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. We have an amazing show for everybody today. Where do we have Christal Indeed we do.
We got two guests in the studio today, so that's going to be exciting. We've got Maurice Mitchell from the Working Families Party talking about the race for the new DNC chairs is kind of a big deal in terms of the war that is on for the future of the Democratic Party. We've also got Trump has confirmed his intention to use a national emergency and military assets to fulfill his plans for mass deportation. Shelby Talcott is going to join us to talk about that and other Trump transition.
News got a.
Little debate cooking between Sager and producer Griffin about some Bena Fleck comments with regard to AI. We're also taking a look at how liberals are fleeing Twitter and heading over to Blue Sky and what to make of that. Also something that did not make in the show yesterday because we talked too much in debate it too much, but very important and significant news about the Biden administration green lighting long range missile cues into rush up from
Ukraine and what that could ultimately mean. I am also taking a look at the ad Komalist corporate donors did not want you to see, and the big debate that is unfolding in the Democratic Party about what went wrong and what the future should hold. Maurice Mitchell from the Working Families Party is going to join us as well to weigh in on that.
Thank you to all of those when signing up for premium subscribers Breakingpoints dot Com if you want to go ahead and take advantage, You've got big plans this year. It's going to be fun already, look at the look at these amazing stories that are here, not just polls, politics and all that we're talking about Ben Affleck, Blue Sky,
Ukraine and so much more so. There's a lot of policy on the deck for the next at the very least, you know, first two years of the Trumpet medministration before the midterms, and I'm really excited to shift and start thinking deeply about that. Actually covering a presidency is really exciting. We got to do it all together the first time with Joe Biden, or get to do redo it again
with the President Trump. So Breakingpoints dot com if you want all of that and want to see some of the interesting things that we have that are coming next.
Yes, and whether or not you become a premium subscriber, please also like and share our videos on YouTube. It really helps out in the algorithm so other people can see what we're up to over here. Appreciate and love you guys as always.
Best.
All right, So, yesterday over on MSNBC, Joe and Mika of Morning Joe revealed that they had made a trek down to Mara a Lago to restart relations with Trump. The like just self aggrandizing way they talk about all of this is amazing in any case, take a listen to what they had to say.
Joe and I went to Mara a Lago to me personally with President like Trump. It was the first time we have seen him in seven years now.
We talked about a lot of issues, including abortion, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents and media outlets.
We talked about that a good bit.
And that's going to come as no surprise to anybody who watches this show, has watched it over the past year or over the past decade, that we didn't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so.
What we did agree on was to rest our communications. My father often spoke with world leaders with whom he in the United States profoundly disagreed. That's a task shared by reporters and commentators alike. We had not spoken to President Trump since March of twenty twenty, other than a personal call Joe made to Trump on the morning after the attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania. In this meeting,
President Trump was tearful, he was upbeat. He seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats on some of the most divisive issues. And for those asking why we would go speak to the president elect during such fraught times, especially between US, I guess I would ask back, why wouldn't wade there?
Sager is so much about this that is incredible. I mean the first thing that comes off is just like, I mean, she's comparing herself to her father.
Who is the National Security Advisor of the United States. Right for everybody, you're.
Just some jergof morning show host, Like what are we talking about? So there they are so narcissistic and so self aggrandizing.
So that's the first thing.
The second thing is that literally weeks ago, Joe was comparing Trump to Hitler. Yes, Mika was in tears, literally in tears on the even the election talking about her concern about Trump. So they were, you know, happy to profit off of fear of Trump before he's elected.
And now I think it's equal parts.
You know, fear, they see Matt Gates coming in at DOJA, they see Steve Bannon saying, hey, he's going to go after MSNBC hosts starting with Ari Melburn and working down the list, and also their constant desire to suck up to power. I mean, the same thing, Like these were the two morning show hosts. Remember these were Joe Biden's favorite morning show hosts. They were all on the phone
with him constantly. And by the way, Democrats in terms of media figures, who are responsible for the current state of affairs, You would be hard pressed to find two individuals who are more culpable for the destruction of the Democratic Party and the ushering of Trump back into the
White House than these two people. Number One, aggressively smearing and destroying Bernie Sanders and his movement both times around, blocking that path of actual left economic populism that would have been far more successful in defeating trump Ism than warmed over neoliberalism. Number Two, these were the people who rallied the troops around Joe Biden, blocked any sort of
primary process from happening. Even after that disastrous debate, they were there still saying, oh, I still think he's the guy, still backing him up. So they are so complicit in this ultimate situation. And not to mention, where else are never Trump Republicans more featured and more centered and their
concerns more catered to than this show. And what was the most disastrous part of Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party's strategy in this election than their desire to go after the mythical Liz Cheney voter that does not exist, that could have been hatched and maybe was hatched in the morning Joe Green room. So it's just extraordinary all
the way around and really quite discussing. MSNBC audience is furious, and frankly they should be, because these are a bunch of liars, grifters and con artists who were happy to con the audience and now well that Trump's in power, go and suck up to the next powerful individual, because that's just what they do.
Oh absolutely, And that's that's the cognitive dissonance that you need to say, because this is what it's all in the game, right, And I actually kind of agree with that. But the point is is that you can't be telling people that this is literally Hitler reincarnate and you're a dictator, and then when they get elected then you're like, oh,
well look it's the game. And comparing yourself and narcissism to your father, you're actually successful and intelligent father, as a beg New Brazinski national Security, the advisor of the United States who sat across from Khrushchev and others, you know, in his capacity as a diplomat. You're not a diplomat. You're a freaking morning show host. And as you alluded to, we have some side by side footage of what it was like, not that long ago, let's take a listen, this is not a reach.
I could go back and talk about Nazi Germany and I do it. I do it without any concerns whatsoever. And if people can't start drawing the parallels, well you're just stupid, or you have your head in the sand. Are your one of them?
Yeah? So Nazi Germany nineteen thirty three, it's like, which is it? And so actually, you didn't mean it the entire time. It was a con or you did meet it. And now that you know, quote unquote Nazi Germany and or Hitler has been elected, then you've just decided You're like, oh, actually, we just need to respect the will of the people.
So there's inherent narcissism. There is business, obviously, that's a huge part of it, because a lot of this is Morning Joe wanting to preserve its access, of which, by the way, I've had a ton of access in the first Trump administration, and you know, a lot of maga people don't like to hear it. There's nothing that Donald Trump loves more actually than access talking to and gossiping
with the liberal media. Literally seen in the firsthand. There's a reason why he gets to have dinner with them and not or sorry. Breakfast apparently was bacon and eggs.
By the way.
The diplomatic the diplomatic arections. Yeah, the restarting of communications just incredible, and I also love how scripted. Their entire answer was, so you see self andngrivesment, aggrandizement, you see business, you see hipocrisy. I would say it's the total MSNBC cocktail that is going on over there.
Absolutely.
And you know, the other way that should be seen is as we've been discussing on this show and I'll talk more about in my monologue today, there's basically sort of there's a war going on in the Democratic Party right now about what just happened and what it means
for the future. And there's effectively two camps, one camp on which the side of Joe and Mika is effectively the status quo, like nothing is that wrong, or if there is something that's wrong, it's just like the wokeism, and we need to continue on this like punching left as much as we can, which is already the status quo and the Democratic Party, and actually what we need to do is to capitulate to some aspects of trumpsm you see that with I think this is example number one.
Joe and Mika going down to mar A Lago is a case in point of that. Jared Poulis's comments about RFK Junior, Cory Booker his comments that also seem to be favorable to RFK Junior even in advance of the election, Jeff Bezos not making the endorsement at the Washington Post, Zuckerberg, Sundar Puchai, Tim cook All calling Trump to make nice with him. That is one direction. I think it's the most likely direction that the Democratic Party goes in that they say, hey, we want to work with you on
your mass deportation immigration policy. We actually want to shift to the right and be where you are more or less and ron is basically like trump Ism light. I think that's the most likely direction, and it bears a lot of commonalities and has a lot of echoes with what Bill Clinton did in the nineties, where it was okay, I see that this neoliberal direction of Reganism has won. So we're just going to basically do like our version of that on the Democratic side. And I'm not going
to say that it couldn't be electorally successful. I think it could. But that sort of capitulation to trump Ism is one path, and that's the path that Mika and Joe are signaling and pushing for here. The other path is to offer something that is a completely contrasting vision that is anti establishment but in a left economic populist direction. Rather than immigrants and cultural elites being the scapegoats, it's hey, it's the burning Sanders. The problem is the millionaires and
the billionaires. The problem is the rigged democratic establishment. The problem is the corrupt media. That's the other direction they could go in. They're less likely to go in that direction because it threatens the class interests of their donor something else I'm going to talk about in my monologue today. But that's basically the condours of the war right now.
So that's part of what makes this so significant. Outside of just like Joe and Mika being ridiculous people and grifters and connors and liars who just will sell their audience whatever they think is convenient in the moment, what is more significant about it is, you know, they're clearly taking sides in this battle within the Democratic Party, and you know they are quite influential, They are quite influential.
The other thing that I would say, in terms of their motive saga that you were alluding to is we're going to talk in a minute. I mean, MSMBC ratings.
Are in the toilet like bad and.
I think that it's this always happens after if there's some bad news for Liberals, you know, the ratings tank, same thing on Fox News, and there's some bad news for Republicans, their ratings.
Tank, whatever.
Those are usually temporary blips and things kind of return to some sort of a steady state. I think I'm SMBC is in real trouble here, though, because their whole theory of the world has centered around the idea of an anti Trump coalition, with these never Trumpers being the way and the model to follow in order to defeat Donald Trump, and their view of the world was just completely repudiated. It was, it is thoroughly incorrect, It is totally wrong, and a lot of Liberals are now feeling
very disenchanted with their own mainstream institutions. So, whether it's The New York Times, the Washington Posts, certainly, but also MSMBC, I think real damage has been done and there's a danger that those people just.
Don't come back.
You also don't have you know, last time around the Trump administration, you had all the Russia Gate thing, which is like a spy novel exciting. It was exciting for them to tune into Night after Night Rachel Maddow gonna piece.
Together and how does the story and blah blah blah.
You just don't have that same intrigue for them to draw the audience back in with, which was also you know, them selling their audience a bill of goods that turned out to be much less, dramatically less than what they ever portrayed.
So I think they're in real trouble.
And I think joh and Mika realized that it's not going to be their ratings that allows them to hang on. In fact, their ratings have never been all that great.
Yeah that's true, but it's just like very high, very wealthy and thing that's right.
And so the other thing they can bring to the table is access. So if you have access to the party in power, that gives you some cred that makes you valuable within the organization. And so I think it's also you know, life insurance policy for them within MSNBC, where the audience is going to be furious with them, but they are making the calculation that it's worth accepting that fury from most of the MSNBC audience in order to have that level of access.
Yeah, you alluded to the ratings. Let's ahead and put that on the screen. A twelve, Please up on the screen so we can see this, and you can actually see here the amount of primetime viewers that are in the key demographic for their show. So Ari Melburg for example sixty six thousand, Joy Reads seventy six thousand, Chris Hay seventy seven thousand, Alex Wagner fifty three thousand, The Last Word fifty three thousand, and Stephanie Rule at sixty
two thousand, prime time time. And this is the key demographic, which is.
What the KA the only thing that matters.
That's the only thing that matters for the advertisers. If you look at the weekend, it's more insane. We're talking in the twenties. You know, even in primetime they're lucky to crack thirty three thousand there at the five pm hour with Al Sharpton on the weekend. I mean, I don't have to tell everybody here who's watching a YouTube show or listening to a podcast that you know, we would be bankrupt literally if we're trying to run a business of our scale with numbers like that and the
key demographic. You know, we have literally millions of people who watch this show, not just our show, all kinds of different shows on YouTube and elsewhere, which are almost I think almost one hundred percent of our audiences in the key demographic. Just for you know, in terms of looking at where the age divide is there. But I also want to get to something deeper. Something you said, if you've watched MSNBC for eight years, you were sold
a bit of goods. You were sold a false view of the world if you watch the show, if you watch really a lot of shows that are non mainstream. There was a theory of Trump in twenty sixteen, which I think we definitely talked a lot about her on the show. We're like, no, this is not an aberration, this is not like, you know, there's a theory that
you could have an anti Trump coalition. But the shifts that took place in twenty sixteen were fundamental, and they were a lot more than just Hillary Clinton was bad or Russia sold the election. We had major demographic change. There was immigration, there was trade, it was forty year reckoning, the Iraq War. You're not gonna get any of that on MSNBC, and you haven't for the last eight years.
Every once in a while, a guest will pop up and tell the truth and it goes viral because it's like, wow, it's so shocking to actually see somebody in that format. But again, like if you're watching here and you were prepared for Donald Trump victory, and not just a victory, you were prepared for even the case that has now happened.
You know, the popular vote, the realignment, all of those, you know, the young male shift to the right, the gender democratic the gender gap that's happened between men and women, the Latino male realignment, young people's disillusionment with Israel policy. We've covered that at nauseum for years, in and out. I don't really know how you can function as a Morning Joe viewer. So in a certain sense, they were fooled. I mean, they literally were hunwinked from reality over the
last eight years. In a certain part, I almost feel bad for them, But that's also why it's so disingenuous for them to act this way now today and that's the key point is that they're shape shifters and their narcissists, and this actually shows what the entire game is all about at the end of the day.
The way you know that they're really screwed over there is that you had even Jen Saki coming on and basically being like, you know, this whole never Trump thing. She went on mourning Joe the home the beating heart of never trump.
Ism, and said, you know, maybe this was not.
The right group to go after because guess what, they only exist in your green room, guys.
So you know you're screwed when that happens.
When David Brooks is out there writing columns like, you know, maybe Bernie Sanders had a point. When Senator Chris Murphy, who is no renegade, is out there saying, you know why we were so aggressive against Bernie Sanders, it's because we didn't want his program of class warfare to impact
our high net income base or donor class like. When you have figures like that admitting that the last eight years have been a lie, a mistake, a ruse acon of their own base, that's how you know that the whole MSNBC edifice is crumbling and it's one of the more hopeful things, frankly, to come out of this election, because it has been a disaster for anyone who is on the left who does want a different direction for the Democratic Party. I can't tell you how influential MSNBC
has been. I mean, I genuinely think sacery. You can tell me if I'm wrong that MSNBC is by and large the reason that Joe Biden was able to win the nomination.
Autely because no question, if you remember.
Back in twenty twenty, what happened, Okay, Bernie Sanders was winning. He did you know, he claims he won Iowa.
We all know.
Bernie really one Iowa will say he did well in Iowa. He wins New Amstry goes on to Nevada just romps like, wins overwhelmingly in Nevada, and the Democratic Party has an oh shit moment like Bernie Sanders could actually be the nominee.
Jim Clyburn makes his move.
Obama makes a bunch of calls behind the scenes, basically gets everyone to drop out. Joe Biden wins South Carolina expected then everyone drops out and the media coalesces behind him and behind this narrative of those first three states really didn't matter, really didn't count. The only thing that matters is Carolina. And by the way, Joe Biden is
the only person who could defeat Donald Trump. So they aggressively sold this narrative to the Democratic base, and the Democratic base, desperate to defeat Donald Trump, was like, Okay, I guess we're going with Joe Biden then, and then Joe Biden comes from behind it. I mean, the way the polls shifted during that time period was like nothing we have ever seen before because of the msnbcs of the world leading the charge to coalesce the Democratic base
behind him. And at that point it was so effective because liberals still had so much trust in places like the New York Times and MSNBC and CNN. So when they said it's got to be Joe Biden, guys, he's the only one that can win, they said, all right, well, I guess that's what we're going to do.
You're not going to have that dynamic anymore.
Those same places do not have the same level of trust and influence with the Democratic base that they once did. I truly believe that that trust, not that it's like totally gone, and no one's gonna blah blah blah blah. I don't want to overstate it, but that level of just obedience to whatever the narrative is coming out of those mainstream institutions. I truly think that's gone and broken, and I think that is a very positive and hopeful thing.
If there's going to be any prayer of the Democratic Party doing anything interesting going forward.
That's right. We also have John Stewart, who waited on this in only the way that he can. Let's take a listen.
Ortion, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents and media outlets.
Oh, I bet you really lead down the gauntlet, Joe. I'll bet you walked in there just let him have it, didn't you.
Joey, I'm gonna do a one act play called Joe and Mika go to Marlago, Miss the President. Your rhetoric is outrageous.
I cannot in.
Good conscience who those.
Whoa the pink one is Rolbury. We've learned nothing, even though it putting up resistance to Trump's agenda, don't seem to understand who they're dealing with.
Yeah, I mean, it's too perfect, too perfect, And John goes on this whole thing too, about how Democrats are just wholly unable to grapple with the hardball tactics that are deployed by Trump and by his people, where you know, when it's Democrats in power, it's like, oh my god, the parliamentarian said, we can't do it. So guess what, guys, no minimum wage? Tike, sorry are a baud. We tried
really hard. And then with Trump it's like I want mac eates at DJ and they're like, well, there's not the votes for it, and he's like, I don't care. I have this way of doing a recess appointment. And Democrats are left falling back on like the norms. I don't think that's appropriate global, I mean that's what they do.
Yes and no. I mean certainly yes, yeah, they definitely yes when they want something, and they also do it like, let's not pretend that either. So give me an example, DACA legalizing literally a million people with the pen what is it? The pen and the phone? Like it's not like democrats.
How many years ago was that, Sager?
That's the most outrageous example, years ago, giving one where they're literally willing to use I mean the student loan thing is like didn't pass through Congress, decided to try and do it through executive action failure, by the way, and.
How did that work out? I mean they got like a yeah lay amount compared to what he was gonna exactly. I mean, that's the thing, is like to your I guess one thing I will say is that I think you're right that the priorities that they just crumble on are things they don't really care.
That's no. The point is is that they just they.
Don't serve their base. The Republicans actually serve their base. Yes, Democrats do not serve their base whatsoever. In fact, their whole mo which is part of how they end up in this situation, is to like smear and ride their own base, Like how many years have they aggressively gone after the young base of their party? And then you wonder why young people are drifting away from the parties because you didn't. You spent years saying that they were bad and wrong and anti semitic, etc.
So, yeah, there's just a.
Very different orientation between the way the Democratic Party approachases these things.
I think I could see why you think that, and perhaps we may have arrived at this but the Republican base has also been anti illegal immigration for like twenty years and actually hasn't gotten anything. So well they get something this time, like maybe, but you know, don't forget even under the Donald Trump administration quote unquote, nothing fundamentally changed, no bench or piece of legislation past. Will it happen
this time? Maybe? I'm actually still very skeptical. I think I don't underestimate the power of the business lobby or any of these people in stopping you know, what is eventually going to happen. Chaos is already the status quo. We're going to talk about that with Shelby Talcott, and I think that chaos is a vacuum of which business lobbyists and others prefer. It's possible that Trump is a much more organized figure. I don't see ton of evidence
for that. I think certain things that they ran on that have now co lesst ideologically over eight years can and will happen, But that does not mean it will be like as a coherent ideology. It's not FDR that we're dealing with here, at least is the way that I'll put it. But overall, the way that I think that we can look at this is the MSNBC. The problem is is I can't discount them because they also have a Scotsman effect of like who is left in
the actual Democratic Party and the people who are left. Yes, they may be dissolutioned, but the truth is is that rich white people are now the Democratic base, right Like those are the people who overwhelmingly moved and voted and showed up for Kamala Harrison. Those people still do have
a deep amount of institutional trust. And when they don't have institutional trust, it's not the way that you and I talk about, right, they'll be like the New York Times wasn't tough enough on Trump, Like that's literally what they think. They think that the media. They think that if more Americans had not been if Trump enough been quote normalized or whatever, that they would not vote for him. Obviously it's a stupid ideology, but that's what they think.
So I'm not I wouldn't count them out yet. I think that even on MSNBC, they'll find their way, you know, they they they'll find an agenda and all these other things that they can come to together. And I am I wouldn't say just yet that these rich whites are willing to abandon MSNBC in those institutions, I could see a big surge for things like Midas Touch. And you know, if people do go online, it'll be like, yeah, literally Midas touched Brian Tyler Cohen.
But you know, even them though, even like Midas Touch has been on the like you know what, Bernie was right.
Oh really, I don't count myself too familiar with Midas Touch.
I do think that I think you're correct, though.
I do think there will be more of a migration to YouTube and podcasts among some portions. In fact, you already see it with you know, actually we see it over in Crystal Kyle and Friends. Ryan sees it on drop site, David Sarti sees it on lever News that over Nathan J.
Robinson like they're seeing it too.
There there has been a surge and like, all right, this shit has not helped me understand the world, and so I do need to search out other alternatives. Michael Moore actually put out a big post of like here's some other places to go. Yeah, and so I do think there will be a shift to and just because of the economics of YouTube, even if you have people who are you know, basically like you know, Blue Resistance figures,
like the mightus Touch guys. There's just a different ecosystem and a different set of incentives over on YouTube, so
you end up with different commentary. I mean, that's part of why the Pod Saved dudes have been like they're a mixed bag, don't get me wrong, but they've been better at they wanted Joe Biden out, They've been better in analyzing what happened then for example Joe and Mika certainly just simply because they're in a different medium and so that helps to create like a different perception of
the world. So, you know, I do think you'll see a kind of splintering from Like I said, I don't want to oversell it, like the New York Times and the Washing and Post are still going to exist, is going to still have some viewing audience, but when you consider how old and how scarce their audience is already, Yeah, I just don't think they're going to have the same level of dominance that they did in terms of setting
one hundred percent of the discourse. One thing that has been amusing to me though, is like the number of people like Chris Murphy or whoever, who will like go on MSNBC to talk about how they should do more independent media, and it's like, you know, we do exist. Yeah, right, we haven't had Rocana is still.
Like the only person westending with Chris for two years.
Just so and everybody very good point, yes, very good one. And it's not like, I mean, here we are with this audience that is cross ideological and people who are open to you know, different ideas and having their minds changed and whatever, and we haven't had one Democrat reach out to us and be like, you know what, let's let's do this thing. Except for Roe. He's the only one.
He gets a lot of crowd for that. But it is funny to me that they're like, oh gosh, we should do or independent media, but then they don't actually do that. They just go on MSNBC to talk about how they should do that.
That's right, all right. We got Talcott standing by. Let's get to her. Very excited now to be joined by Shelby Talcott. She's a national political reporter at Semaphore. Great friend of the show. It's good to see you, Shelby.
Nice to see you.
All right, So let's talk a little bit about what's going on with the transition. Let's start with this. Let's put this up there on the screen. We have a four to three am retruth here from Donald Trump. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. This good news reports our incoming real Donald Trump administration is prepared to declare a national emergency and we'll use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program. He retroots and says
true at four oh three am. So are we to take this as the late night or I guess early mornings slash late night either or in Trump's case, musings on truth Social How does this comport with your own reporting down in mar A Lago talking to the transition team.
Yeah, well, first, I'm really excited that we're back to four am.
That's right tweets for the next year.
But yeah, Donald Trump has talked a lot about his mass deportation plan, and when you talk to people close to him, you know, Steven Miller has gone into depth about this.
His borders are Tom.
Homan has talked a lot about this, and they all sort of have the same idea, which has use every single resource possible and in some cases use resources that are not currently possible to implement the plans. So they've talked a lot about starting with criminals and national security threats. Stephen Miller has spoken at length about sort of expanding some of these holding centers for undocumented migrants. Donald Trump has talked about using the National Guard and local local police,
and so I think everything's on the table. Steven Miller's talked about invoking the Insurrection Act and declaring a health emergency. So there are they are thinking of essentially every single option in order to to implement this. And this is clearly Donald Trump's focus, because if you look at who he started with when he was first deciding who was going to be in his cabinet, it was all sort
of these national security folks the borders are. Stephen Miller is his deputy chief of staff, and so you're seeing that that's really the focus for the campaign.
Any sense of how many people were talking about here, because I mean, actually estimate's very of the number of undocumented immigrants twelve million to twenty million, somewhere in that range. So I mean, any exercise of this scale and scope would be absolutely massive. So any sense of how many people they're actually thinking about here.
I mean when I talked to people close to Trump. They say as many people as possible, and that ultimately depends on what they're actually able to do. Right If you look at the number of ICE officers right now, it's not enough, it's not even nearly enough to do what they want to do. But they're hoping that they can get the resources, whether it's through executive orders, it's to Congress to drastically ramp up.
The resources that they have, which.
Would drastically ramp up the amount of people that they could theoretically deport.
So do they need Congress is an important question.
I think it depends.
I think that they're hoping that they can use some things with executive orders.
I mean I would be you.
Know, I've talked to people who say that they would be shocked. They're very close held with their executive orders, but I would be shocked if they're not executive orders floating around in the Trump transition team right now that directly try to address.
Some of this immigration.
But I do think that some of the things that they're probably going to have to go through Congress.
I mean, they threw it at the wall last time. They can try all they want, but we all saw the court system. The Congress is ultimately the only way it's possible. I mean, it's theoretically possible. That actually gets to a bigger question of there is a sense that Trump himself promised he said, I've learned a lot of my lessons from last time around about personnel. How does that? How true is that you and I were there, we covered the first term, unlike a lot of people got
into politics now. So how different is it from the last time around? How similar is it from last time around?
Well, he's clearly trying.
He's clearly appointing people that he believes are loyalists. What I think is interesting, though, is some of these folks, you know, you still have all of these different factions inside Trump world who are vying for different people. Some of those people are are maybe not the best choice for Trump, but the best choice for people around Trump,
you know. I thought it was interesting that Donald Trump tapped Will sharf, which is his personal or his lawyer over the past two years, for the staff secretary position because Will Sharfs is Leonard Leo's prodigy, and Leonard Leo obviously had a falling out with Donald Trump years ago and is super influential in conservative orbits, and this potentially could be sort of Leonard Leo's way into the administration. He is sort of a donor, longtime federalist guy.
You know.
He was involved in some of the in some of Donald Trump's.
Judges picks back in the day, but they had a falling out. They are not close anymore. He's been iced out of the Trump campaign, but he's super, super close with Will Sharf, and so I think that is notable. So you have people like that in Trump's orbit now who have already been tapped. I think it's going to be really interesting to see, for example, if they get confirmed, how Marco Rubio and Tulci Gabbard work together because they
are very different. And so I think Trump is trying to pick loyalists, but it is such a he has four thousand positions.
To a point, are all of them going.
To truly be loyalists or are we going to see something like twenty sixteen where some people have different opinions and there's going to be drama.
Tell me more about the Elon Musk relationship romance, etc. We talked some yesterday about this, but there's a sense that Elon with some members of the transition team has sort of worn out, has welcome. We also see publicly him fraezing Javier of Ballet for getting rid of tariffs is the whole opposite of the direction.
Trump obviously once ago.
And we also see him backing his own pick for Treasury Secretary, which would also you if I think if the cap from anyone else would probably rub Trump the wrong way. You know, what can you tell us about those dynamics within the transition team.
I mean, I know Donald Trump has said sort of joked multiple times now that you know he's still around, He's still here, can't get him out of mar A Lago, and I think that's true. Taking pictures with the family and literally with the family, and I think that's true. I mean, he's hanging around mar A Lago every week. But I think they're still in that romance stage from mine. You know, I think Donald Trump sort of is fascinated by Elon Musk. Elon Musk spent two hundred million dollars
to help get Donald Trump elected. You know, some people in Trump's orbit are a little miffed that Elon Musk is so close. He's sitting in on transition meetings. He's weighing in privately and publicly on who he thinks Donald Trump should pick. But you know, Trump loves to an extent people who love him and people who are sort of fan boying, and I think right now that's how he is viewing Elon Muss.
Yeah, to have the richest man in the world as your fanboy, I'm sure that's pretty potent stuff.
Yeah, he's going to he's going to a starship thing today. Yeah, he's going to the launch of a space They were at.
The UFC fight together.
Yeah, let's put this up there on the screen. One of your latest reports here about the Trump transition co chairs are both in limbo on cabinet jobs. So this includes the counter Fitzgerald CEO, Howard Lutnick, and also Linda McMahon, who was what was she small business under Donald Trump last time around? So what's going on, you know inside this treasury fight. I've been fascinated by it. Originally at
Scott Bessen and Howard Lutnik there, Elon endorses Howard. Now neither of them appear to be in contention, mostly because Trump is pissed that what people are leaking against each other hilarious with Linda McMahon too. I mean she I mean, she didn't give two hundred million, but she gave a decent amount of money there to Donald Trump. So what's up with those two and what position, like are they jocking for and are they likely to get now?
So, Linda internally for months has made it clear that she wants Commerce, and for months it's been pretty clear that she is the only clear contender for Commerce, but she has not yet been offered the position, and I've
been told by a few people that she's pissed about it. Interesting, and one of the reasons that people are theorizing that she has not gone the position is because Donald Trump is essentially waiting to see if he needs to use that Commerce position as sort of a holdover from a more important spot, Say, if Besson doesn't get Treasury, maybe they'll drop him down to Commerce. And as for the Treasury,
it is there's drama there. So we're seeing Howard and Scott as the two front runners for a while now, well, Scott was really the core front runner, and then Howard started sort of buying for the position himself. And it's gotten to the point where Donald Trump is really annoyed
by the public job. You know, with Donald Trump, I think it's really interesting because as much as he loves a little bit of the drama and he loves sort of you know, in the case of Elon Musk, somebody who fanboys around him, he also hates when somebody is too aggressive and trying to.
Get into his orbit.
And you know, I've been told in the case of Howard that that has certainly happened.
And well, he put himself after j d Vance at MSG. It's like, who are you your transition Chai, why are you speaking before Donald Trump? Yeah, he's introducing Elon Muckle. He made himself a central character, I guess throughout this entire thing. So throughout this you know, it's only been
what fifteen days or something like that. Over the transition a lot we talked about Elon and the drama, but those other factions, like you're talking about is it your sense similarly of like different ideological coalitions are coming at war and ultimately what sways Trump? This is like the eternal question, what does what is the reasoning behind his decision? Because for every mac Gates you also get a Marco Rubio, right, Like what's going on behind that.
It's a good question because I think, you know, Donald Trump's first and foremost concern, as he said, is loyalty, but he also has all of these factions vying for him. Treasury is interesting because I feel like it's mostly sort of a lot of people support Scott, and then there's sort of Howard, who had spent months trying to convince Elon Musk to publicly come.
Out for him, which he ended up doing.
So it's sort of like Howard and Elon, So that's kind of a unique situation. I also think that when it comes to some of these, you know, Treasury, Commerce, some of these more economy focused jobs, it's less about almost loyalty right when you talk compared to okay, we need someone who's going to implement Donald Trump's mass deportation plan, Like that's like top of the list for Donald Trump.
Commerce is he doesn't care about it as now. So I think that there's all It depends on the position essentially, right, So you have Kennedy, you had Omead Malik, who is a big donor who has been in his corner for a long time. You had Talker, you had all of these folks vying for Kennedy for HHS.
There's less of that sort.
Of overt camps when it comes to Treasury.
Gotcha, And how does Jadie Vance fit into all of this. I noticed he wasn't at the UFC fight, he wasn't at the RFK Junior McDonald's hostage photo taking session. And I don't hear him brought up much in terms of, like, you know, being part of these factions, are part of these internal conversations.
Yeah, Vance has sort of been pretty quiet over the past few weeks, and I think that's by design. I think he's more involved in things that involve Congress. You know,
he is having conversations with lawmakers. I think that's going to be one of his key roles as vice president because he was just in Congress and he's so close to some of those folks, and so I think he's working on sort of cultivating and making those relationships behind the scenes rather than being sort of a forward facing role sitting in on every single decision.
He also has three young kids, right.
So he's still back and forth from Ohio. So he's certainly involved in these decisions, but it's much less of a forward facing role, and I think that's why to sign.
That's smart? All right, Well, Shelby, we always love talking to you. Thank you for joining us.
Great thure you, Shelby, Thanks for having me.
All right, guys, we have a very special treat for everyone out there in the world. Producer Griffin is joining us live to have a big fight with Sager about Ben Afflex comments on Ai Griffin, thank you very much. We actually just tagged you in this morning because I felt you were more competent to make this case than I was, So thank you.
Yeah, me and Sager normally fight before the shows, so it's good to do it on camera.
That's right, to see behind the scenes. And if Griffin is not just some random dude, he literally is a former NYU film student. He lived in Hollywood, he worked on multiple movies. He's literally a film prodigy who at the age what was it, twenty years old, you had a movie that went to Sunband. So he's not just somebody. He's actually that's right, he knows what he's talking about.
Absolutely.
Most importantly, a member of the Ben Affleck fan clubs in the town over ten times, right, and I'm a dunkin Donuts rewards member.
All right, So that's with love for afflic amazing.
Amazing, all right, let's start.
Let's go ahead and get to the comments in question from mister Affleck that sparked this whole debate.
Let's take a listen, a.
Bunch of actors that are completely recreated for this market or that market.
A that's not possible now be Will it be possible in the future, highly unlikely see movies. That will be one of the last things if everything gets replaced, to be replaced by AI. AI can write you excellent imitative verse that sounds a little Beethan, It cannot write you Shakespeare.
The function of having two actors or three or four actors in a room and the taste to discern and construct that is something that currently entirely eludes AI's capability, and I think will for a meaningful period of time. What A is going to do is going to disintermediate the more laborious, less creative, and you know, more costly
aspects of filmmaking. That will allow costs to be brought down, that will be lower the barrier to entry, that will allow more voices to be heard, That will make it easier to for the people want to make good will huntings to go out and make it look. AI is a craftsman.
At best.
Craftsmen can learn to, you know, make stickley furniture by sitting down next to somebody and seeing what their technique is and imitating. That's how large video models are as language models basically work a library of vectors of meaning and transformers that interpret context. Right, but they're just cross pollinating things that exist. Nothing new is created yet not yet, yeah, not yet. And really in order to do that, look,
craftsmen is knowing how to work. Art is knowing when to stop, and I think knowing when to stop is going to be a very difficult thing for AI to learn because it's taste and also lack of consistency, lack of controls, lack of quality. AI for this world of generative video is going to do key things more in me, I wouldn't like to be in the visual effects business.
They're in trouble.
Griffin ben Affleck basically arguing there that AI in Hollywood will be a benefit. It will lower costs, allow a sort of creative flourishing.
What say you?
So it's complicated because he's he's right and he's wrong. I think that he is certainly overlooking the fact that like he's like, oh, if you're in the visual effects business, you're in trouble. But if you're in like the majority of the below line industry businesses, you're in trouble. Whether it's like being an editor, a sound mixer, the background extras.
Even some of like the foreground actors are getting their likenesses stolen right now and repurposed for AI and their testing right now, mainly in like.
Commercials and stuff.
I do think he right in certain areas where it's like, oh, it's gonna give more freedom to individuals to create bigger things than they could on their own if someone wanted to create a good will hunting. But I think the big elephant in the room he's forgetting is none of this is happening to improve art or give people more opportunities. It's for executives to make a few more million while they slash tens and thousands of film industry jobs over
the next like ten to fifteen years. And they're gonna do it before the art is good or if it ever gets good. They're gonna do it now in survey slot.
So I understand what you're saying, Griffin. I think that the counter is that this is technology. I mean one of the examples that he gives, for example, is that TAOSA the Dragon won't take two years. You can have a new season that will come out, but the scripts and all of that will remain creative. And I get you know, yeah, if it work in the visual effects business,
that sucks. But reducing you know, the economy of scale and making it so that the technology is easier could actually create more opportunities first and foremost, But second, this is a technological inevitability. Like in the nineteen eighties, the CGI effects and all that were terrible. They were very costly. Eventually, as they go down, then you were actually able to create a lot of new content, new roles and all
that are there. That doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to a lot of the people who were what was it like Disney animation, right, A lot of it was hand drawn, and then the pixtar revolution comes in and changes all of that. We still got great movies. Now, unfortunately, it did mean that thousands of people didn't have to sit there and hand draw, but that was you know, physically,
it was very inefficient. So I didn't have a real problem with what he said, because what you were telling me is that a lot of people in Hollywood are very angry at him. But you know, in a certain sense, it's like you're angry at technology. You're going to choose ultimately,
what is going to be the cheapest option. I thought it was a very insightful answer because what it does show is that while the technology and the craft and the inputs themselves will reduce that the actual creative inputs and what makes Hollywood and movies and content really so fantastic that actually can't be programmed. So in a certain sense, I didn't think he was an AI doomer. I thought that was a real optimistic way of how AI is
just physically a tool. Nothing is ever going to come and replace us.
So two points to there.
So with like the let's focus just on the video effects just for a second. So I use this example a lot like of like the Marvel slob. Like Marvel movies continue to get worse and worse, but like technology is like getting better, but we continue to like funnel down to like the lowest common denominator because it's more money for the film executives. I use the example of Pirates of the Caribbean two Dead Man's Chest. Yeah, this
is a very popular example online, an incredible film. There's a scene in the CGI of that so two thousand and six film of Davy Jones. He's an octopus man and he's playing the piano with his tentacles, and it was twenty years ago and it looks better than any CGI you see today, which I think is an example of well, yeah, technology can improve, but executives aren't using it to make better art.
They're using it to make more money.
Now to your point about like, oh, individual creators can then like go and like make good will hunting, and a director is can be untethered from the production costs and on all that stuff.
And I do see that example.
But for me, it's like a lot of people think, like the director can like make the whole movie, but like a Martin Scorsese movie is good not just because Scorsese is good, but because he is as the director is channeling the talents, the experiences and the art from real humans. All these people on set. Should I frame the camera this way? Should we dolly it? Should we like these people? How are we doing their hair and makeup? These aren't all decisions just coming from Martin Scorsese's brain.
He's channeling other people's like art and creativity. And I don't think we're gonna see that with AI systems in the same way.
But I see that's actually a good example where Scorsese. The reason that Scorsese movies are great is because Scarsese does things his way Tarantino same way in terms of his rejection, and wants to do a lot of this stuff in real time. One is one of the reasons that Tom Cruise movies are so fantastic because he insists on doing the stunts himself and making it as real as possible. That's what makes them outliers and what makes them fantastic. So great script, great acting, great visual effects.
While yes, there's still gonna be a lot of Hollywood slop. I mean, I personally swore a blood oath that I was done with Marvel after ant Man in the Wasp, and I just said I'm done. I'm done, you know. And it's like I saw Shang Shi. I came to a turn. I stuck with them. I stuck with them through Wanda Vision, through all the Finally I just said it's over. But it's one of those though, where they did pay a cost, right, you know, they had diminishing returns.
While they certainly did make some money on those movies, their cultural cachet and Marvel Universe, et cetera is going downhill, whereas we've had major success of a lot of the films that you're talking about that bring the individual filmmakers taste.
So it will just be like a technological standard. But you know, what makes great films great films and the ability of people like Ridley Scott or any of these others to have some visual effects but ultimately rely on the genius of their directing the human humanity, and also be able to compel studio funding, which is really what they were best at. They can get big budget films and direct it towards these resources. I still feel like that niche will always exist in Hollywood. It's just like
the example he gave about House of the Dragon. That seems like the most apt one. And again I get it, if you work in visual effects, that probably sucks. But you know, if you worked as a i don't know, like a boom guy in the nineteen eighties and your job eventually phased out, that's a little bit nature of the business too.
Yeah, but with House of the Dragon, like, it's not going to just be the video effects. It's gonna be the scripts. It's gonna be like the majority of the actors on screen. It's gonna be even like they're gonna start face tuning people, so you don't need hair and makeup. You're gonna need like all these all these different things that aren't just a cost but are a creative input that makes something that's unique, that actually is art that touches the heart.
I use the Netflix slop example a lot.
If you go on Netflix right now, Netflix to cut costs, has completely homogeno how they make film. That's why, like every film you see on Netflix is called like tall Girl, and they're all shot with the same camera and the same bland look. Everyone talks about that. Why things like gray worm Meal, It's because it's cheaper. It's because it's cheaper. It's not because it's better are or because the director's got to express themselves more. It's because it's more homogenized.
Well, you know, another example of that Griffin I think is YouTube shorts. I banned my kids from watching them at all because.
You're all they are I'm.
Not a great parent, but this one thing I did take a stand because.
All they are is AI slop.
That's it, because that's what the economics makes sense for. So even if only one out of one hundred like takes off or whatever, because they're all so shitty and so low quality, they cost nothing. So that seems to me the direction that this is ultimately going to go in. And I also question the idea the promise of like, oh, now more independent creators, it'll be lower costs, et cetera. Using AI will be low costs for major studios because
they have the technology suite and the licenses. Because AI is already like a monopolistic business, so they'll have that technology suite, they'll.
Have the resources to do all the things that you're talking about.
Inependent filmmakers are not going to have access to that level of technological case.
That's a really interesting point. Yeah, that's a really interesting point. And let's let's even say they do okay, Like let's say there's a program that you can sign up for that's thirty bucks a month subscription fee and you can make a whole world and like design everything. Why would any studio need to buy it from you or distribute it. When they can just do it themselves. It's like, great, throw it up on YouTube and it gets fifty views.
We're going to just make the exact same thing and not pay you because we don't need you, because everyone can do this now.
So there's that element too.
I do want to like, I want to give a little bit of like a Devil's Advocate to something Ben says, where like anyone can make good will hunting As an ende filmmaker. One of the things that has triggered me most over my career is a lot of articles saying wow, with technology, like anyone can make a movie now, you can make a movie on an iPhone.
That's bullshit, that's not true.
You can shoot it on the iPhone, but then you're gonna to spend one hundred grand from somewhere to sound mix it, get it ready for a theater, do all that post. So like, there are all these costs that make it so only rich kids really make independent film. When I produced indie film, it was never because someone had a good idea. It was because I knew a rich kid whose mommy and daddy were willing to give them a quarter million dollars to like go shoot a film.
So I think there is something there to like democratizing certain parts of it, But I don't think that that's what the executives are doing. I don't think that that's how they're going to try to control the system of delivery with all of it, and ultimately, I think it's
gonna continue to just like homogenize art and creativity. I think most of the movies that Sager loves were not made with any AI, and I would be surprised if, like ten years later, Sager's favorite movies are the AI ones versus the great films we've seen.
You're not wrong with right, You're absolutely not wrong. But here's the sad part that Netflix slop. It exists for a reason. People watch it, they like it. I mean, let's put this up on the screen from the Atlantic. There's no longer any doubt that Hollywood writing is powering AI.
They talk specifically here about how what Was It? Eighty five thousand TV episodes and fifty three thousand other movies were used by AI systems to be trained on writer's work, to be able to fill in certain things including you know, every film nominated for Best Picture from nineteen fifty to twenty sixteen, The Simpsons, every episode of The Wire, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad. Do I ever think that, you know, AI will be able to produce any of those shows or
even incredible movies that I just listed. No, but you know there's a lot of people out there, unfortunately, Griffin who like outer I couldn't tell you what Outer Banks is about. I honestly I couldn't tell you. If I looked at the Netflix top ten TV shows right now, it is just straight shit, like every single one of them. But they're top ten and they get hundreds of hours. If I recall, what was that movie with the Rock on Netflix? Was it Red? Notice that? I mean, you know,
that was a huge movie. People liked it. They actually liked it. I hate to say it. Hit Man. There's another one. I didn't watch hit Man, but I know that was a big one. There was a Gramination Okay, gray Man? Is that Ryan Gosling?
But I don't think any of those films are made with a humans. That's why you like that?
Well, what I'm giving an example is that just generic replacement level film and TV on Netflix. People enjoy it. You know, even those crappy, fake animated series that they do for children, which look horrible, but they're always like number six, you know Number eight. You and I are always going to be on HBO watching prestige television, but there's not a big market for it unfortunately.
Yeah, I mean I do. I do think you're right.
I think it's a question of like, how do we continue to protect art and if we value art, how do we protect it. That should be like the main goal of people like Ben Affleck talking about this, not like all the fun things that you can do in the future with AI, but like how do we like protect and keep on making creative pictures that require humans in my opinion, as opposed to just kind of letting things fly and seeing where things.
Go next because most of the stuff is slop.
You're right, A lot of people watch it, and I think that the industry right now is kind of in a big evolution right now.
You know, everyone went big into streaming.
There was so much slop, and even back in the day, like if you turn on cable, ninety percent of the shows were bad. Yeah remember the ten percent good ones, right, But like, ultimately, I think if you're a lover of film, if you're a lover of art, all of this AI stuff and the things that drive what they're developing it for it seems to be anti RT and pro slop. And I think that people like Affleck need to kind of do everything they can with their cachet of power to prevent that as long as possible.
Yeah, I mean, to me, there's a vibe from Affleck of like, well, I'm going to be fine, Yeah, buddies, yeah you Wood, But how about the rest? The other thing that to me gets to the core that the disagreement that you guys are having is, you know, to me, art should have value outside of the ability to commodify it, outside of just like the market dynamics and the move towards more and more AI and more and more slop undercuts art and just makes it about the like you know,
capitalist market incentives. And I think that that is a loss. I think that's a loss for the country, for the culture, et cetera. That as you said, Griffin, it's pro slop and anti art.
Well, I like it. Can we all agree we need a town to Griffin, Do we need to see?
Yes, we need a town to a chat GPT township right here it's great, the town is misspelled and Ben Affleck has three eyes, but.
It's you're gonna love it people. Yeah, we're gonna make money. We're making money, folks.
And the biggest question, here's the thing, executives, if you're listening, who's gonna wait all the tables in l A if you fire up?
That's the big question.
Robots.
Also, there's a big underground mark. That's right. You're gonna wipe out the entire service industry in Los Angeles.
Come on, I don't have any fresh towels and my Chateau More Hotel right now, they're.
Gonna live to regret it.
That's right. Love it.