for this country in the
Speaker 11: first few years, in his first one hundred days. Right Obviously,
Speaker 11: they are going to be a lot of hold ups
Speaker 11: in Congress given their Republican majority right now, but he
Speaker 11: did have a varying sort first two years, and so
Speaker 11: the president is going to prove some of these doubters wrong,
Speaker 11: get them to restore their confidence and head that they
Speaker 11: did in twenty twenty as he continues to communicate these
Speaker 11: policies and campaign across the country.
Speaker 1: So, first of all, the fact that the process has
Speaker 1: been undemocratic in the past is no excuse for keeping
Speaker 1: an undemocratic process, especially in an age where this part
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party is all on their moral high
Speaker 1: horse about descending democracy.
Speaker 4: What a bunch a bs.
Speaker 1: Second of all, it's just a historical nonsense that primaries
Speaker 1: weaken a candidate. On the contrary, Trump, for the Republicans,
Speaker 1: had quite a rocous primary back in twenty sixteen, you
Speaker 1: may recall, and.
Speaker 4: He won in the general election.
Speaker 1: Obama and Hillary had a raucus and at times very
Speaker 1: personal primary in two thousand and eight. There is zero
Speaker 1: doubt in my mind that process sharpened Obama and convinced
Speaker 1: Americans that he was in fact ready for primetime and
Speaker 1: to become president of the United States. But even if
Speaker 1: you believe primaries do weaken a candidate, you should still
Speaker 1: support them if you're trying to combat a tacks on
Speaker 1: democracy by undermining democracy. That path still leads to authoritarianism,
Speaker 1: and it should be rejected. And finally, if you're so
Speaker 1: confident in Biden's accomplishments and his strength as a candidate,
Speaker 1: you should welcome the chance for him to prove to
Speaker 1: the American.
Speaker 4: People just how ready for the job he is. Convince
Speaker 4: us is.
Speaker 1: Actually profoundly sad and distressing for the nation the position
Speaker 1: we find ourselves in right now, two old men that
Speaker 1: majorities don't want, refusing to subject themselves the basics of
Speaker 1: the democratic process. All I can say is please keep
Speaker 1: the pressure up, because while the DNC may not yield
Speaker 1: and actually host debates, it will at least illuminate to
Speaker 1: some who've been drinking the kool aid just how full
Speaker 1: of it and fragile the Democratic Party actually is, and
Speaker 1: lifting the partisan blinders from the eyes of more Americans
Speaker 1: that is.
Speaker 4: Always a worthy project. Sager. I thought I was pretty surprising,
Speaker 4: Julian Castro, And.
Speaker 2: If you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 4: All right, Sager, what are you looking at?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: As we alluded to, on Thursday show, CNN's decision to
Speaker 2: host Trump for an election town hall with voters isn't
Speaker 2: going down so well for them with Democratic law makers,
Speaker 2: with liberals who watch CNN, and, funnily enough, with the
Speaker 2: vast majority of.
Speaker 3: CNN's own employees.
Speaker 2: In fact, CNN's decision to host Trump to me indicates
Speaker 2: how systemically broken the entire media is and reveals exactly
Speaker 2: why independent media really has no choice but to be
Speaker 2: the future of news if you want even a minute
Speaker 2: chance of knowing what's actually going on. For those who
Speaker 2: don't know what I'm talking about, the background is simple.
Speaker 2: CNN decided to host Trump for the town hall, which
Speaker 2: was full of Republicans. Liberals were outraged by the fact
Speaker 2: that Caitlin Collins basically let him speak at all, and
Speaker 2: were especially disturbed at the site of Republican voters cheering
Speaker 2: when Trump lashed out at his sexual assault accuser Egene
Speaker 2: Carroll and Caitlyn Collins herself. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said it's
Speaker 2: the worst thing he's seen on TV since January sixth,
Speaker 2: certainly something, but below the hollow outrage at Trump is
Speaker 2: a bigger meta question within media itself. The overwhelming consensus
Speaker 2: by the liberal press is that CNN made a mistake
Speaker 2: by hosting Trump, the theory being it was irresponsible in
Speaker 2: the eyes of the media. Simply airing anything the former
Speaker 2: president and likely GOP nominee says is a disservice to democracy.
Speaker 2: Nobody summed up their view better than Stephanie Rule in
Speaker 2: the opening of her show on MSNBC right after the
Speaker 2: town hall ended.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 12: It is not news what happened tonight at eight pm
Speaker 12: on another network, And there is no sense in fact
Speaker 12: checking or replaying the highlights.
Speaker 4: We are not going to analyze the former.
Speaker 12: President of the United States repeating lies, smears.
Speaker 3: And bigotry.
Speaker 12: We have all heard it many many times before. However,
Speaker 12: what we need to do tonight is solve for how
Speaker 12: news organizations will cover Donald J. Trump, the twice impeach indicted,
Speaker 12: liable for sex abuse private citizen, if he does in
Speaker 12: fact win the Republican nomination.
Speaker 2: Sit and internalize what she's saying. It's not news what
Speaker 2: the former president is saying. It wasn't news when he
Speaker 2: wouldn't disavow stop the steal, and it wasn't news when
Speaker 2: he said the GOP should default if Biden doesn't negotiate,
Speaker 2: And it wasn't news when he gave the most incoherent
Speaker 2: answer possible on abortion policy, or when he talked about
Speaker 2: the war in Ukraine. The most insane thing about her
Speaker 2: monologue there is this, the lady is paid to do
Speaker 2: the news. How can you do the news and run
Speaker 2: a news network and be proud that you're not talking
Speaker 2: about the news. The crazy part is the vast majority
Speaker 2: of CNN insiders agreed with Stephanie rule over their own network.
Speaker 2: Apparently the vast majority of their insiders employees were horrified
Speaker 2: by their act of journalism, no more.
Speaker 3: So than their own media reporter Oliver Darcy.
Speaker 2: He quite literally used his own CNN newsletter to go
Speaker 2: after his employer CNN. He writes, quote, it is hard
Speaker 2: to see how America was served by the spectacle of
Speaker 2: lies aired on CNN Wednesday evening. His contention was a
Speaker 2: democracy was not served because Trump was Trump and he
Speaker 2: was allowed to speak quote without challenge. Here, too, is
Speaker 2: a crazy belief by the media that when you interview
Speaker 2: a politician, you are supposed to fact check every single
Speaker 2: thing that comes out of their mouth. Where this insane
Speaker 2: belief came from I have no idea, but to me,
Speaker 2: it is crystallized by something Colin said during this houndhall
Speaker 2: when Trump was saying the election was stolen, and she
Speaker 2: challenged him to say, quote, you can't say that, mister president.
Speaker 2: What consider what she's saying there? What that type of
Speaker 2: criticism comes from? Who tells the former president what they
Speaker 2: can and cannot say. At the end of the day,
Speaker 2: it's only the voters. I disagree with many things to
Speaker 2: come out of Trump's mouth. I think they are false,
Speaker 2: but I do not have the narcissism of the mainstream
Speaker 2: media to tell him he cannot say it. And I
Speaker 2: carry this philosophy over whenever I interview democratic politicians too.
Speaker 2: I don't think anyone should have anything to do with that.
Speaker 2: If they want to say it, that's their right. It's
Speaker 2: other people's right to evaluate it for themselves. What I
Speaker 2: just described, by the way, is actual democracy. The news
Speaker 2: at its best has the job of contextualizing events and
Speaker 2: informing the public so they can make decisions for themselves.
Speaker 2: But somewhere along the way, it instead became a vehicle
Speaker 2: for telling people what to think instead of helping them
Speaker 2: to do so.
Speaker 3: That's what leads me to this conclusion.
Speaker 2: The internal scene and freak out over their act of
Speaker 2: journalism shows structurally why it cannot serve as a source
Speaker 2: of news for the broader public. They themselves can only
Speaker 2: stomach to show what serves their side, which in my opinion,
Speaker 2: is good.
Speaker 3: This means independent news is inevitable.
Speaker 2: Consider this, all Americans really want out of the news
Speaker 2: is to find out what's going on, then maybe a
Speaker 2: little context without the flavor of telling you how to think.
Speaker 2: Do not mistake that with people like us, who will
Speaker 2: tell you what we think.
Speaker 3: Explaining how I.
Speaker 2: Internalize something is very different than telling you to think
Speaker 2: the same as me, And it pops up in how
Speaker 2: interviews must be conducted. Do you know why I have
Speaker 2: so much faith in this style because it is tried
Speaker 2: and true throughout the long history of our republic. If
Speaker 2: our media had any brains, they would be doing as
Speaker 2: many Trump town halls and interviews as possible. If you
Speaker 2: hate him specifically on stop the Steal and abortion, why
Speaker 2: because we have so much evidence now from the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two election the two worst issues for Republicans are maga,
Speaker 2: crack pots and abortion. On both counts, Trump revealed he
Speaker 2: sits on the unpopular side of each issue. He clung
Speaker 2: to every single crackpot conspiracy theory on how the election
Speaker 2: was stolen, the same thing his candidates were punished for
Speaker 2: at the ballot box.
Speaker 3: In twenty twenty two, on abortion, he.
Speaker 2: Both was proud of repealing row and said it should
Speaker 2: be left up to the states.
Speaker 3: Good luck with that one at the ballot box.
Speaker 2: If the Democrats are smart, they're going to play that
Speaker 2: on Loop twenty four to seven. It puts them on
Speaker 2: the backside of two thirds of the American people from
Speaker 2: the abortion issue. In other words, if liberals really want
Speaker 2: to win, they should elevate Trump as much as possible
Speaker 2: on the issues that he performs the worst at. In
Speaker 2: other words, they should simply treat Trump the same way
Speaker 2: we treat all politicians, interview them, and then let Americans
Speaker 2: make up their minds for themselves. Most Americans are good people.
Speaker 2: They do not like extremism really in any form. Whichever
Speaker 2: side seems the most crazy is usually the one who
Speaker 2: loses at the ballot box, and it's not that complicated.
Speaker 2: The news needs to stop pretending they have more power
Speaker 2: than they actually do.
Speaker 3: At the end of the day. The only people with
Speaker 3: the real.
Speaker 2: Power is you when you vote and you make up
Speaker 2: your own mind. And the more news gets away from that,
Speaker 2: the more that they spell they're inevitable to use. So
Speaker 2: that's really what my takeaway was is, you know, and
Speaker 2: I thought it was important to say.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: Great to have you back, Crystal.
Speaker 2: We have a great show for everybody tomorrow, a big
Speaker 2: show which we will reveal some details tomorrow, the nice
Speaker 2: little surprise about who our guests and all of that
Speaker 2: will be. But anyways, if you can help us and
Speaker 2: support our work here breakingpoints dot com otherwise, we'll see
Speaker 2: you tomorrow with a big reveal