Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday, have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Krystal, It's.
Right, a lot of big developments, especially on the Trump staffing front. Neo cons quite happy with some of the recent picks. We'll break all of those down for you. We're also going to take a look at the spending of the Kamala Harris campaign, which was wild. We will show you some of the craziest things and what they paid for them. Libs are also cooking over on TikTok with some major election conspiracies that we wanted to share with you as well. So yeah, that's a good one.
We've got a look at the media. Liberal media really suffering in the wake of Kamala's loss actually some surprising outlets, including ones that are allied with US, are gaining quite a bit of strength, so interesting to look at that media rebalancing. Also, Chris Wallace making the choice to leave SEE and become a streamers pretty funny, Okay, pretty.
Interesting, Yes, indeed.
Yeah, Zogbie is going to join us both to talk about the DNC and the massive overhaul that he thinks needs to happen there, and also to take a look at AOC. Actually went on Instagram and was like, listen, if you are an AOC Trump voter, I want to hear from you. I want to know why you picked me and Donald Trump. And the responses are quite interesting. A lot of them have to do frankly with Gaza, so we're going to talk to Jim about that as well.
And one of the things that we haven't spent a lot of time discussing, which is how much Harris's support of the GASA genocide really impacted her electoral outcomes. I'm also taking a look at the failed ideology that doomed the Dems. It was not wokeism, and John Stewart had a good bit on that. To share some of that with you as well, and we're going to talk today to Andrew Yang get his postal action analysis your call.
Yang was really on board with Dean Phillips. He was one of the people really early saying listen, Biden is too old, like, come on, guys, you got to do something different. So he deserves a lot of a lot of credit for having that level of prescience. We're going to that for premium subscribers today. For everybody else, the free version will be out later this week. I think this weekend we'll feel that out for everybody.
Yeah, so sign up Breakingpoints dot com. You get early access to our Andrew Yang Interview OG for many people who are fans of the show. First to twenty nineteen, yangan big inters region. Actually the first clip to ever cross over two thousand views, So I will always be very special for two thousand.
That was the Yeah, it was a big deal for us.
It's a big day. It was a big day. Indeed, I'll never forget it. So, Andrew Yang, You'll always have a place in my heart as long as the original Andrew Yang Gang. So, like Chrystal said, we're getting a lot of stuff that start to break late last night. The single most important appointment now so far, let's go and put this up there on the screen. This is
from the New York Times. Everybody, keep in mind this is not yet one hundred percent official, but Donald Trump is expected to name Senator Marco Rubio of Florida as his Secretary of State. Now, as the Times cautions, mister Trump could still change his mind at the last minute, the People said, but he appears to have settled on Rubio, who he also considered choosing as his running mate earlier this year. I mean, this is arguably the most important
pick so far. Secretary of State, of course, is such an important part of the US government. You're going to be in the situation room. You will be America's diplomatic ambassador to the world. And I mean there's no really sugarcoating this mark our Rubio is definitely more of a neo con persuasion than anybody else who was in the running. It really was between him and Rick Grinnell. I mean, cars on the table. I would have far preferred Rick Grinnell.
Grennell was Trump's ambassador to Germany. Probably most importantly, though, Grennell wrote op eds while he was the ambassador to Germany kind of justifying a lot of realism and of anti NATO skepticism. Where the truth is is that Rubio has really been on the other side of a lot of these issues all the way going back to two thousand and sixteen. There's Look, it's complicated because the supporters of this who are like, oh, this is not a
betrayal or whatever. It's like, oh, well, Rubio voted against Ukraine and he's like, yeah in twenty twenty three. It's like, well, what about in twenty twenty two? And who were the people about That's actually such a and this is very important for me. Is it not about Ukraine today? Because we're about to talk about Mike Waltz, who was a new national security advisor. Fine, he's like, hey, you know what did he say? He's like, oh, well, now there's
no path to victory. It's like, what were you actually saying at the time. Because the reason why it matters is what was your mindset going into twenty twenty two? Did you want war with Russia? And I think with Rubio and Mike Maltz what Mike waltzhe was about to get to he also basically supported a full on war, not.
Basically his criticism was that the Biden administration was wholly three back, that they needed to immediately authorize long range missile strikes and ship war weapons to Ukraine. His criticism was from the hawkish direction. Viza vive Biden, and I think your analysis is important because it's not just okay now that the party has moved and it's clear what's going on, and even some of the liberals are like, I don't know if this Ukraine thing is really working
out the way we wanted it to. It's another thing to have seen where this was going and then a critic when it was more difficult than when it took more courage.
So I want to stick with you for two issues, Afghanistan and Ukraine, because here's the thing. It's fine to be dragged kicking and screaming to the correct position on Ukraine, which is okay, we got to wrap this stuff up. But I went back and I looked, let's put the next one to please up there on the screen. This is Mike Waltz. He will be the next National Security Advisor.
Is again very confounding for a variety of reasons. The main one is I went and looked at all of the track record Mike Waltz was advocating for the quote unquote arsenal of democracy to be thrown at Putin and Ukraine. He also specifically basically implied we should go to war with Russia and unleashed the Ukrainian army to defend eastern Ukraine is a NATO expansionist of Sweden and Finland. Now he's like, okay, we don't need to increase it anymore.
And now he says, okay, Ukraine should not be in NATO. But I also went back and I read his press release from February of twenty twenty, and he basically criticized the Trump press the Trump peace deal with Afghanistan. So those are very important test cases for me, because guys, this is not about the issues at hand right now. They're already on the downswing, right Nobody at this point, even Biden was advocating for like full on war in Ukraine. The point is is what were you going to do
in office? What we're you going to do in the situation room? What judgment are you going to have when these situations arise? So, for example, when Donald Trump is trying to sign a peace deal with the Taliban, Mike Walts spoke against it. Mike Walt's actually was booed at SEAPAC back it was several years ago where he said that we should stay in Afghanistan forever and it should be a multi generational war. Mark Rubio as well. I've covered him for a long time, and I don't want
to misconstrue he is not a Tom Cotton figure. He is not you know, a full on hardcore neocon as ideologically as others. But his persuasion and his intellectual kind of framework around the issue, especially Latin America, oh my god, but Latin America, Uba, Venezuela, all this stuff, but especially on Russia, on Iran, these are he I mean, there's no you know, getting away from it. He's a major hawk and he definitely comes twenty fifteen twenty sixteen campaign.
I covered him extensively. He was probably the most hawkish candidate in the twenty sixteen race. Did not support, you know, the peace deal with Afghanistan. And you know, so far, there is only one voice in the room that like passes those two tests for me at least, and that's Jade Vanc's the vice president. And that's great, But the truth is the vice president only has as much power as the president gives him. The Secretary of State is going to run the Department of State, you know, the
national security. This is another thing people really need to understand. It's not just about the advice in the room. A national security advisor's job is something called interagency cooperation. And I'm going to get deep, so everybody stick with me.
But there's a great book called The Essence of Decisions, one of the foundations of political science, and it looks at the Cuban missile crisis through various different lenses of how John F. Kennedy arrived at the correct decision in the Cuban missile crisis, and they're one of those that I think is so important is called the organizational theory, And really what it means is that it really wasn't up to Kennedy. It was about the options that were
presented to Kennedy. For a guy like Trump, who, let's be honest, is old and also never took great interest in the issues. The people who are his advisors, who are presenting him the options to choose from, they have a lot of power. So let's say it is February twenty twenty two and Russia does invade Ukraine, and Trump is presented with three options, and the least, the least hawkish option is the insane sanctions regime that we pursued on Russia. Well, that's still a really bad option. That's
actually a really dumb option. Now the president can override that, But in the moment, you've got everybody in the situation room, and the National Security Advisor's job is running the meeting, and he says, all right, mister President Rubio, you're up first.
Here are the three different things, the packages that we presented to you, and Trump, uneven beknownst to him, honestly and unbeknownst to most presidents, picks what is already a hackish option unless he has really rock solid like intuitions and says, no, we're going to do totally something different. Well, you know, we're in for a bad way. So in both of these cases, like and like I said about yesterday, at least Dephonic, I think, honestly, that's a lot of bullshit.
That's just some Israel Whatever the Israelis serve steps with un fine, whatever she lives in New York, she's not particularly part of the apparatus. But here we're talking about. I mean, Secretary of State is arguably the most important part of the the entire the cabinet, traditionally looked upon by the founders. Thomas Jefferson was our secretary of State. He was looked at as a path to the presidency.
National security Avisor is hands down one of the most important national security musicians, and he's decided to go in this direction. So look, you know, for a lot of people out there, you you it's funny. There are a lot of people who got into politics over the last four years, especially who got into Trump over the last four years, and I you know, they always got mad because I was like, look, I was there, I remember when he was actually president, and I saw a lot
of this happening behind the scenes. And I've always worn you should have no illusions. You know what is an RFK Junior allegedly didn't want Marco Rubio to be Secretary of State. I tried to tell you, you know, in terms of the power that these people have and Trump, I mean, if we're really being honest, did ideology even play a role in this? Or was it? Mike Waalts is a former Green Beret and he goes on Fox News, and look, he's not stupid. He's a smart guy. I
listened to several interviews with him last night. Smart, he's got an ideology. He worked for Dick Cheney, he was his counter terrorism advisor, he worked for Donald Rumsfeld. Everyone's in the White House. He knows what he's doing. And in fact, you know, you should probably fear competence in that.
I was going to say, I think you would actually prefer that he'd be dumb, because then he would be less effective and pushing what has been I mean, like you said, he worked for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Like that's what we're talking about. So yeah, you know, Michael Tracy pointing out five seconds ago, everyone pretending like there was some giant golf ideologically between the Cheney's and Trump,
like you were tricked, you were fooled. That was always obvious based on his track record in the first administration, that that was preposterous. He liked using the anti war labor label and having people like RFK Junior and Toulci Gabbard who were willing to abandon all the previous criticism they had of him to get closer to power and will have nothing to say, by the way, about any of these clear neocon war mongering picks. He liked having the anti war mantle placed upon him because he thought
it was politically useful. Did he ever ideologically buy into that? No, there's never right John Bolton in the last administration and my compeo in the last administration. Like actually, and again follow Michael Tracy because he digs into the details on all this stuff and is very consistent calling out Republicans
Democrats alike on this issue in particular. But actually, as Tracy points out, this is a more interventionist administration that Trump is starting with than he did last time around, because you've got Marco Rubio, who is you know, an ideological hawk, like you said, especially when it comes to a ron or any sort of Latin American country. Much more interventionists and much more ideological than the last time we had Rex Tillerson.
I'm like business.
Guide, like have an ideology whatsoever. So when you put together at least Stephonic, who I think it was Tracy called basically like Nicky Haley two point zero, they effectively have like the same ideology. So Trump makes a big show of saying no, Mike pompeiout, no Nicky Haley and then swaps in people who have basically the identical ideology. You know, between Stephonic Rubio and Mike Waltz. You got people who have been actively itching for war with Russia, China, Iran,
and Mexico. So you know that's where we are. Everybody who deluded themselves. I don't have to talking about regular people. I'm talking about the influencers out there, like deluted themselves or deluded their followers into thinking that this was going to be an anti war administration, Like sorry, you got played?
Who got played? And you've been warning people?
Yes, wow, you've been warning people.
But I also had like, yeah, you know, what does this say about who has Trump's ear, who's actually influential? Because supposedly Don Junior was pushing against these sort of picks, Jade Vance would theoretically be pushing against these sort of picks. Tucker Carlson would theoretically be pushing against these sort of picks, and yet we've got, you know, an administration that has now stocked with unreconstructed neogons.
It's always been this way, and this is why, if anything, it's just exactly like it was last time around. So for everybody who will remember, Trump would what was it when he strikes Syria? Asad right, Tucker go on TV and be like this is terrible and it's a bad idea. Tucker would be then he would put up lists of Republicans who were neo cons who were betraying the Magabas. Did Trump ever make them pay a price? No? Tucker has been consistent on this, always has been. Has who else?
Jd for example? But at the end of the day, he's the vice president. What can he do? I mean, Trump is the man in the office. This is also I would be remiss if I didn't say it's a coalition party. And the truth is is pro Israel came in big for Trump, and I actually think this is where they are cashing in their chips more than anywhere else. I mean, Rubio has been a darling of the Paul Singer Network for ten years now at this point. You know all those free trips to Israel, Like there ain't free.
They come at a cost, Miriam Adelson. They don't give you one hundred million dollars for free, okay, Like you get what you pay for, and what you pay for really is this both Walst and Walt in particular on Iran is like unhinged. I went and I was looking at some of this and frankly, you know, that's kind of scary for what that looks like for in the future. I mean, Tucker tried to elevate you know, my friend
Bridge Colby. I thought he maybe he had a shot, just because I didn't think he had a shot until he went on Tucker's show, and then I was like, oh shit, you know, maybe this is real. And the truth The problem too is on the campaign trail, Trump actually did present himself as anti war, and he did run with Tulsi and with RFK Junior and all these other people. I warned people because of how he presented
himself in office last time. But in terms of the people on his campaign, I think it's fair to say Rick Grinnell and all these other people, Grick led the outreach of the Muslim community, which worked obviously against les change. He won the vote in Dearborn, Michigan, and seems to he literally won the vote in Dearborn in many of the other places. But this is the issue is that Trump also is a creature of the Republican coalition of the donor class and also of television and Marco one
of the things, he's a deeply narcissistic individual. Like Mike Wallace has been on to Marco, were both actually not Marco. Mark is a pretty umble guy. I like Marco will be on on a personal level. I've talked to him before. He's again, he's a smart guy. He's somebody who he thinks about the world, and he's not you know, he's not like a total establishment act in the way that a lot of people might think he's. He's good on
the child tax credit and I act like that. Actually not a bad thing to mention that.
Obviously I'm not a big Rubio fan, but he is one of the Republicans who can be a little bit unorthodox in terms of economics. Yes, and so it's also a loss to lose him from the Senate in terms of, like, you know, any sort of new right populist direction in the Senate. Instead, you've elevated him on the issues where he's the worst and taken him out of play on you know, places like the child tax credit where he might be more interesting and more transformational.
Well, it's good, it's actually, you know, we will get to this. But unfortunately, because DeSantis now gets to a point, you know, whoever he wants for the Florida Senator, there's almost no chance that Marco Rubio would be a voice for any of this. Next time. On the child tax credit in the TC Rubio actually held up the entire t CJA bill last time around. That's a big the Tax Cuts Act specific to try and get some earned
income tax credit and other CTC stuff. He actually increased the corporate tax rate, which they were furious to him for, in order to try and get more family stuff. So that's sad. Also, JD was one of the only other people who probably would have push him in the Senate, and he's now he's the Vice president. So that's the secondary thing. But look at this point, really what you're you should be betting on personnel is policy, and I'm
not going to erase that. Really, what you should be hoping, if you're really anti war, is that when Trump is in the room and he gets presented with a lot of this nonsense that he says no. But you know, that's a lot of faith to put in a.
First track record.
That's a lot of faith to put into a person. And you know, even all of this stuff about again like Iran, Ukraine and all this these are entrenched conflicts. I'm not that worried about full blown there. But the thing is is that when you're in the office, shit happens.
October seventh happens, nine to eleven happens. Nobody voted for George W. Bush, who by the way, ran on the restraintest foreign policy in two thousand and had any idea that the people who would be in office like Donald Rumsfeldt and Dick Cheney would be responsible for overseeing the mass transformation and invitation of the United States into the Global War on Terror and the disastrous prosecution of that.
That's why you always should have to think really hard about the people you put in because you never know what could happen. Trump likes to say Ukraine Russia never would have happened on his watch. Maybe, but you know it could. Yeah, another one good October seventh never would happen. Maybe you know that.
One's could That one is the least credible. I can understand the case more on Russia.
Wood because he had a maybe maybe we.
Don't know, but maybe on October seventh, like a big part of the reason why Hamas you know, organized and perpetrated October seventh had to do with the Abraham Accords that were, of course, you know, started and signed under Trump, because they felt like that was just completely taking the Palestinian issue off the table and creating this normalization that just ignored them and you know, invisibilized them completely. I mean, they're right in that assessment, obviously wrong in the execution
with regard to killing innocent civilians. But you know, so I don't even see the case how why Hamas would be deterred from October seventh if Donald Trump was there. That doesn't make any sense to me. But you know, a few things, like, you're absolutely right every one of these picks. Not that this is a surprise because Apak always wins whether it's a democratic or Republican administration. But
I mean these are some hardcore ideological Zionist believers. There's a clip going around of Mark or Ruvio engaging with Code Pink and media Benjamin of Code Pink, and you know, he's quite aggressive. He's like, I want you to play
this video. I want people to see me saying that you know, I don't not that I don't care that the civilians are being killed, but it's one hundred percent Hamas's vault, and I want people to know that, and they should go in and they should keep doing what they're doing until every message of Hamas is detroyed.
Like he's committed. He's ideological.
Obviously, Stephonic made her name by inciting this fake anti Semitism panic across college campuses and becoming an absolute darling of the you know, donor class that was very interested in that whole conflict, many of whom you know, became huge Trump supporters and sort of like in a sense, laundered their support of Trump, which is also in their own class interests through this like virtuous lens of oh, we're standing up against anti Semitism.
So, you know, she.
Gets her slot. Waltz is obviously very ideological. You should see that clip of him at SEAPAC talking about Afghanistan where he's like he's like, yeah, we've got that's exactly right. He was like, we've been there fifteen years, and you know what, this is going to be a multi generational
conflict and basically we should be there forever. It's like okay, you know, so yeah, now that things seem very different on Ukraine, and you recognize you've got to sound a little bit of a different note if you're gonna have any chance at you know, power within a Trump administration. You've changed your tune, but the ideology is in there deep again is an Aid former Aid to Cheney and Rumsfeld. That's who we're talking about, and there is no shift
in terms of his ideological views. The other thing that just a quick note is the House has been called officially for Republicans.
Now, would do you know what the final margin was?
Fifteen two seats.
It's very narrow.
Okay, it's a very narrow margin that they have, and with Waltz and Stephanic, you're taking two House members out and making that an even more narrow margin for Republicans. And while Democrats, yes just got you know, she lacked in a big national general election, they do really well in special elections because now they are the party of
like high information, high turnout. I show up at every election, every primary, whatever voters and plus the Democratic base is going to be super pissed and ready to like show up and try to resist this Trump administration. So you know, I'm not sure the makeup exactly of either one of these districts. But you have to think at least there's some chance in New York and Florida that and it's not like you know, super rural Florida either that there
could be a shot. There could be a risk for one or both of these seats.
Yeah, that's a good point. I will say I was told by a source that the Defense secretary pick will come sometime today. I don't know what it will be. They said it would be surprised, So I don't know if I don't know what that is, y you know, I mean, at this point, I can hope I get surprises. I would. I wasn't that surprised actually by Rubio the well he was named as being in the running, right. I was way more surprised by Waltz where he was in the running. But I was like, oh man, he's
really going for it. In terms of the why those two back to back, it was a little bit of a gut punch. I actually think there is a I will I'll give it like a ten percent chance that Tulcy Gabber gets Secretary of Defense. I'm serious. Just that's that's what was That's basically the way that I was looking.
I don't I wouldn't be surprised.
I would be okay, ten percent, but you know, ninety percent it will be somebody like Bill Haggerty or somebody like that. Haggarty actually be pretty good. He's he's pretty consistent on Ukraine. There are a few others where again there's a lot of names out there. I'm not going to be sure, but yeah, the fact that they told me I would be very surprised, I was like, huh, okay, I was like, who would I actually be surprised by? I mean, really, Telsey's the only one I would be.
I would be like. I was like, I'd be like, wow, if that were case, I would take her in a heartbeat over any of these other people. So we'll see.
I just do think it's really, I don't know, darkly funny the way that Trump made this big show of like, oh, I'm not going to have Nicki Haley and I'm not going to have Mike Pompeo, so that people who are on the New Right who share your ideology be like, Okay, like this looks like this is good, this is encouraging, and then hours later is like instead I'm going to have this group of neo cons who have the exact same idea.
But left people are used to getting shpit on by their coalition for the right people, you should get used to it as well. All Right, you know, where's the first dose? Yeah, this is the first dose. Get ready?
Trump is anti war dream officially dead. And it's not even we're exactly not from Alexis.
He could not do anything while he's in office. It's just that this makes it harder to not do anything while he's an office. So the results are what's ultimate. Ultimately, the results are what speak for themselves. We will see. I think if he did pick TULSI honestly look within the within the realm, that would be fantastic, you know, for for at least what I believe in. But from what I'm seeing right now, I think it is relatively unlikely. Let's get to the next most confounding pick. Let's put
this up there on the screen, guys. The second Yeah, so this broke light last night. Trump is picking Kirsty Nome to serve as a Secretary of Homeland Security. Now here's the thing that people don't understand. Homeland security is one of the largest government agencies. The DHS is actually the largest law enforcement agency in the world. So not only would she be in charge of the border patrol and of the mass deportation operation, she would be the
face of it. The same way that what was that lady's name, I'm totally blanking on it right now, from twenty eighteen whatever, there was a previous woman who was in the job, in the job in twenty eighteen.
Under likes women for this job.
I guess, yeah. But the thing is is that you would be the face of it. You would be the one taking the podium. And like, let's be honest, like Christyinome is not an impressive political individual, Like she this whole thing about murdering her dog, she never came up with a good answer. That's child's plate. Compared to the ship the press is gonna throw at you. They're gonna they're gonna drag up every sob story of every illegal immigrant that's ever come to the United States and say,
how do you justify this? This is not America, this violates the statue of liberty. Do you really think that she could stand up to press her like that? I don't.
And also, by the way, what press should do that, and they should have been doing it under Kamala and Biden and Obama as well.
I disagree on them that one.
You shouldn't it shouldn't cover what's actually happening in the country.
Of course, sure you should. You should also cover a lot of illegal immigrant murders and rapes, right that doesn't. No, it gets covered on the right with a list right there. But over on MSNBC, it's like these are the greatest angels ever walked the face of the earth. Anyway, Well, that's fine, then they can be law abiding at Crystal in El Salvador, which apparently is such a nice country now, and the rest of these places regardless. The point is
is that is this a very smart individual? I mean, is this an impressive individual who will be able to make this case? It? Also? Is this a competent individual? He se nome is running South Dakota. Okay, that's great, all right, you know it's a small state. Let's be honest, Let's look at the GDP ranking and all this is this somebody who is up to the task not only of one of the most red hot jobs in Washington, is it also going to be like the ability to
actually run the agency. I mean, honestly, I don't see it at all. I don't have no understanding of why this is picked. Like I guess the best case for it would be that she's like sometimes good on TV and is a surrogate for Donald Trump, right, But you know, even in the past, like in terms of her support for Trump and all that, that's been wishy washy. So this is the most confounding one to me. I have no understanding, you know, of this one.
You don't have an under So we do have an understanding.
What that she's good looking.
I mean, she's with his boy, Corey Lwandowski, but again, and he thinks he's good looking, and you know, probably feels like, since they have all the dirt on her with regard to that affair, that she'll be unfailingly loyal and sycophantic and ultimately.
That's what he wants.
Yeah, and probably.
And I guess, you know, may may feel like it's better to have when they're going to be you know, creating new orphans as they parents and children apart as they did in the last administration, and sending people who have been here for many years to camps that perhaps would help to have a woman to be able to sell that deeply cruel and inhuman.
But it didn't happen last time around, did it.
You know?
It's like, well, it didn't happen. They completely bucked on child separation even though they had a woman.
Now before they orphaned the like thousands of children.
All right, again, very in dispute. And then regardless, it's this is complicated, but we'll get to that, I guess when we continue with some of these other uh, with these other people who were appointed. So we also saw the news on the border front that Tom Homan, who was the acting director of ICE, would be appointed as the quote unquote borders are under the president. The reason why that's again is a little bit confounding, is that Czar only has as much power as the president gives you.
You don't have statutory power. Kirsty nom will have statutory There.
Was a thought Homan might actually be DHS.
That's what I thought. He's going to be the DHS secretary. He's a former border patrol agent. He's rock solid on the issue of immigration, and he was there last time around. Stephen Miller will be was appointed. I think they announced he will be the Deputy chief of Staff Deputy chief of statis at a fair important position in the White House. They're the real like moves and shakers. There's two of them. So the chief of staff like gives a policy portfolio. Her job is to run like this stuff in the
Oval office. It's more like an operational role, whereas the deputy chief of staff will get a policy portfolio and their job is to like enforce that throughout the White House. Obviously, Miller has been which he's served all four years with Donald Trump. He's served all four years on the campaign. He has been with him since day one. Really, I mean, if you think about it, Miller, Miller and Jeff Sessions are two of the original figures to ever back Donald J. Trump,
you know, back in Two Dogs aid. Yes, he works for Jeff Stashis. Sessions is one of the original like immigration hawks in Washington. So that's where that comes from. So yeah, on the DHS front, I don't know. I
don't get it. I truly don't understand. Like Tom Holman, as the borders are again, borders are is a fine position, but you have no statutory authority, like your Your portfolio is to just sit there and like you know, pressure the DHS to do something, pressure the border patrol, pressure eyes. You can convene meetings in the White House, but you don't have a lot of power. And you know in some cases of these agencies they can just say screw you or I'm not gonna listen to you. You know,
Steven Miller, it's a little bit different. He's the actual deputy chief of Staff. He will have a lot more enforceability, and presumably he'll have like quote unquote walking privileges into the Oval office. So how that works, you know, we'll see. But yeah, on the I don't doubt that some mass
deportation program of some sort will happen. But with Chrissy Nome at the helm of it and actually running the police force, I have a lot less, like frankly confidence that it will be run competently, you know, in a way that is defensible, you know, to the American people, because I mean, like, I mean, look, you know already the debate we're having that just wait until it's actually real, Like it's gonna be the most red hot issue in DC.
They're gonna throw everything they possibly got immigration on.
The Immigration has almost never been more popular than at the peak of the child separation policy last time around, And you know, I don't know if that'll be the case this time because at the time Democrats were you know, uniformly offering a different vision and were in uniform opposition to the Trump uh border policies. Now they've basically accepted the like trumpest worldview that immigrants are just bad and the only thing we should do is kick them out.
So I don't know if it'll be the same, but I know that there will be a lot of you know, there will be a lot of people who did not really intellectualize what an actual mass deportation policy looks like, feels like entails, et cetera.
And so yeah, you know, but.
Look, this is what people voted for, and he got on the vote on the anti war part, Like, I think people were completely sold to Bill of Goods, and I think there were just straight up lied to by a bunch of like online influencers and people like RFK Junior and Tulci Gabbard. So I don't think they voted for like war with Iran in Mexico and China and Russia and whatever. But on this, you know, you can't say that he didn't run around talking every day about
having an aggressive mass deportation policy. So, you know, Homan and Miller. Maggie Haberman at the New York Times, he's usually correct about, you know, trump internal dynamics or whatever. She reports that Miller's portfolio will be quite large and he'll have a lot of power, which wouldn't be surprising because obviously he's been with Trump. You know, he's been with Trump much longer than Susie.
Wilds, who's the actual OG.
He is in OG.
He is extremely ideological. There is nothing Trump could do that would lead Miller to break with him whatsoever. And so yeah, I think you know he is. He is a hardcore anti immigrant idea luge. I think everybody knows that about him, and he is going to be in a significant position of power and no one should be surprised about that.
I yeah, look, I think you're right. I if I had to get of all the campaign promises that actually gets fulfilled, immigration will probably be it because you have the United Government right, so HR two, the border bill that almost I think every Republican, almost every Republican has voted for, so that will likely it won't Maybe it won't become law of the land. Things become squirrely when you actually have to vote for something. But something like that is likely to get in there in terms of
mass deportation and all of that. It really depends on funding. It also depends on the execution. But I mean, personally, you know, I have faith in Tom Homan, I have faith in Stephen Miller. But like I said, when you actually have the person there who is going to be running this agency, who frankly has no previous experience in law enforcement, running the largest law enforcement agency having, I mean, this is an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare to run this thing.
I truly don't understand it.
So there was one war that I'm not sure if is confirmed yet. But did you see the reporting that Scott Bessant will be Treasury Secretary.
I saw it reported, but it's not a hundred right.
Anyway, Well, I would keep an eye on that one. Look a hitge fund billionaire guy.
He's on the short line. Look it was going to be a hedge fund billionaire guy. He's the one to him or what was Scott paulses John.
He's not Hank whatever anyway, that's John Paulson.
Yeah, not to be confused with Boss who was the Secretary of Defense and a billionaire and a former Walls.
Yeah, you get all these rich rich dudes confused. But in any case, he's the one that they would like dispatch to ce NBC to be like, don't worry about the Terriiff's guy is not going to be bad. He's just using this as a negotiating tool. It'll be fine.
You know.
He's not really serious about this across like across the board thing. So that was his his deal, and Trump apparently loved to shout him out at rallies because Scott would tie like the stock market performance to Trump's poll numbers, and Trump of course ate that shit up.
Yeah, Scott bestart. I mean, look, Trump Trump is a creature of the nineteen eighties and one of the things in the nineteen eighties was that we almost always had billionaire Wall Streeter as our treasury secretaries. He wants to recreate the Reagan magic. That's what he's looking to do. I'm not justifying it. I'm just telling people how his mind works. And on this one, new of you were
never fooled. He always was honest about this. So that's let's be very clear about where which direction he's looking at. And especially look, a lot of the Wall Street guys did support his campaign, and he does Trump owed a lot to them, especially some of these I think. I mean, obviously the majority of Wall Street money did go to Kamala.
I don't think that's actually that's actually not true. So the the vults of billionaires went to Trump over.
It's actually the fewest.
The biggest billionaire party consolidation was behind Donald Trump this time, which you wouldn't know. No, Kamala raised vastly more amounts of money that was predominant from more like upper middle class resistance liberals who poured in smaller donations. But yeah, the billionaires almost all united behind Trump, and even Kama's most prominent billionaire, Mark Cuban, actually did not even donate her campaign, which is kind of great.
I have October three, Yeah, from Forbes magazine, Kamala Harris has more billionaires prominently backing her than Trump. So I mean, I'm not sure where that's coming from, because Bill Gates obviously gave fifty million dollars, so sure Mark Cuban was a surrogate. I'm not trying to say Trump is better or whatever. But like, I don't think it's accurate to say the majority of billionaires where some of the top.
Ten donors, only the bottom two gave to Democrats. Trump's okay, but that's megade from his own billionaire ten donors amounted to about nine hundred and forty five million. Harris is top down at two hundred and fifty four million. She ended up raising more money thanks to resistance giving Trump got to spend much less time raising with most blah blah blah. So anyway, yeah, but that's he has a lot of big money behind him.
Yeah, he had a lot. But I'm just saying the majority of billionaires did suppor Kamala Harris. Now, whether they put their money behind it or not, I don't know. But you know, I'm just saying. I'm not saying Donald Trump is the what less billionaire friendly can ever, Like, let's be real. Yeah, So anyway, that's how the administration is currently shaping up, and I guess it'll be an interesting couple of years. So that's the way I'll put it.
And that's basically exactly what I expected. So if you expected something else, I don't really know what to tell you. You were warned, and I did tell you that it was probably gonna happen. At the same time, got to pay attention to the campaign that flopped big, and that was Kamala Harris. And it appears the biggest flop not only was just the vote total, but it actually was a lot of the money decisions that were made inside
the campaign. So we have curated now a list. It appears that the Kamala Harris campaign, despite raising over one billion dollars, still ended up some twenty million dollars or so in debt and is now currently fundraising, still asking people for money after she lost. Let's put this up there on the screen. So this is an example of one of the emails she's been sending out. Now. She says, first and foremost, we want to acknowledge the fear, the confusion,
sadness many of you are feeling at this moment. For others, you may be looking for something meaningful and important to channel your emotions. If that's you, then we're asking you to make a donation to the Democratic Party today. Here's why this is important. As you read this, there are US Senate and House races that are too close to call, or within the margin of recounts. They all need your
help to get across the finish line. So can you please rush a contribution to the Harris Fight Fund program today? Does anyone want to name like a high profile race other than in Pennsylvania that's not in recount territory. That's right, So this is a grift. Let's all be honest. Let's
put this up there on the screen. From Newsweek, it appears that there is a significant amount of debt within the Harris Walls campaign, enough so possibly up to the of some twenty million dollars, and people are starting to ask major questions about how some of that got spent. What we see, actually, and very interestingly so far, is not only could she possibly it appears there are reports out there that she's not able to pay some staff.
The staffers came out and said it wasn't true.
Okay, came out.
The article actually debunks that thing. But the twenty million does seem.
To be The twenty million does seem to be crackt and there's a lot of money, and so we should start to take a look then at where some of that money went. And the craziest is this, This is hands down the craziest. Let's put the next one please. From the New York Post, the Harris campaign reportedly spent some six figures on the Call Her Daddy podcast set, so as the they say, it didn't even crack a
million views. But what's fascinating is that, you know, call Her Daddy, as I understand it, you know, Alex Cooper, all of this. She has a home, she has a set, like she films it, you know normally, But for some reason, this set the one that people are in front of, which frankly doesn't even look that good. I don't mean look as good as our set. And from what I can tell in the dollar figure, Crystal, I think they
spent more money on it. First, one single appearance, A single appearance thing that is abounding like.
This one expenditure obviously not responsible for the hair slot, but it really displays a stunning lack of understanding of what matters in the new media space too, Like no one has shown up for your frigging like aesthetics. Yes, you know, I mean it's not we have a great side.
We're proud of it. We like, really we're proud that you guys helped us build it. It looks great, it helps us attract.
Bigger guests whatever, especially on a podcast like Call Her Daddy, Like the aesthetics are really not the important part. So it just also displays this like lack of really understanding of the space.
But the other thing that discussed me with this is.
You know, Kamala had her big money backers, no doubt about it. A lot of these donations didn't come from big money to hop backers. They came from like regular people. You wasted their money to pay Oprah a million, Like you took regular working people's money and you siphoned it to Oprah Winfrey and like Beyonce and Katie Perry and these other so celebrity stars. That's disgusting. That is utterly grotesque.
It's one more reason why you really should have public funding of elections, Like it should not be this constant emotional manipulation of the public begging them for dollars to go fund another like an Oprah Winfrey show and a Beyonce speech where she doesn't even perform. I just the whole situation is completely grotesque. To be the other thing I would say, obviously, like the money really didn't matter at the end of the day, it really didn't matter.
Now you can argue, I think the best case you could say is in the battleground states she actually performed better than she did in the non battleground states, meaning that you know, the ads that were played in the field program that was run were at least somewhat consequential in terms of narrowing the gap. Obviously not enough, but
the money really wasn't the thing. And if Democrats are going to get serious about winning again, which I doubt they will, but maybe you never know, they need to throw the whole, the whole of their big donor class overboard. They need you know, ready talks about like oh Sista Soldia moments with the left or web No, no, no, the whole party has been like nothing but a series of
Sista Solgia moments with the left for decades. Now you need to have assist to Soldia moment with the donor class because you.
Don't even you don't even need their money.
Their money is actually a hindrance and it just leads to grow testue expenditures like a million dollars to an already like Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire. She did not need regular people's million dollars And what does it say about her that she needed to be paid to come out And what does it say about you that she needed to be paid to come out and endorse and back your candidacy. Just disgusting. It's just such so emblematic of what is deeply wrong at the core of this party's ideology.
Yeah, and uh well we'll continue within that. Let's go to the next part because this is honestly the craziest one is that it appears that Kamala Harris paid Oprah Winfrey a million dollars during the failed campaign. What's even crazier is it wasn't just Oprah. It includes people like Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Ricky Martin. There was almost ten million bucks that were spent behind this, many of which actually did go into the pockets of these event management
companies and the stars. Now here's how naive I am. I am a very cynical guy. Can I think everybody agree with that? All the people who've been watching for years? I genuinely did not know that thee lebs get paid for it. I listen, they don't.
Believe in the call.
They show up you do a concert like that's what I thought was going on.
Here's a billionaire. If I was a billionaire and I was Oprah, right, you know, like it's one thing like, okay, you donate money to the campaign. If anything should be the other way, right, you should be given money to the campaign, because they're like, look, she's something I believe in all of this. Oh, all you want is my time. I'm famous. You want me to come and speak, Okay, cool,
Yeah I could do that. Honestly, I would do that now, you know if I was in a position of where there but to shake you down for a million bucks. That's crazy. And then Katie Perry apparently they also had to drop Blenis Morris. I don't have her name. I'm a boomer. I don't even know who this way he is.
That's an opposite of being a boomer. Okay, I'm old enough to remember when she was.
Okay, got it. So I don't even know who this woman is. But whoever she is, they didn't have the money to pay, and I was like, wait, why, Like why is she getting paid? She should just show up. It's like, you don't need to be compensated for your time, Like, to me, that's crazy. So Anyways, I don't know how all that is going down, but yeah, that was that was the wildest one.
There's one more too that we can put up on the screen. They spent half a million dollars a day to pay for the like Vegas sphere thing, which is who did this persuade?
Like really, who did this persuade?
And I saw someone who said, you know, this is the perfect emblem of a campaign that had all the money in the world and no ideas. And you know that's basically it summed up right there, all the money in the world. But just like with Hillary in twenty sixteen, who also want to spent Donald Trump, it doesn't matter if you aren't selling something that people don't want to buy.
And Trump's campaign fundamentally understood the media landscape vastly better than the Harris campaign did, both with the podcast strategy but also with the strategy of like, you know, it's
cool if we get outspent. Because Trump knows how to generate be controversial and devisive and generate a lot of earned media, and he's going to do a thing and that is going to set the tone of the campaign and drive the messaging and persuade people you know, in favor of our campaign and against Kamala Harris, and that
theory of the media was correct. In the Kamala Harris theory of the media was obviously a major failure, perhaps one of the biggest like tactical misunderstandings that they made in terms of this campag And I would say.
Oh, absolutely, there's no question. This Vegas Sphere thing is also just a hilarious one. It's like four hundred and fifty thousand dollars that they spent on this. Listen, right, the Spear's cool. I really want to go to the Sphere. I'd like to go see a show there and all that. But you know, you know, he lost Nevadas, So how did that workout? That's pretty great. And everybody was saying, like, oh, Kama's got few money, if she's able to buy out the Spear, It's like, yeah, it turns out you do
have few money, but you don't got any votes. I think, back up exactly, You're like Jesus, so this is a coloss will spend and yeah, pick up on what you said. There are a lot of hard working people out there who did give her money. You know, it's not just win moms and all these other people. A lot of people out there, lower middle class folks and others chipped in five ten dollars they believed in the cost. He
pissed their money away, and that's sick. You know, we did a lot of us reporting here on the show after stopped the steal, when Trump was shaking down people for two hundred and fifty million dollars for basically bullshit, right whenever you knew that he wasn't going to be able to over turn the election. And there are hard working plumbers, workmen, whatever who also gave money to that, And then I thought that was wrong. I think this
is just as wrong, especially the Oprah thing. And you pay a lady, the billionaire lady needs a million dollars show up, and you know, so you also, Oprah. You know, you should know better than to accept that money because you don't even need it. It's less than marginal at this point. And now when it comes out, you look like a money grub. You know. Obviously, any of us gonna believe an Oprah endorsement in the field, I'll tell
you I'm not. I truly did not believe it. I thought when Kid Rock and people maybe it is on the Republican gays. I don't know, but like I thought, when people just showed up, they're like, yeah, that's what they think. Okay, cool, you know whatever.
Yeah that's what I thought too. I genuinely love that as well.
Bit shocking.
It truly is one last thing on just like the bigger takeaway on political giving, money matters a lot in politics, but the lower you go down the ballot, the more
it matters. So if you want to give political donations to you know, Canadas and causes that you believe in, the place where you're going to have the biggest impact is at the lowest, so like you know, your local school board or city council, or your state rep or even your state senator, you know, all the way up to like members of the House, right, it really makes
a difference there. In fact, the fact that Democrats significantly outspent Republicans both at the House and the Senate level is probably part of the reason why they were able to stem some of the losses at those levels and perform better than they did at the top of the ticket, because the money just goes matters more there where you
have less media saturation. So in any case, if you're a person out there who does political giving, don't don't give to the top of the ticket like it's honestly a waste of your money.
It's a waste of your money.
Absolutely, such a good point, especially with earned media, that's the most important.
They have plenty of rich people who are going to give them, you know, I mean Miriam Addison gave traumpa one hundred million dollars, like Kama had her big donors as well. They're going to have the money that they need. So just don't get to the prostential level. It's right because of this. Because of this, also, don't give to the DNC. We're about to get to that.
Let's go to the next part. Shall we put this stuff there on the screen. It appears that every major Democratic leader in the House will get re elected to their position. Challenge Pere says, all the post lection takes mean zero as the House stems re elect their leaders without any dissent at all, and there will not be any drama. House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries he's coming back
minority with Kathin Clark coming back. Democratic Chief Caucus Chair Pete agui Are he is coming back, So number one, two and three in the House to representatives, every person is coming back. This is really and they say.
Likely unanimously, unanimously.
This is a sick part of America. Of America's system. In the UK, when you lose, you get your ass booted out of there. And you know, maybe every once in a while, David Cameron, you know, he comes back as a four secondary. That's as good as it gets for you most of the time. You know, like, what's that former liberal Democrat guy? He works for Facebook? You know, Gordon Brown? Who when's the last time you heard about Gordon Brown? When's the last time? Even Boris He's gone?
He's like not even there. He's flitting around the world. He's trying to mount his comeback. Rishiy sinok. He's gonna move to Silicon Valley anytime soon. And you know why because in their system, when you lose, you're done. They think, you know, they they're like, okay, the party is spoken, we get a new chairperson, you know, a new chair a new leader, and then they get to mount the campaign as the opposition and if you lose, then you elect somebody new. It's a very healthy, anti fragile system.
In our system, we reward decrepit nepotism. You know, in many system we have candidates who lose and then they come back. We have House speakers who lose and allow I mean, people like that should not get rewarded. That's another thing we were talking about with Rick Scott. I don't get it. He was responsible in part for the twenty twenty two losses in the Senate. Sure, you don't
get rewarded for that. You're supposed to be punished. But in America, for some reason, our system rewards longevity, nepotism, corruption all within our parties. Wasn't always this way. Actually, in the past there were sometimes in our parties that did have like reinforcing mechanisms, and they're like, no, if you lose, you know, we elect somebody knew. But this time, you know, why would you stick with Hakeem Jeffries or the any of these other people because they failed monumentally.
Jeffrey's entire job, a big part of that leader position is specifically to dole out funds and to contest the House and to take it back. And as the margin shows for Republicans, it was possible for the Democrats to win. They could have pulled this off if they wanted to, even with the Trump landslide victory. So I mean, you know you're supposed to get punished, and instead he's just rolling back in unanimously.
Not to mention, every one of the people that you mentioned and Jack Hyrmran, Jamie Harrison, Nancy Pelosi still obviously holds.
A lot of slight et cetera.
They all have the same basic philosophy and ideology. That was just an approach that was just completely rejected And if Democrats continue on this track, will continue to be repudiated and could result in, like I mean, they should feel like they are in a place of existential threat
to the entire party right now. And to me, what this displays is that there is no real soul surging going on over on the Democratic side, because there's no way that you just go ahead and performative like, perfunctorily re elect the same exact leadership with no even challenger, no resistance, it's going to be unanimous.
If you're engaged in any sort.
Of real soul searching about what just went wrong for your party? How did you lose to this person who supposedly your whole mission of the party since he emerged on the scene was to defeat him and to remove him from the public sphere.
How are you not.
Questioning the direction of these leaders that have been in place, How are you not questioning everything about your party's approach right now? And so, to me, that's what this is indicative of is they are not interested in really writing the ship. You know, they'll they'll like, as as we're going to show, they'll like blame wokeism, They'll blame this, they'll blame that. They'll say, oh, let's just relax, it wasn't that bad. Like let's just like Jim Clyburn said,
let's all just chill out. It's like you told us this guy was an existential threat, and now you are, like, let's just not point fingers, let's not play the blame game. Let's all just chill out. Like they are so committed to learning absolutely nothing. And it's no surprise because the people who benefit from learning nothing are exactly these people and the consultant class.
It's a racket. The DNC is a racket.
The you know, these leadership positions are a racket. They all benefit from the money and the power, and so they have no interest in really rocking the boat. And within the Democratic caucus, like as much as you have a few voices out there who are like, hey man, we should do things differently. When push comes to shove, they're not willing to make waves. They have bought into this idea that internal democratic party unity is the most
important value. And you know, they gleefully watched as there were leadership was leadership tumult on the Republican side, and they were so proud that everyone on the Democratic side just frickin falls in line. And so yeah, you're going to just keep marching in the same direction endlessly until someone decides to break that habit, and you know, does not appear that that is coming anytime soon.
Very true.