Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.
Good morning everyone, Happy Thanksgiving week. Crystal grateful for you.
Oh thanks, sam'am, thank you. It was a fun time with you here at the desk.
Well, you know, it's a blast, and we should probably try to beat our record today. Maybe go to like four or five hours.
Be real. I don't know if I have that in me. I'm still recovering them seeing Wicked this weekend. That's right, you saw Wicked many hours time in the morning in front of the movie screen. But it was great, good.
Yes, I'm glad to hear it.
Big fan.
I am excited about the show today though, because we have some exclusive reporting. We actually sent out producer Griffin. He's going to join us in studio to talk to some of those AOC Trump voters and get them in their words as to why they made the choice to vote for Donald Trump and then down ballot vote for AOC. Jail partners helped us identify them, So I think you guys are going to find this really interesting. I certainly found it really interesting.
We'll bring that.
To you exclusively. We also have a bunch of updates on the Trump transition. His cabinet actually now full complete. Not to say there aren't other slots he's got to fill that aren't cabinet level, but he has, you know, at a very rapid clip, put out his nominees here, so we'll bring you some of the most interesting choices, including Attorney General nominee now Pam Bondi, who was Attorney General of Florida that was, you know, to fill in for Matt Gates who had to withdraw his nominations. Emily
covered that for us last week. Also another really interesting one the woman that they chose for Department of Labor. So she is a very rare person which is a pro union Republican. She was one of the only Republicans in the House that supported the pro act, So a bit of a surprise there. Tell you what that means potentially for the future with labor and unions and a bit of a conservative like business friendly meltdown on that side of the aisle.
With regard to.
That pick, we also have some updates for you with regard to last week, we brought you the news that the ICC has now issued arrest warrants for bb net Yaho. You have Galant and a leader of Hamas. We're taking a look at which countries are actually going to bide by international law and would arrest b b are saying publicly they would arrest be be if he were to be on their soil.
So significant development there.
Meanwhile, Elon apparently thinking about buying MSNBC.
The memes are flying Emily.
Yes, and many of them are flying from his keyboard.
Mm hmm. Indeed, yeah.
They range from genuinely funny to very disturbing.
True, very true as memes do, as memes do. And I'm also taking a look at MSNBC. You know, I really think even if the network continues in some sort of like hobbled form going forward, which are likely is going to the role that it is served in terms of the Democratic Party.
It's over.
I mean they the combination of Trump winning and then Joe Amica bending the knee down to mar A Lago has completely nuked to that channel. And so you know what comes afterwards, you know, will it be? Is that a good thing? Is it a bad thing. I'll get into all of that in my monologue. I've obviously got a lot of thoughts on this one.
I'm not surprised to learn that you have more thoughts on this, Krystal, and I'm very excited to hear them.
Yes, indeed, all right, let's go ahead and get to We'll bring Gryffin in and reset, and then we will bring you that video of AOC Trump voters and why they made the choices that they did. So, as I was just saying, we have Griffin here in studio with us to help break down these conversations that you had with people who actually voted for AOC and Trump.
We had a number of women who we were able.
To speak with, so set up a little bit for us what you ask them and what your general takeaways and vibes were.
Yeah, without giving like too much of a spoiler, it was interesting because, like for Trump, the reasons were all pretty much the same. It was immigration, it was wars, and it was like the economy. With AOC, it seemed to be more of her personality or charisma and kind of like her like celebrity star status, but also just like this feeling that they felt like she was real, she was real, and that she actually cared. So that
was really interesting. It was a range of voters. There was some people who were high information, like they've been tracking it for about a year, and some people who kind of made their decision within like the last day or two. But yeah, the range of answers, as we'll see in just a second, were pretty similar from the majority of the voters.
All right, well, let's go ahead and take a listen to what they had to say.
Why did you vote for both Trump and AOC in twenty twenty four.
Because America needs a role model and I think Donald Trump is a role model.
The border, you know, the people coming to us illegally, the martyrs, everything, all the crimes are increasing.
The Democrats really haven't done anything for us. That actually made the situation worse in New York. So I thought, this time around, let's just give Trump, you know, a chance, maybe you know, he can make things better.
He's very business minded, and I also feel that being that he has these connections with other leaders, it can like, you know, prevent war from happening in the future.
When Trump first came those four years, it was you know, ups and downs, but it was nowhere, like you know, it was no war. We didn't have any fight with other countries.
How does AOC fit into that picture.
She's like that sister that will always defend you. She'll fight, She'll scream till a bloody pulp if she had to. You know, she's truly a fighter.
Is there a little bit of like a New York realness that they both share? Is that what I'm mean?
Oh yeah, definitely so much that they could be like brother and sister almost.
I like that they're very outspoken. They really have I think no filter.
If you look at Joe Biden, there are lot of things probably he wouldn't understand about our generation or the future generation. And also Donald Trump as well. He's aged too, So we need someone above and be on like more new generation and would understand more.
I just voted for her, honestly because the other people I don't know about, and her I just always hear about.
It's like crazy.
So I thought, you know, she's a familiar name, let me just vote for her.
My mother would like vote for her, So I.
Was like, Okay, that's that's great, that's that's enough. Listen to your mom. Could you compare Kamala and AOC for me? What is the difference between the two of them.
I just feel that Kamala had a position as a vice president already and I don't feel like she did much in the position that she helped for the.
Last four years.
I feel like she used entertainers for promotion and I didn't like that at all.
She doesn't bring anything to the table, even if she was a first woman person. She doesn't know what she's doing, and she's going to, you know, not give us a bad but it's just we're gonna go from bad to worse because I feel like our country is doing so bad now.
AOC really tells you what she's gonna do rather than come on the worst. She's just more broad. If you're going to change your world, if you're gonna run for president. Start Now you have the president, you're a vice president. Now you can start. Now, tell us what you're gonna do.
How do you feel about the war in Gaza? How do you feel the US and how they've handled it And did that affect your vote at all.
In a big way. Yes, we just don't want any war and we don't want innocent lives to be killed without any reason.
It's crazy what's going on there, and we need to fix it and needs to stop. And I think Donald Trump will be able to maneuver it. I hope he does.
New York have so many issues here with high rent and working all the time. It's like you care about it, but you have so many other major important things going on in your life that just comes before that, and it's just sad to say.
Do you think that Trump is anti war?
I'm not sure.
I don't think President Trump wants to anyone.
If Trump was in office during that time, we win a lot of things that are going on with the migrants, the war. I just don't believe a lot of these things would be going.
On if Trump had been president. I really don't think it would have gotten this far.
Would you vote for AOC for president as a Democrat.
Yeah, yeah, I.
Would give it a chance.
I mean, don't I don't say that women are not equal to men. But I think she might need to work on her education of worldhods, like her way to communicate about it and the policies and everything. She would be good.
Maybe if Trump were to use like the military, Let's say, if we were used to use the army to start deporting people from cities. Is that something that you would support.
I would definitely support that because I think that would be the only way to get the deportation process started. We're talking about criminals, be talking about mob you know a lot of gang members, and I mean who else would be able to.
Do that but the military.
I think it's really a case by case basis. I feel like a lot of them just come here and get away with things. I don't think the police is doing what they should right now. I really don't think they care.
According to Trump, we will no longer have any more presidency after him.
Does that worry you?
No, not at all.
We need to get rid of like Congress, the legislation, the laws, like everything. You just need to be rewired and re you know, re rethought out, let's just start this whole thing over again.
So interesting.
So to Shina there at the end is like burning all down right of all the Congress, like just let him do whatever.
We don't have to work anymore after that, then that's not.
Nothing else to cover, so we can all retire.
There was so much that was interesting about that, though, I mean surface level, the reasons match a lot of what you see in the polls, like oh, immigration was important, Oh inflation and the economy was important, But there was
so much texture there that was really different. And the other thing that came across to me in watching these voters, and like you said, some of them more like high information war tuned in and someone were less engaged in the day to day news cycle, which nothing wrong with that, But in both respects with Trump and AOC, what they really have in common, more than ninething else is star power.
They've got huge name. I D huge star power. You know.
So you had the one woman saying like, I just hear about IOC all the time. Sure, you know, so I feel like she must be doing something because I hear her name a lot, And I do think that speaks to one of the things that's been absent from the Democratic autopsies that are going on is like, Trump is a celebrity and controversy has served him, and the fact that he's in his name is in front of
you and in the news all the time. And AOC is also this sort of controversial celebrity, and in a certain sense that really serves both of them and is probably the model for politicians that both parties need to follow going forward.
And not only they're like celebrities, but that they were real and they were fighters for the things that I kept tearing over and over again. Not only that there was like a star status to them.
But what they were fighting for wasn't that important. It was just like, I feel like they're going to get in there.
Yeah, they're going to do something.
And oftentimes I would ask them like, well, you know, I know, AOC and Trump have fight for very different things.
They have very different opinions on things like immigration. But they didn't really care because they knew that both these people were passionate and they fought for what they believed in, which they just didn't get a sense from people like Kamala and other Democrats, and it seemed like they almost just respect that more even if it's like not even if they disagree on a certain issue.
Yeah, that's important. And also what they believe in fundamentally, in the minds of especially casual voters who don't spend their days thinking about this, is helping the country. And to the point that you brought up that could be very different things. But if they believe that you have their best interests at heart, then they just sort of have to put the trust in the candidate that they ultimately go with. They're not super partisan or ideology. So
I thought that was really helpful. Griffin. I wanted to get your take on immigration because this is not exactly a very white district and that mattered a lot to these voters contra the media narrative about how it would be turning many many people off and you know, Donald Trump would be dead on arrival, especially with non white voters because of the immigration issue in New York City. You're in New Yorker. That did not at all turn out to be the case. What did you hear?
Yeah, it was really interesting because it seems very almost localized of an issue. You know, I live in like Central Brooklyn, and you know we don't really hear a lot about the immigration issue. But where AOC's District fourteen is, it's a little bit of the northern top of Queens and then a large part of the Bronx and up there. It just really seems like the immigration issue has affected
them a lot more. And I was really curious after talking to all of them, because all of them would bring it up as like their number one thing, that their streets didn't feel safe anymore. They talked a lot about fifty seventh Street, which which I guess it's a big intake cetter for immigrants. So I did some research and in the last three years almost a quarter million immigrants have come through New York City. Currently right now as of August, I think three years, in the last
three years about a quarter million. But currently right now, as of August, there's about sixty four thousand in the city being housed in like hotels, intake centers. They even have like an old airplane runway where they have some of them. And Mayor Eric Adams has been trying to do a lot to other fighter, Yeah, another fighter, another New York real one.
The Patriot.
But you know, Eric Adams has been doing all sorts of things across the broad Like Eric Adams, he recently traveled to Latin America to hand out flyers about how expensive New York is so you shouldn't come, and so
he's trying all sorts of strategy. Yes, absolutely, yeah, some geography lessons, but like they also, what I found out recently is they have this new rule for sheltering where you can only stay in the hotels now for thirty to sixty days, and then you have to apply to be able to stay in or you get kind of
dished to the street. And I think that's where we're seeing a lot of these women, these voters noticing a lot more people on the streets now because they're not in the hotels anymore because after that thirty days, they're now in a tent. But it's a sidewink, and they're linking basically anything to those immigrants, any crime, any gang activity, they're kind of just immediately linking that to the immigrants. And yeah, but it's.
A sanctuary city, right, so that's where people if people are on the streets, right, So if people are on the streets, they remain on the streets that unless there's like housing to your point that steps up, that's right, that which seems to also be frustrating the voters.
Yeah, and then to the military deportations part, which I wanted to ask them about, you know, because that seemed to be just a big kind of national talking point about will Trump use the army to bring people in? And the core thing to them was they weren't really scared of that because they were really sick and tired of it. And it seemed to me that it was pinned on that they found the NYPD to be incompetent and unable to handle these issues, which I kind of
don't blame them. I mean, as a New Yorker and you see these cops on the subways, they're mainly going after like ticket fare people and on their tiktoks, you know.
So it was funny because that's something that you would never from a top line analysis, you would never get the texture of that, like, oh, they're like anti police, right, and that's why they're like, I guess you got to bring in the military, because it is true, if you you know poll institutions, one of the institutions that has the highest level of trust in the country remains the military. So that logic is really interesting and not something that
you would sort of guess from the outside. But does you know, from their perspective make some sense. You know, the reality of what that might actually look like may create a different impression, right, but coming in that's not a non starter for them whatsoever. The other thing that was really noteworthy and that did not turn up as much in the you know, the surveys about why people voted the way they did, is that all of these women seemed concerned about war. They seemed concerned about Gaza.
In particular. The one woman who I'm blanking on her name, I know when she you first asked the question, she said, like, basically peace, that's what I'm most interested in.
I believe that was Nausea. Yes, Nazia, Yes, most informed. She'd been really paying attention to almost all the politics for about a year, so she was the most informed. But all of the women were aware of this. None of them were like, what's Gaza or what's going on there? Like everyone clearly has been seeing some glimpse of what's happening and not liking it.
Yeah, And so if you're you know, the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris trying to position yourself as this moral authority that really undercuts it, and whether or not as true
that this wouldn't have happened under Trump. Clearly his talking points had broken through with these voters, whether it was ascribing all crime to immigrants when you know, the stats will tell you that undocumented immigrants actually commit far fewer crimes than Native worn Americans, but that talking point had landed and connected and was, you know, was being repeated, and the talking point about hey, if Trump was there, I don't think we would have had all these wars
that also had clearly landed with them. And it was funny to me when you asked them, like do you think that Trump is anti war? And the one one who's like, I don't know, but you know, maybe it would be.
Different to that point, Like these women, like you know, some of them are like, oh, Trump's a role model and stuff, but they were also very clear eyed about who Trump is and the likelihood of him fixing all these problems.
Yeah.
Essentially, how they saw it was they knew Kamala was like a known quantity, and they knew she wasn't going to do anything to fix these problems. They weren't sure if Trump was really going to fix these problems, but they knew Kamala wasn't, so they're like, well, let's just roll the dice again. Just funny because like Trump has been president before, you think he'd be more of a
known quantity. But to them still he was the dice, roll gamble of maybe something different, but none of them were sure.
Well, and I want to ask about that because for many people, people voting as soon as like a civic duty, you do it even if you're ambivalent about the candidates. What sense did you get of why actually some of these women chose to vote. I mean we saw your name is Margaret with her baby that she was hanging out with while you were doing the interview. These are busy, I mean people are These are busy people. Everyone is busy. They have an option to not vote if they're ambivalent.
That's something that's totally understandable and common. Like if you don't think out of the candidates is great, you just set out the election. It sounds like even with some of this ambivalence, these mixed feelings about Donald Trump, actually went out and voted anyway.
Yeah, they were just desperate I think for change, just change in a large sense on a few different issues. You know, we didn't have a ton of sound bites in this footage about the economy because I get sense that sometimes people feel a little uncomfortable talking about the economy, whether it's kind of a morass of an issue to kind of have the right word to describe it. But people just felt like things just like weren't working for them.
Things were getting more expensive. And three of them, I believe were actually mothers, And I did ask them all about the child tax credit and under Biden that they all received, and they spoke with that really fondly, and they but at the same time, they were you know, they're Republican voters. They didn't want handouts. They just wanted things to be more fair.
Yeah, yeah, you hear that alone.
You got a little taste in there. You asked, Okay, would you vote for AOC for Presmasyah? Is that something you bead open too? And one of the women had this response that was like, well, I'm not saying women aren't equal to men, but you know, maybe she needs to do a little more work. Were there any comments that they made about Kamala Harris and her gender? Was that important to them? Was that a positive, was it a negative, did not? You know, was it indifferent? What was your sense?
So there was a lot of talk about misogyny, but I don't feel like any of them were misogynists. But they viewed the foreign policy and working with other foreign leaders and them being misogynistic to women, and so that it would just be naturally harder for a female to be president and deal with all these men of the world, which you know, isn't like maybe technically that false, Like you know, I'm sure there's some misogynistic world leaders.
They have kind of a clear iyview of the world of like, right, well, I'm not sexist, but sexism is exulting that exists, right, So maybe you know, we gotta have a man in there so that he doesn't have to deal.
With that totally effectively.
Absolutely, I think a lot of Democratic primary voters are gonna this has been my prediction, is like they're never going to nominate a woman again for a similar reason of like, well, I'm not sexist, but I think the rest.
Of the country is it's like a self fulfilling loop, right where if you believe it, then you feed into it as well. But they also always talked about how Trump was so good with world leaders, that world leaders just like like to get along with him, and that was his like secret sauce to like stopping wars. And they all mentioned like there just wasn't that many wars when Trump was around, and now there's a bunch of wars, and the Democrats don't seem to be anywhere near stopping
all of them. And there doesn't seem to be a clear reason to these voters why any of them are happening. You just think that there's no reason, there's no reason. We don't understand why they're happening.
Yeah, and interesting, I know this is zeroing in in one part of New York that's not like a lot of the rest of the country. But in many ways, it actually is like a lot of the rest of the country, because if you look at that Washington Post met that we were covering all night here on election night,
you saw movement towards Trump in many many places. Now, Trump still lost a lot of counties, but there were big swings in places like New Jersey and places like New York, And there was also a lot of tickets putting even places like Florida where the abortion referendum. It didn't hit the sixty percent threshold, but it got really close. It was like at fifty six percent. So you had a lot of people voting for Donald Trump and voting for abortion to be in the constitution of the state
of Florida. That happened all over the country. So I think Griffin is just important to say that, Yes, well a lot of the country looks at New York in particular as the sort of like alien world, like it's Mars. This is something that happened with voters everyewhere else.
Absolutely, Yeah, And you know, none of these voters are like white men, you know, the like three proper. These were mothers. They were all working class women between their thirties and forties. And yeah, they.
Just none of the bros wanted to talk to you.
None of the bros all shay for the bros Alpha, But yeah, like these women were you know, although some of them had some things that you might not agree with Trump about whether he was a role model and stuff, they were just all very clear eyed that you know, why not, we'll see what happens because right now things just aren't working for me. And I thought it was just so interesting when they talked about like Kamala versus AOC, because they just felt like Kamala just didn't really stand
for pretty much anything. They just were they were open to thinking about her and just seeing like what she had to say, but they couldn't remember or think about like what she was all about in the way they
felt that way about AOC. And I think it's a test onto It's like I think they could vote for a Democrat at some point they were, and even if they didn't agree with all the same issues, could seemed to be like a core thing of like respect, like I respect that you care about things, that you're passionate, that you're not hiding who you are, and those things seem to surmount like any of the individual issues because they all love AOC.
Yeah, And that's been my thing is like I think that a lot of times liberals look at politics in the wrong way, like thinking that you can just go down and checklist stuff, like our issue set is more popular if you pull it than their issue set. When that sense of like this person's a fighter, this person stands for something. This person's isn't just like pandering to me. They're going to get in there and they're going to
mix things up. Those personality traits and that energy and that celebrity Frankly, I think is also really important is kind of the common thread that connects why you would vote for Donald Trump and then check the ballot for AOC. Great job with these Griffin is Cheney though, Oh well, I mean that's a uniter across the board, right, should have.
Left that in the cut.
Also, I live when you come on the show. And for people who know producer Griffin, follow producer Griffin. He's doing sort of a Ron Burgundy look today.
He's watch out. You're gonna start dating yourself with that reference, an old millennial reference.
It's an elder millennial rot. But we don't often see you in a tie, And out of respect for Sager, it was important for you to put the tie on.
Yeah, we didn't want Sager to be distressed. Well, he's not trying to enjoy his honeymoon, so that was very kind of.
Course, absolutely, for I was worried a little too skinny, it was a little too RFK Junior maybe.
But yeah, well we'll get his after action report.
Yep.
Absolutely, but yeah, and I really like to thank JLP Partners. They're polling. They've done a lot of great pulling for us over the last year, and they did the hard work of finding all these people for us, and so definitely check out them in the video description for this video.
Awesome, thanks Griffin.
So at the same time, obviously there's a big soul searching autopsy situation going on inside of the Democratic Party.
What went wrong?
What do they need to do moving forward to try to win back some of those working class voters who have been fleeing the party. Bertie Sanders been pretty unvarnished in his critique of the Democrats and how they abandoned working class voters, and he just recently sent out a campaign email that was not one of these normal, just
like boilerplate fundraising pitches. This was clearly coming directly from him and continued that critique of the Democratic Party and also opened up some interesting possibilities for what Senator Sanders may be doing with his time in the future. Let's go and put this up on the screen. I'm gonna read this in full, guys, so just bear with me so you get the full sense of it.
He says, I won't do it, and I won't do in the Verney voice, rent of time.
Not that the American people understand that our economic and political systems are rigged. They know that the very rich get much richer while almost everyone else becomes poor. They know that we are moving rapidly into an oligarchic form of society. The Democrats ran a campaign protecting the status quo and tinkering around the edges. Trump and the Republicans campaigned on change and on smashing the existing order. Not surprisingly,
the Republicans won. Unfortunately, the quote change that Republicans will bring about will make a bad situation worse and a society of gross inequality even more, more unjust and more bigoted. Will the Democratic leadership learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media, and our political life.
Highly unlikely.
They are much too wetted to the billionaires and corporate interests that fund their campaigns. Given that reality, where do we go from here? That is a very serious question that needs a lot of discussion in the coming weeks and months. How do we expand our efforts to build a multi racial, multi generational, working class movement. How do we create a fifty state moves not politics based on
the electoral college and battleground states. How do we deal with citizens United and the ability of billionaires to buy elections? How do we recruit more working class candidates for office at levels of government? Should we be supporting independent candidates who are prepared to take on both parties? How do
we better support union organizing. How do we put together listening sessions around the country that intentionally seek input from people who did not vote for Democrats in the last election. How do we best use social media to build our movement and combat the lies and disinformation coming from the billionaire class in bright wing media. How do we build sustainable and long term issue based organizing structures that live
beyond individual campaigns. These are some of the political questions that together we need to address, and it is absolutely critical that you make your voice heard during this process.
Not meet us.
That is the only way way forward in solidarity Bernie Sanders So obviously, Emily that's caught a lot of attention because it is very critical of the Democratic Party, says like are they going to get their act together? Probably not going to happen, right, So where do we go from here? And you know, one of the things he floats is, hey, do we support candidates? He does a
name check Dan Osborn. We have to think that that's somewhere in mind, who ran as an independent but as a populist and came very close to winning in a Senate seat in Nebraska. How do we get more working class people in and the you know, the possibility here of a third party movement is also sort of overtly floated, So quite noteworthy coming from someone who still holds so much sway and so much influence.
Well, and what he is saying is what we heard the voters say in Griffin's segment, which is the big theme to take away from that is people voted for change. They voted for change. They voted for change, and you don't tell people that you are a change agent. Effectively, if you are Kamala Harris and you are defending the Biden administration's policies. Now we can have a debate about whether Donald Trump is actually going to change Washington, but
he convinces people that he is. That that is his overarching message, that he is bringing fundamental change, not as Bernie put it tweaking around the edges, are tinkering around the edges. That's with different policies. It's not enough to
talk about a child tax credit. You have talked about why the system has created an environment where you need a child tax credit, where you need government, the government saying oh, here, take a little bit more of your own damn money, have a little bit more of it back for childcare. Have a little bit more of a back to pay for your babies. Like that is the problem with the Democratic Party right now, just assuming that's enough.
Yeah, no, that's exactly right. And you know I can harp on this, but I think Bernie is a model, a very unique model in American politics, not in global politics, but in American politics in particular, where I would love to know what those same ladies would say if we ask them, like, what do you think about Bernie Sanders?
Because I think even though he's stylistically very different from Trump, very different AOC also though a New York character, Yes, interesting parallel there, but you know that people had that same sense of him. This is a fighter. This is someone who is focused on me and my life and is going to go to war against the forces that are rayed against me and my family and are making life more difficult than they should be for me and
for my kids to be able to find success. I mean, the immediate question that this race is is okay, Bernie Sanders eighty three years old, Like what does this mean? What is he planning? And you know, people have floated like is he going to launch a third party? Is
that what this is leading to? I think that's probably very unlikely, just given you know, Bernie has been in politics for longer than either one of us has been alive by decades, right, and he knows that in the realities of the American system, Like there's a reason that he was able to run as an independent but caucuses with Democrats and ultimately ran as a Democrat in the Democratic Party, because there are just so many barriers to an independent or third party moved men, especially in the
post Ross bureaux era, being able to find any sort of significant success. I mean, if anyone could make it happen, it would be Bernie Sanders because he still does have that you know, that base and that affection and that media and star power, et cetera to command. I personally think it's unlikely that at this point in his life, he's going to go in that direction. But I am curious to see what he has in mind for his next deck. I can tell you I saw him speak
gosh what last week, the week before, I can't remember. Anyway, I saw him speak recently, and he's he's still got it.
Let me tell you.
There is no like mental decline there going on. You know, he is eighty three years old, but mentally he is still extremely sharp and extremely powerful. So this could be a really interesting development here.
He should be threatening them with it, even if he's not serious. It's like Trump with tarifsts, Like he should absolutely be threatening a third party, because someone has to put the fear of God into the Democratic elite, and
they will. I mean, it's the same thing that Republicans are dealing with in the Maga age, whereas like Donald Trump not so serious about draining the swamp swamp on some issues, but like the Department of Justice, Oh, he's very serious about throwing a metaphorical grenade into the Department of Justice. And so what you see is this internal battle over you know, people like Bernie Sanders, who are legitimately, legitimately a threat to the Democratic Party establishment, Donald Trump,
who's legitimately a threat to the Republican Party establishment. Even eight years into trump Ism in the Republican Party, it is still a tug of war between the establishment like RNC type elites that say they own this party, and they'll give Trump a little here and there, they'll say nice things about him in public, but they're still going to battle for it. You know, they're going to protect their people at the end of the day. So it's obviously not easy, and it's a decade plus long process
if you really want to reform the party. And who knows what happens to the Republican Party after Trump, But and who knows even under Trump what happens to the Republican Party this next time around. But it's he's right to make the threat because if you don't make the threat, they have no incentive to do anything. As we're about to discuss, yes.
That is exactly right, And just before I get to that, I think, you know, on the one hand, one of the things that has always made it more difficult for a Bernie Sanders style like left populist movement to succeed is that it offers a direct threat to you know, billionaire in oligarchic class interests like that's central to the vision and the ideology. Trump Ism is less of a direct threat, and in fact, they did quite well under Trump in the first term, and I think felt very
comfortable with him going into a second term. So when you have not only the democratic establishment forces but sort of like uniform capital class a rate against you, that obviously creates some more challenging landscape.
But on the other hand, you know.
Trump has Trump is a destroyer, this is one of the things I'm going to talk about in my monologue. And he has kind of destroyed a lot of the liberal institutions that served as a bulwark against a left populist movement. I mean, MSNBC is the primary case in point here. They were enforcers for establishment democrats, and because liberals still had so much faith in these institutions, they
were very powerful. So when they in twenty twenty said Joe Biden is the one and that's it, you have never seen the polls shift as rapidly as they did in favor of Joe Biden to coalesce behind him to defeat Bernie Sanderson that primary. After it look like Bernie was headed to a victory after Nevada. I mean in twenty sixteen. Obviously they were all aligned behind Hillary Clinton.
That was also extremely powerful, and that institutional trust with liberals has really been broken and degraded, and the institutions themselves have really been broken and degraded. So there just isn't as much there to block some other left movement.
Now.
Do I think that that is what's likely to unfold and that the Democratic Party is likely to be taken over by left populist movement or third party to rise or whatever. I don't think it's likely, but there is a possibility that exists now that did not exist in
the past. And I think that's what Bernie Sanders is sensing and seizing on as well, because those bulwark institutions within that protected the Democratic Party establishment have been dealt, in a sense a devastating blow by their own malfis. Is their own failures to grapple with trump Ism and effectively defeat Trumpism, which was the central promise that they were offering. They weren't authoring healthcare or wages or whatever. Their central promise was, we are going to end the
Trump era. They failed, and that has really been a devastating blow for their credibility and their institutional trust. So you know, it is a totally new world with new possibilities out there than there was before.
They failed, and they failed even harder. I mean, this was the same moment that everyone could recognize in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen and Bernie Sanders recognized at them. When you have the former Secretary of State, this huge figure for decades in democratic politics, getting beat by the host of Celebrity Apprentice. He was hosting celebrit Apprentice less than a year before, Like you know what I mean, Yeah,
I mean, I guess just under two years before. But I mean that is it should have been the wake up call. And then said they doubled down on Russia and bigotry and blaming voters, and so that's a this is a there at another one of those crossroads. And you know, Bill Clinton seems to be ready to go
in one down one direction. Bill Clinton, of all people, by the way, who was the sounding the alarm in twenty sixteen about them not leaning into class politics, about his own wife's campaign not leaing into class politics, and getting their clock cleaned in certain areas that should have been problematic to them, and he's you know, he's ready to.
I thought his answer was kind of interesting. It was a little when I listened to it was a little different than what I expected from him. So let's go and play this exchange with Jonathan kpe Hart and former President Bill Clinton, and then we can react on the other side.
And demonizing all establishments and all people were tied like me to work and have a good education. We are breaking down the legitimacy of not only people who might be too sanctimonious and too said in their ways in the past, but also people who actually know things that are very important for us today and very important for our continued growth and prosperity and harmony.
So it is a little bit of a mask off moment there, because Bill Clinton has always positioned himself as a populist, even as he embraced an ideology that was frankly very technocratic total and I mean that's really is at the core of neoliberalism, is an anti populist sentiment of just handed off to the technocrats and let us handle it. And you know, I do think it's important that you have people who are smart and knowledgeable and know what they're doing, and you know, done the research
and all of those sorts of things. But you know, here he really is aligning himself as he in reality did in his campaign and in his political time with the sort of you know, buttoned up credential elites. There was another moment where k Part asked him this question that I thought was kind of I didn't think the question was really fair the framing of it. He says to him, Bernie Sanders says, the party wasn't progressive enough.
Do you agree?
And Bill Clinton first says like, no, I don't agree. And they did the Chips Act and the Infrastructure Bill, and this was in red areas. But what I think Bernie's talking about is corporate power, and on that he basically says, like, I think he's right. And so it was kind of interesting to me that Bill Clinton in a sense kind of corrected k Part that, like, well, his critique and Bernie never says like the party wasn't progressive enough. He says the party abandoned the working class
and did not fight against these oligarchic forces. And Bill Clinton's in his own way sort of like, well, there's a part of that.
I do actually agree with.
It's interesting because if you look at the policies of the Clinton administration, I mean, what he talked about this all the time, but he ushered in was sort of
the corporate era of the Democratic Party. Yes, And what I think is almost poetic about that is if you spend a lot of time around like working working class, blue collar people, the point about the suit and the buttoned up thing is really fascinating because yes, like soccer and I have talked about this before, like it is the John Fetterman thing like irks me a lot because as much as I see him like kind of the what he wears like cosplaying is like a working class dude,
if you are, if you go to anybody in those communities, they'll be like, yeah, you damn well better wear a suit, like if you you know what I mean, Like that's a sign of like that's what Bill Clinton is reacting to that, Like even he grew up, he grew up with nothing truly, and that was a sign of respect.
It was a sign of like you made it. Like you should be proud about upward mobility because that means you did something right, and it means you worked really hard and you like got to where you were, and you have respect for the position. And the assumption that you know, you have to be walking around in a T shirt to you know, impress people in working class communities is like insulted.
That's not what Donald Trump says, right, exactly.
Exactly right, fair with his rolled off right Brothers shirts. Disgust yes, And so Bill Clinton saying that it is interesting to me because it gets to this point about it's gonna sound like we should have Ryan's Lennon book Behind Us Class Traders, where Bill Clinton comes from nothing, works really hard and it becomes very successful, becomes the president of the United States, and is now looking back at why people don't trust guys in ties like Griffin.
The answer to that is because the guys in ties sold them out, like they came from nothing and they ushered in this era.
And that's it was just but then collaborated with the thing.
The thing that's drives me crazy about Bill Clinton. I mean, first of all, the decision to send him to Michigan and to you know, make just insane comments about Israel and Palestine, and I mean it just like, can we retire this man at this point?
Come on? But the deeper memoir.
By the way, that's why he was on the.
Interesting the deeper. Maybe he'll come here, wouldn't that be interesting? The deeper problem is that Bill Clinton side NAFTA, Bill Clinton pushed panti permanent normal trading relations with China.
Like you want to talk about what.
Devastated the working class, you want to talk about what cemented the working class shift away from Democrats. You would be hard pressed to find two more consequential events in that timeline. And so for him to come out now and be like, you know, the corporate power thing, maybe he's got a point.
It's like you helped to author.
You were the primary author in a lot of ways of this era of mass inequality and rampant corporate power and monopolies. And by the way he helped deregulate Wall Street, and by the way he cut the capital gains rate, all giant giveaways to the wealthiest among us, that spiraled inequality out of control, and that decimated decimated vast swaths of the country. Like you were the author of that. And there's just never been any real reckoning with that.
He's still treated as this like brilliant political strategist and elder statesmen, et cetera. But you know your point about like the class trader piece of that, the suits and the you know, the disrespect that that can read as sometimes when you're trying to cause play as working class by wearing the flannel or whatever. In that book that I've referenced a couple times because I've thought it found
a lot of parallels to the current time. But about the back to the Land movement in the nineteen seventies, the hippies in this town in Vermont, who had their commune and they're doing their whole like we reject hygiene and our parents were these stiffs wearing suits and we're not going to do any of that. They were trying to get a job as school bus drivers in the town, and they had maintained pretty good relations with their neighbors,
and there were a lot of them. A lot of the people in the community were like kind of okay with it, but there was a pushback because they found out like, oh, you guys are growing weed and we don't really.
Want your drivers.
But so there was this town meeting that comes to a head where they're coming in to make their case for why they should be the school bus driver for this little town, and everybody in this little town conservative like you know, rural farming community. They all show up to this town meeting in their Sunday best because it's respectful. And the hippies, who many of them came from these like affluent, professional, middle class or upper middle class families.
There's sort of.
Downing poverty as like a fashion statement. Show up all dirty and muddy and smelly and hair crazy and whatever and right, and there was something about that that also, I mean that really rubbed people the wrong way of like this is not this, it's not cool and earthy that you're like this. It's disrespectful, you know, to our town and our traditions, and you know, this meeting we
take really seriously. And so I don't know the fetterman caused play thing and the way that us so many of these politicians try to cause play something that they're not I do think comes off as phony and kendid.
It's worst, come off as just like.
Insulting, insulting. Yeah, it's like we believe that this office has dignity, don't you. We believe that, And like just the superficial signaling via clothing, it's it's Bill Clinton. I think the big problem with that interview is him still pointing the finger at Republicans for and podcasters. You know, that's what he's doing, pointing the finger at them for making people distrust the guys in suits, instead of pointing his finger at the guys in suits for creating that distrust.
That's right, the.
Pod because that would implicate him, right, because he's the one that put those guys in suits in the in the place to do all of that damage.
I mean, he's one of them, right, So like the guys who and you know, maybe Bill Clinton thought he was doing what was right. Let's you know, just hypothetically, maybe he thought he was doing what was right and it wasn't about you know, serving the class that he came to be a part of. But if you are still pointing your finger at Donald Trump, the Republican Party, disinformation podcasters for making the American people not trust the men in suits and ties and the women in suits,
not usually ties, but the professional class. If you're still pointing your finger at Republicans and podcasters and the unwashed masses for not trusting them instead of pointing the finger at yourself, you do not get it.
Yeah, no, I think that's right. All right, let's go ahead and get to some of these Trump cabinet picks Emily that are quite interesting.
As of Friday night, in typical Trumpy in fashion, the entire cabinet was completed. So Donald Trump's entire cabinet is now known to us. You can go ahead and put the first element up on the screen. Control room. They political describes it as a Friday night flurry, and you know, it kind of was. There were a lot of nighttime flurries. Actually, the entire naming of the cabinet Crystal, but the big one obviously is Pam Bondie. We can go ahead and put
the next element up on the screen. Arguably the most important position in Donald Trump's entire cabinet, with the exception of maybe Secretary of State, which is probably most important in any cabinet, but given Donald Trump's plans, the attorney general position is just absolutely critical. Pam Bondi is slotted in after Matt Gates withdrawals. Pam Bondi was the Attorney General of Florida, so she then went on to lobby. There's a lot to talk about here with the Pam
Bondi nomination. In particular, I want to show just a little bit of a flavor of how Pam Bondy Florida has been one of the most important locations for this debate over campus anti Semitism versus pro Palestinian activism because University of Florida was headed by Ben sass Rondosantas obviously wanted to be a big part of that discussion as well, and Pam Bondy weighed in once so just as a flavor of what could happen from the Department of Justice
under Pam BONDI, let's go ahead and roll B three Pam.
Democrats like Alan Dershowitz have sounded the alarm over the growing virulent strain of jew haters in the Democrat Party. It appears their agents in the unfair press are carrying that water. It is dangerous, is it not.
Yeah, it's very dangerous, Chris, It's extremely dangerous. And you know, you look around. The thing that's really the most troubling to me these students in universities in our country, whether they're here as Americans or if they're here on student visas, and they're out there saying I support AMAS, you and I have seen that on all of these television shows. Frankly, they need to be taken out of our country or
the FBI needs to be interviewing them right away. When they're saying I support Amas, I am a mass that's not saying I support all these poor Palestinians who are trapped in Gaza. That's not what they're saying. So I think their student visas need to be revoked. I think we need to reinstate President Trump's travel band immediately. There's
a lot of things that can be done to stop this. Yeah, the anti Semitism that is rampant throughout this country now, and it's truly truly heartbreaking to see what's happening to all of our Jewish friends in this country. But I really just I think a lot of ignorant kids and students and people who don't understand that harmas equals terrorism even worse at its worst.
So something I think particularly disturbing about that Crystal is she just said ignorant kids don't understand that harmas equals terrorism, and so let's just take her at her word hypothetically. She then wants to deport kids for ignorance, right, She wants to take away people's student even in her own formulation, what's happening there, it's you know, your ignorance then gets your student visa ripped away or something to that effect.
And the Department of Justice oversees a lot of these questions. So just a flavor of the free speech support from Donald Trump's likely incoming Attorney General Pambody is very confirmable. She probably won't have issues. But what's interesting about herst.
Trafficking scandals with this one not that we know not yet, but what's interesting about her, and this applies to other Trump nominees, but this is someone who we can put then ex element up on the screen, actually because.
It's what I was about to talk about. She has a long past as a lobbyist. She's a lobbyed for cutter. She worked at one of the firms I think she worked actually at one of the firms that Susie Wiles worked at. She's similar to Susie Wiles in the respect that she's full maga but also has like pretty deep is deeply intertwined with the swamp, if that makes sense.
So she's a she's a Fox News favorite. She is a lobbyist, and yet she also is she went and she she defended Donald Trump during his impeachment trial, like was part of his legal team. She's totally loyal Trump. She's also intertwined with the swamp.
Yeah, she's I mean, and that's that's kind of typical in terms of Trump's world, because ultimately it's much less ideological than it is about how do you feel.
About the person of Donald Trump?
What are you willing to do to stand up for the person of Donald Trump when he feels that he's being attacked or you know, unfairly targeted, et cetera. And so the fact that she represented him in his first impeachment trial that has earned her, you know, good graces in the the Trump world, you know. And the fact that she's a corporate lobbyist for Amazon, GM, Uber, multiple finance firms, Corning, Ken Vogel. She's still registered for some clients.
Not really big deal. The other thing that was pointing out on Twitter is the fact that her sister, who's also a lawyer, actually represented Elon Musk in his case against the Department against the government in terms of the Testless Securities fraud allegations, and so as attorney General, she would be at a position to quash that ongoing DJ investigation, and given how much influence the richest man on the planet has in terms of this administration, I don't think
anyone should be surprised if you see that ultimately happen. You know, going back to her comments about deporting pro Palestine protesters or at the very least having them be interviewed by the FBI, I guess that was her compromise position. If we can't kick them all out of the country, at least we can harass them with the with the
deep state. In spite of Republicans positioning themselves as the free speech party, obviously there has been a giant, glaring exception when it comes to any sort of pro Palestine speech.
And one of the things I want to talk about in my monologue about I'MSNBC and some of the Democrats who say they're going to find common ground with Republicans and with Trump specifically, this is one of the areas where you can fully expect Democrats and they already have been finding quote unquote common ground with Trump, with his nominees, with Republicans because this you know, witch hunt to snuff out anti Semitism and to crack down on speech on
college campuses has been quite a bipartisan affair, so I don't think any of that will be a problem for her, certainly with Republicans or with Democrats. And you know, it is interesting the sorts of things that are not a problem whatsoever when it comes to confirmation. The fact that she is a total swamp pick doesn't really matter. I
think she will be easily confirmed. Is also kind of funny that on the one hand, she's like making all these noises about shipping out pro Palace had protesters, and on the other hand she's lobby's for it.
I mean, yeah, I'd love to hear because if she's registered to lobby for them on behalf of like human trafficking as an issue, because you have to say when you register for Pharah what you're doing, and she says human trafficking and other issues.
So I would be curious to hear more about her lobbying for Cutter, and I expect some of that will come out during her confirmation. But she also came in on the tea party wave. That's really where I remember her. She started doing a ton of Fox after that. I think she got an endorsement from Sarah Palin early on. So she comes from that world, which is its own kind of part of the conservatives movement. Mattered a lot back in twenty I want to say this was like around twenty ten.
Okay, yeah, that would make sense.
Yeah, it was. It was a big deal to get Sarah Palin endorsement back then, and she really rode that wave in and so you can understand how being in Florida she was able to be pretty friendly in the mega circles and then ultimately ends up defending Donald Trump as part of his legal team, goes back to lobbying afterwards, and now Attorney General.
Probably, yeah, looking like it, looking very much like it.
But wait, there's more.
Yeah, there's a lot more.
B five, we can put this up on the screen. Scott Besson is the Treasury Secretary. We're going to talk about some others too, but this is Elon Musk wide in favor of Howard Lutnik in the Lutnik versus Bessant race for Treasury Secretary. Lutnick obviously ended up as Commerce Secretary. Elon Musk was seemingly suspicious of Bessence as being sort of a swampy type of person. That wouldn't be a disruptor. He said Lutnik would be a disruptor. He kind of went out of his way not to say anything super
negative about Bessen. Maybe reading the tea leaves on that, but I mean he would be right with Besson's background to be suspicious of that. The New York Times story that you just saw up on the screen is how Bessant went from being a Democratic donor to Trump's Treasury secretary pick. Which, actually, it's funny they say that because that's not unusual in Trump world at all. A lot of the people that he's put in top positions are swampy. Trump himself was a Democrat and has said that's how
you got things done. So not surprising.
Really, what is your sense of Scott Bessent, because I've seen different things. I've seen him as going on CNBC to basically reassure Wall Street, like, well, Trump's not really serious about this hole across the board tariff thing. That's more of an opening negotiating position to try to coerce people into, you know, making better trade deals with US and trying to calm the waters of Wall Street. He's
very trusted there. I mean, the other thing that's really funny about him is he, you know, was worked closely with George Soros, made a lot of money working closely with George Soros.
He's described in this New York Times story as a protege of George Soro.
That's right, Yeah, and I think that that is quite accurate. So that's the other part about this that is quite funny.
I mean, he is definitely a Wall Street figure, but I do think he's been somewhat open to at least some use of tariffs, and you know, sees that as a as a path forward, even as he because he's such a familiar face on Walsh Street, has been able to kind of calm the waters of that of you know, business executives and Wall Street executives to say like, yeah, he's not going to go too crazy with the full tear off situation.
Yeah, And that's really important, I think because part of the reporting about how Trump was looking at this decision is that he was worried about spooking the markets because he takes that as a referendum on the president, right. We know that he talks about it all the time, and so he was worried that someone completely out of the blue would be disruptive to the markets and would thus make him look bad. So it's I guess logical through that framework of what Donald Trump was thinking for.
And as The Times reports in recent months, mister Bessntt has pitched a quote three three three plan that would aim for three percent economic gross growth, reduced the budget deficit to three percent of gross domestic product, and increase domestic oil production by three million barrels a day. He also came up with an idea, and this is interesting, that would allow the president to essentially sideline the chair
of the Federal Reserve. Although he's back down from that proposal in the face of opposition, that obviously would be music Donald Trump's here, and you can kind of understand why Bessett was able to have a great pitch to Trump.
Yeah.
Absolutely, so that'll be interesting to see how that plays out. And you know, we've talked to Jeff Stein, great economics supporter for the Washington Post. He has been of the opinion that, you know, when Trump says consistently we want to have across the board tariffs, that you should take him seriously at that, and that you know, and the implications of that, which would likely raise prices kind of
across the board and be quite inflationary. But they have already been looking at what sort of powers they could use just at the executive level without having to go through Congress to implement something approaching and across the board tariff. So in any case, we'll see how that all plays out. But Treasury very significant, very high powered, very influential. So
that was a really important pick that was made. There another one that this one is very kind of like under the radar, super powerful and important in government, and that's the head of the Office of Management and Budget RUSS Vote of Project twenty twenty five. No less has been tagged in for that one. We can put B six up on the screen. Trump's pick to lead his budget off his Mother Jones rights. Wants to use it
to deliver on Maga's big dreams. Emily, why don't you break this one down for us what Russ is all about, what his deal is.
Yeah, so Verus is also kind of the tea party to Maga pipeline. He's someone who I actually as an ideological conservative like a lot. But if you're looking at the screen the Mother Jones taggling, there is quote, we want to put them in trauma. Russ Vote has said of federal workers, Yes, that.
Is Actually he's an ideological warrior.
Yeah, way way hardcore on some of those questions, and has spent actually the last several years he has something called the Center for Renewing America figuring out what the blueprint for whether it was DeSantis or Trump or someone else, what that would look like. And so he did contribute to Project twenty twenty five and is among the people who were leading this charge that were saying the next Republican president as like the rarest opportunity to just go wild.
Like everything that the conservative movement said that it wanted to do in the nineteen eighties under the Reagan Revolution, it has never come to fruition. And that is because the swamp has like attached itself to the conservative movement. So let's just blow it all up, and here's the outline to do that. And so Russ is like an absolute leader in that movement and a very like hardcore ideologue in that movement, which will run a clip in
just a second getting to that. But yeah, if you listen to that as a client show, this was predicted by someone at this table crystals.
Interesting, Well, I mean you weren't buying the Trump has nothing to do with Project twenty twenty five and has no interest in Project twenty twenty five.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, people like Russ have spent millions of dollars over the last couple of years trying to figure out what this would look like. He's put tons of energy into what this would look like. And if you're a federal worker, yes, you should be pretty frightened that Russ vote is now in this position because as the head of the om B, which he was under Trump's first administration, you are in charge of implementing the budget.
You're in charge of thinking about the budget, implementing the budget, and so you're looking, I mean, that's where Doge like, that's all of those recommendations, That's where Russ can go and implement them. And he has concrete plans that he's talked with lawyers about that he's spent time in think tank circles conceiving of over the last few years. So he's hardcore, very.
Much, and he's one of the big thinkers behind quote unquote Schedule F yes, which would allow which would strip a lot of the job protections away from vast loss of the federal government, basically making it easier to decimate these agencies and you know, fire a whole bunch of workers and reinstall loyalists to Trump and loyalists to the agenda. We do have this like hidden camera video actually of russfo talking about some of his priorities. And this was
before Trump was elected. So he's also talking about his relationship to Project twenty twenty five and saying he says actively like, yeah, don't worry about the fact that Trump is downplaying this obviously is just a branding issue for him.
But don't worry. We're in good stead.
We're in position to implement everything that we want to, which you know, anyone with three brain cells could see at the time. In any case, let's take a listen to a little bit of what Russ has to say about what he wants to accomplish.
He talks about rape, incest in life, and mother all. I don't actually believe in those exceptions. I want to get to abolition, but I also we got to win elections, and so I want to get as far as we possibly can.
His view of who should be an American, So I want to.
Make sure that we can say we are a Christian nation. And my viewpoint is mostly that I would probably be Christian nationism. That's pretty close to Christian nationalism. Can we if we're going to have legal immigration, can we get people that actually believe in Christianity? Is that something or do we have to have you know, we're not allowed to have ask questions about Sharia law?
What could we see America looking like?
I guess I mean in.
An ideal world, I mean, I think we could save the country in the sense of you have the largest deportation in history.
And even pornography.
We'd have a national ban on pornography if we're good.
Right, national ban on pornography here we.
Come, which by the way, he can't do at home.
You never know, but you know, obviously, as you said, I'm only what comes across there is. This is an ideological warrior and across the board hard right. You know, he says, I get Trump's got to take talk about these exceptions for rape, incests of the life of the mother when it comes to abortion.
I don't actually.
Support those exceptions, but what are you going to do? You gotta win elections. You know, he talks about let's have the largest deportation in history. Just very very ideological here, and you know that is significant when you have someone in, like you said, a position that is quite consequential in terms of the budget. He's also, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm only ben of the thinkers who has supported this idea that even if Congress appropriates funds,
there's no obligation for the executive to spend them. Yes, that means that you would have unilateral ability to cut whatever you want. So contrary to this notion that what Elon and Vivik are doing is like this make work project.
On the contrary, if there actually is the power for the executive unilaterally to cut you know, slash those safe safety net programs and everything in between, you know, Russ would be we would expect Russ to be very involved in helping to implement those cuts throughout the federal government. So having someone like that in this position is quite const Council.
That is such an important point. This is becoming a really raging debate on the right because people are starting to realize that they actually have the power to do this. It's not like an abstract conversation anymore about whether the president can override congressional expenditures or congressional prescriptions for spending. Basically because of the separation of powers. So can the president say this is a congressionally passed mandate, we're not
doing it though, that that's an enormous power. And just to put a like bow on this conversation, russ vote is not just like a Pambonde type person who understands the temperature and will go along with the temperature.
She's a finger in the wind type exactly.
Yeah, he's an architect of this on an ideological level, and you know most of his philosophy that he'll be able to implement and that what was like really guiding him be super against DEI spending. He'll be super against like the waste, fraud and abuse that you hear Elon m. Vivek talking about like he's a a Tea Party kind of limited government guy he was around in those times and like that informs it. But he's now very maga
as well. So it's about the sort of reforming the American government along the lines of what the conservative movements like fantasy has looked like because they feel like they've never had the power and the will to actually implement it, so hugely consequential appointment, to your point, like a little under the radar, but a very consequential appointment for Trump loyalists.
And I think to me, what we're seeing taking shape is a very different Trump administration than what we saw in twenty sixteen, even as Russ was in the similar position last time. He was in the same position last time around. But in the off season, you know, they have been preparing, They've been thinking about, Okay, what what did we learned last time? What stood in our way
of accomplishing our most maximalist goals? And even though you know, Trump didn't even get fifty percent of the vote, he feels that he has this overwhelming mandate to blow everything up.
And so, you know, I think contrary to a lot of the analysis that you saw from from Wall Street and even from you know, some Trump allies, even from his own transition Coachair Howard Lutnik, that like all these things he's saying, like he's not really going to put RFK junior at ages, he's not really going to do across the board tariffs, He's not really going to blow up the federal bureauercy. He's not really going to get
rid of the Department of Education. I think that the things he said on the trail, including you know e lun Musk saying I'm going to cut two trillion dollars from the budget. Now, is he going to be able to cut two trillion when that is more than all of the discretionary budget in the entire federal goverment budget.
Probably not.
But I think you should take seriously the things the maximalist plans that Trump laid out on the campaign trail, because there have been people like russ Vote out there in the off season thinking about, Okay, if we get another chance next time around, what are we going to start with. An emblematic of that is, you know, they didn't start going down this schedule F path until the very end of Trump's term last time run, so there wasn't really time to like get it spun up and
get it implemented. This time, they're coming out of the gates with the Matt gates, perhaps withal No coming out of the gates with those plans in place, and have thought a lot about, okay, what can we do where we don't even need to consult Congress, What can we do to make sure that any institution, whether it was the you know, the military, or the Senate or the dog that stood in our way last time around, what can we do to make sure those roadblocks are out
of the way this time? And you know, I think we should take seriously the things that Trump said on the campaign trail.
Yeah, I mean, just the last point on the whole rest vote thing is we talked about this last week. I do think that there's going to be an impulse to overreach because you know the sense that there's a mandate and the Aract and people are all on board with gutting the bureaucracy. In the abstract, that may be true, I mean, and maybe like people just got to go and shake up Washington and drain the swamp. But when it's actually playing out, yeah, you know, that'll be another story.
And again, I think people like russ vote, and I know people that are like in that orbit, they are stealing themselves for just like making those hard decisions that won't necessarily be responsive to public pressure or public opinion. And Donald Trump He's another story. I mean, to the extent he interferes with what's happening at omb. You know, he'll make sure that they're doing what they want to do.
But he also doesn't have to run for reelections Act anymore, so he doesn't really even have to care at all about public opinion. And you know, I mean we saw
this last time around as well. After he's elected in twenty sixteen and tries to implement, you know, some of the aggressive anti immigrant policies that he had run on, there was a huge backlash and actually being pro immigration was like never more popular than it was under Donald Trump because when people saw what this meant in reality, when they saw kids, you know, crying and separated from their parents and orphaned and just the human cruelty that
that entailed, the public had no stomach for that. So, you know, it's one thing to to theoretically, you know, it sounds good, Okay, get the waste road and abuse sound of government, all right, that sounds good. Who doesn't support that? But when it's like, oh, and now you know you don't have a with budget to be able to feed baby's formula, then it turns into a very different matter.
When the rubber hits the road.
Speaking of the rubber hitting the road, we couldn't do the show today without giving you a little taste of what Matt Gates has been up to in the last I don't know, Crystal seventy two hours. He's a busy man.
Yeah, moves fast on the next thing.
Mossas on the next thing. Immediately after withdrawing basically from the Attorney General confirmation process, he joined Cameo, as one does in.
The scenario in these times.
Yes, because he will not be returning to the House seat. He actually won reelection, so he technically could have he resigned from this Congress, but not from the next Congress, so he technically could have taken a seat back, and we wanted to, but he doesn't want to, Maybe because he wants to run for Florida governor. Or maybe because in twenty twenty four in the United States of America, it's way more fun to be on cameo, so.
More fun to be an influencer.
Take a look at Matt Gates talking to a longtime patriot on Cameo.
Hey, Lisa Kovak, it's your favorite former Congressman, Matt Gates. I just wanted to thank you for being a longtime patriot, for supporting President Trump through thick and thin, and I know you were bummed out with the news broke that I wouldn't be the next to Church General. We did get a great replacement in Pambondy. She's going to do an awesome job. You have nothing to worry about, but hey, listen, I'm still going to be in the fight for you
and your family. And I know things are tough right now dealing with your car and Bruce, and I wish him a very speedy recovery. So next time you visit Florida, as everyone should do very frequently, make sure to pay a visit with your lovely aunt Kathy. Stop buy and saylo. Also salo to your mother Carol for me, and have a merry Christmas, have a great Thanksgiving, enjoy your family. And this is just such an exciting time to be an American. We've got the House, we've got the Senate,
We've got Donald Trump and the presidency. We're going to actually fix the problems. We're going to secure the border, clean up our streets, get the economy roaring again.
So we've got a lot.
To be thankful for. I think he sons going it's five hundred dollars plus. That's what's listed as the price right now.
It was originally two point fifty. You know, I guess demand surged and he had up the price.
There.
He has a twelve review all five stars, so he's he's most popular for a pep talk and roasts. So roath if you're if you're interested Matt Gates and you have five hundred plus dollars lying around. One of the funny things I think is is him being excited about the Pam Bondi pick, because one of the things we've talked about this before that Matt Gates is actually very
good on is like swampiness. He's completely consistent on like congressional stock trading, on foreign entanglements, on all of those like serious and important things that nobody else wants to talk about. Are it takes seriously. Pambondi of course is now coming from work as a cutter lobbyist, and Matt Gates is like, excellent pick. It's just you know, that's that's maga world.
Yeah, that is maga world.
No.
I mean, I think with Pam Bondy in there, any hope that there's going to be like increased anti drust action where like that's definitely not happening.
Whatsoever.
Maybe on tech, it's possible. It's possible that on like Google or something something.
Where the scene is like an ideological adversary.
But even there, because even Bill Barr did that.
Even there, though you know all the tech people also bet the NITA Trump like, they also have done what they need to do to get in his good graces. So I don't expect it there either, but you never know what direction they'll ultimately go in. I did think it was Notewhether. I'm curious your thoughts, Emily. I did think it was noteworthy that Gates decided to pull out
of this process and basically was like, look, Trump. According to the reporting, Trump came to and was like, look, you just don't have the votes.
Now.
Why is that significant? Well, because it's an indication that they're not just going to go to the mat and try to do recess appointments for all of these picks. And you know, Gates is not the only one who could potentially face trouble getting confirmed. RFK Junior I think is a question mark, although I think there's decent chance he'll get through. Heag Seth is the other one that I would say is a question mark at this point,
there may be others as well. In fact, actually the Department of Labor head who's pro union Republican might be weirdly enough.
Might weirdly enough be a problem.
Though I suspect that enough Democrats would cross vote for her that that would mitigate any problem that she might have from the right wing with regard to her confirmation.
But you know, it was noteworthy to me that it was effectively a sign of backing down from their most aggressive posture of basically like, you're going to accept whatever nominees we're going to put up, you're going to vote for him, and if you aren't willing to vote for him, we're just going to shove him through in a recess appointment. So I found that to be an important indication of how these things are going to play on.
Well, yeah, I think that's a good point. And with Gates, I think it really underscores that the reason. I mean, it's true he didn't have the votes. This was not forty chess to the extent that I can tell, It wasn't like this brilliant plot to get Matt Gates in a better position to run for Florida governor. We can
actually put b nine on the screen. This is Matt Gates's resignation letter to Mike Johnson, saying basically, I'm not going to take the oath of office for the same position in the one hundred and nineteenth Congress, so that would be when that happens in January. So I don't think that this was, you know, an attempt to set him up and say, you know, we're just gonna we know he's not going to get through, but we'll elevate him and then he can have a glide path to some other position.
Well, the other theory was also like, oh, he'll take the heat off the other ones and make it easier for them to get confirmed.
Which I think actually may partially be part of the calculation. I don't know. To me, it makes sense that, like they realized it would be a really tough one. You know, Donald Trump would love to have Matt Gates as Attorney General, There's no question about it. And I think part of it was he wanted to smoke out the senators and sort of see where certain people like Mitch McConnell is a really good example. Reportedly one of the people who would not have been voting for Matt Gates. There's no
surprise about that at all. But I think Trump partially wanted to like test, first of all, John Thune in his first like literal week as a Senate majority leader or he will be well, yeah, a Senate majority leader. And so he partially wanted to test the waters on that. He wanted to see what Gates could do if it was possible. But then also he now can say, oh, Mitch McConnell, you weren't voting for Matt Gates. Okay, that's interesting.
And I know guys coming in in Utah was another Curtis right, who's replacing Mitt Romney in the Senate, was another one who reportedly was not going to vote for Matt Gates.
Yeah, this important piece of information for the Trump people to know.
And I think the other thing to just cap that is and the point that you're making is this is the most important position that Donald Trump sees it. Like if if this was the State's apartment, I think Donald Trump and his allies might have kept going, even though that's a hugely consequential position because they want to have everybody in place at the Department of Justice on day one. They do not want there to be any time wasted
with the DOJ. That is the one agency that they are laser focused on more than any other, because that is when Donald Trump says, I am your retribution, that is firmly directed at the DOJ. So my sense of this is that they realized it would be uncertain what would happen with Gates through the holidays and then into January, and just like, this is not worth our time at all.
We need to have somebody who will be confirmed and can start saying I'm hiring this person, this person, this person, this is what we're going to do on day one, et cetera, et ceter So, yeah, they want to go.
I think it's also worth noting.
I mean, I think Gates as a human being genuinely sucks, but he does it does actually have some more heterodox positions when it comes to, certainly to anti trust economics in these things. Pam Bondi has none of them. And so the fact that Trump found each of these people to be sort of like equally worthy candidates for attorney general tells you that it has nothing to do with how they think about corporate power or whatever. It has
to do with one thing, and one thing alone. Are they loyal to Donald J. Trump, right, are they going to do what he wants them to do in that position? That was always and will always be the only qualification, the only thing that really matters to him in terms of putting in this position when he says, I will be your retribution, Like, who if you were out there in the world and you've been a Donald Trump adversary, critic whatever, like who should be worried right now?
Yeah?
I would say the DOJ is probably anyone who's like a career at the DOJ. They've been there for decades and we're working on indictments against Donald Trump, where people who were working on like Face Act stuff against anti abortion protesters like that stuff is going to be very clear gimid retribution in terms of also like where.
They investigations aggress so will be targeted.
I bet? I bet? I mean, well, it's kind of interesting because some people have said there'll be more scrutiny on Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's relationship with Hunter Biden, but then Trump has he has this weird thing where he didn't go.
After remember, and I kind of doubt that, to be honest with you.
It's interesting though, I mean, I don't know. It's also the other place I would have said is the tack leaders, who, to your point have kind of bent the knee. Well, a lot of what Trump World would have wanted to do in twenty twenty one twenty twenty two was go after those tach leaders like Mark Zuckerberg, and Zuckerberg has said he regrets listening to the former FBI people and the FBI people. Mark Zuckerberg famously met with the FBI
and had this conversation before the Biden laptop drops. Hunter buying laptop drops is saying, you know, expect something that's going to look like and we now know they already had the laptop, but that's going to look like Russian disinformation. And Zuckerberg was like, oh okay. So when the laptop story broke, he was eager.
To subcribe to see it that way, right.
And so that previously, I mean, there would have been investigations of those guys, there's no question about it. But I think instead is what you're going to see, these investigations of people who were involved in Russia collusion. And even though some of those people have already been investigated, I think you'll see even more scrutiny anybody who, like anybody who was leaking to the press during that, you know,
Peter Struck, Lisa Page. I know those are old names and it sounds like but I think that's like these random people that were parts of that. I think is especially going to be room for targeting.
And what about Alvin Braggle Sitia, James, Fannie Willis.
Yeah, yeah, probably all of the above. And Fannie Will seems to have the most spotted record of all of them in terms of like soft corruption, So that'll be a lot of fun for them.
I think what you're pointing to as well, and what we're discussing with, you know, Google Zuckerberg, et cetera, bending the knee in advance, and you know he saw a similar dynamic.
With Jeff Bezos of the Washing Post, like oh, we're.
Not gonna we're not gonna endoor, You're you're all good here, and actually even getting in a little Twitter exchange back and forth where Elon had suggested that Jeff Bezos was saying negative things about from potential victory and Bezos jumps on, no, no, no, that's not true. Yes, and you know also fits with Joe and Mika making their trek down tomorrow. Lago and Steve Bannon had said, Now whether this has any veracity, we don't know, but he had said that the DJ
is going to go after MSNBC hosts. He named specifically Ari Melburg. But you would think that, you know, Joe and Mika could potentially be at the top.
Of that list.
And so I think a lot Ari Melburg I was a random one to be it that, Like, I don't know why.
I feel like ur he covers a lot of the.
The legal stuff, like that's his beat. He's you know, former, he like goes in on that. And I think he's even had I want to say, he's had Bannon on the show and they've like fall with each other. Anyway, apparently Steve Bannon has a grievance, particularly.
With Ari Melburn whatever.
But you know, I think a lot of the work is already done in terms of just having you know, the threat of Matt Gates, the threat of a Trump loyalist out there to go after people with investigations or to hurt their businesses in the case of Jeff Bezos, who has a lot of business with the government. You know, So there's a lot of sort of like compliance in advance to try to get on Trump's good side and try to avoid the worst of the federal government being
weaponized against you. So in any case, obviously that position will be really consequential.
I did.
The other piece that I was curious about is whether Hegseth seems to me like he would be the other one that would be difficult potentially to get confirmed. Also, reportedly, Trump was pissed that Hesth hadn't been upfront with him about not only the specifics of the allegations, the sexual assault allegations against him, but also the fact that he had paid some undisclosed some to the woman who accused him of rape. Pete denies the charges and put out his side of the story. But let me go ahead
and play for you. You know, this is getting a lot of attention on CNN Dana Bash going back and forth with Senator Mark Wayne Mullet about the Pete Hegseeth allegations. Go ahead and take a listen to that.
I want to just make sure our viewers know what that report said that the woman said that when she tried to leave Hegseeth's hotel room, he blocked the door ended up on top of her and performed a sexual act. She also said that she don't remember saying no to a lot.
Yeah, go ahead, Dana.
If we're going to get into that, let's talk about the whole police report. Now, I know if you read it, and I have definitely read it. First of all, the police report, if you look at it, it's very clear that what Pete was saying, the attorney was saying was accurate.
There was no case here.
He was falsely accused. If you go back and you read the report, there was two eyewitnesses said that she was being the aggressor. Pete wasn't even flirting with her, He was flirting with a different girl, and the other girl was trying to flirt with Pete. The Jane Doe here that is unmentioned. They also said that she was holding his arm as they were leaving, and that Pete
was intoxicated and the Jane Doe was not. They obviously said multiple people said that she was aggressively, to the point of aggressively use the word aggressively, flirting towards him when they were in the court.
Senator, Senator, the hotel staff. Senator, Well, I'm just saying that this wasn't.
I wasn't done. I wasn't done. I wasn't done. You're giving his side, and it was definitely. The police report is definitely what she said and what he said. You're absolutely right. I hadn't gotten there. But I appreciate you giving that other side for me. So I guess that just kind of answers the question, which is from your perspective, you believe his part of the story and not hers.
I absolutely do. He wasn't charged. He wasn't even kind of charging this. There was no crime committed. The police dropped everything there. It's what's unfortunate in today's world. You can be accused of anything, and then if especially if it's something like this, you're automatically assumed to be guilty. If you read the police report from cover to cover, which I have and I know every reporter has two, it is clear there is nothing there.
So he's obviously prepared to vote for Pete haag Sath, but may not be representative of the entirety of the Republican caucus.
What is your sense there?
Only because not just because of these allegations, but in addition, I mean, Pete Hagsath is also very ideological guy said that like, for example, womentioned Serman combat Roles, and I can imagine there being at least a few Republican Senators who may take issue with that.
You take issue that because you know senators obviously aren't not for election every two years. But you can imagine being Susan Collins and voting to confirm somebody like Pete Hegseth and then having to run for the election and answer for it. Yeah, maybe even not when you're running for reelection, but even when you're just back in Maine talking to constituents that you know, it's not going to be super easy for somebody like Susan Collins, and he
can afford to lose a few votes. But you know, if you have a masked affection, or even if you have like five to ten, that's not good enough.
You can't get there's there will be no Democrat who would vote for Pete heag Seth's and you're not going to get any crossovers.
There, no, no, not at all. And let's also remember that you know, Pete Hegseth is firmly opposed in some good ways and in some ways that both of us would probably disagree with, but in some good ways firmly opposed to this, like entrenched bureaucracy at the Pentagon, and poses a major threat to a lot of that. And he's somebody who's from the outside that the defense contractors
are not familiar with and not comfortable with. He has positions on Ukraine that they're definitely not comfortable with, and to that extent, I think there's going to be a ton of pressure on people again like Susan Collins, like Mitch McConnell, who's not going to want to shake up the Pentagon bureaucracy. He's now staying in the Senate specifically to keep the money flowing to Ukraine. Like that is how he has positioned himself. Instead is going to be
his legacy. So it's not just this. This is something that's going to make it a lot more difficult. But
that pressure is going to be enormous. And I know that he kind of has normally conservative positions on things like Israel and even on of course different questions, but he's he's from outside the Pentagon, and that makes him very, very uncomfortable, And so the lobbyist will be out in full force pressuring people unless they think unless they decide they think they can work with the guy, or that you'll be easily manipulated. That doesn't seem to be the
case so far. It seems like everyone's pretty opposed to him. But the pressure is going to be enormous not to confirm Pete haag Seth.
So a very interesting pick by Donald Trump for Department of Labor. He found one of the only in existence somewhat pro union Republicans. Let's go and put this up on the screen. So some moderate congresswoman she just actually lost narrowly re election in the state of Oregon. Her name is Lori chav As de Raymer. I might be saying that wrong. I'm sorry if i am, but basically I had never heard of her. The one thing that
makes her noteworthy is she did actually vote. She was one of very few who voted in favor of the pro Act, which is pro union legislation in the House. And the other thing that is noteworthy about her is that Sean O'Brien, who is the president of the Teamsters union, who spoke at the RNC and decided to keep his union out of the endorsement game whatsoever, which was taken as a huge victory by Trump and his side. This is the candidate that he was ultimately pushing for this job.
So you know, it's quite a remarkable, you know, quite a remarkable shift to have for Trump specifically, who has been a union buster his whole life, to have someone who's remotely pro union put into this position. And you know, I think it's sort of like a payoff for Sean O'Brien who was tweeting about this.
Let's put this up on the screen.
He says, thank you Donald Trump for putting American workers first by nominating Lori Chaves Dereimer for US Labor Secretary. Nearly a year ago, you joined US for Teamsters round Table and pledge to listen to workers and find common ground to protect and respect labor in America. You put words into action, now let's grow wages and improve working conditions nationwide. Congratulations on your nomination, etc.
Etc.
So he's certainly taking a victory lap with this, and you know, for me, Emily, it's both really consequential listen for the labor movement, which you guys know is one of my key priorities. The labor union used to have bipartisan support, like in the New Deal era and still does. If you go into state legislatures in places that are more like pro union friendly. You know, I can speak to the Kentucky legislatures still had at least last I checked some Republicans who would be pro labor, pro union.
So it is a flavor that it exists. But you know, it is better for the labor movement when you have bipartisan support because one of the problems with the union movement is that since Republicans became just like one hundred percent ideologically aligned against it, you had a raft of legislation that was passed in states that made it more and more difficult to organize. You had an effort to paint unions as just being sort of like plants for
the Democratic Party. So overall, it's really good to have some bipartisanship within the union movement. But I also don't want to overstate what this means, because you know, if you were really serious about advancing labor rights in the way that the Biden administration actually was, you would keep, for example, Jennifer Abruzzo in as general counsel at the
National Labor Relations Board. You would reverse some of the incredibly hostile actions that the Trump administration took last time they were in office, the Biden administration they ramped up their enforcement minimum wage, overtime, worker safety. Trump has been on the other side of many of those and when the most most consequential pieces is that the Biden administration has pushed to make it easier to classify contractors like those Amazon drivers as employees, which has really aided union
drives specifically that apply to the team stirs. And there's no real indication that the Trump administration plans to continue in that direction. So while it is significant, I also don't want to make too much of it, because ultimately it matters what this Department of Labor does once the rubber hits the road.
This is truly significant. I mean, there's just no other way to look at it, because as some of these cabinet nominations have come out, there's been tons of pressures, you know, on Sean O'Brien, people saying, look at this, you bet on the wrong horse, and here's what you're getting.
Because various of these nominees have come from, you know, the conservative movement, somebody like russ Vote, for example, who maybe you know, think differently about Union's publish Trump, but definitely before Trump, we're not in favor of any of this at all, and we're much more aligned openly, proudly with the business community than with Union. And so this
could have been somebody. I mean, remember Donald Trump's first nomination for his first labor secretary was Alex Acosta, the guy who approved the deal for Jeffrey Epstein, Right, I mean, like this could have been someone that was very, very hostile to organize labor. No matter what Donald Trump said on the campaign trail, it's just the selection of people to go from. It's just very, very difficult to actually
align yourself in that way. And for him to align himself with Sean O'Brien here, I mean, this is massive. This is truly massive. The Labor secretary is in charge of so much policy. It's not just what goes through Congress, like. The Labor Secretary is extremely consequential for the day to day policies or the day to day practices of what happens in the business world. This is a huge, huge deal for Republican president.
Yeah, so I'm no doubt about that. On the other hand, you know, there are many contradictory signs in terms of the postures sports union within this administration. We can put
this next piece up on the screen. So one of the biggest problems Rocanna here tweeting what could be a bigger betrayal working class voters than to dismantle an FDR created agency that be the National Labor Relations Board that protects unions and workers from exploitation, and he links to watch it post article here about the efforts by Elon Musk and supported by many Trump allies, to deem the National Abor Relations Board unconstitutional, which would be kind of
a death blow for union organizing. So Elon has been very involved in this Amazon SpaceX. They've all argued in federal court, Starbucks, they've all argued in federal core that the NLRB is unconstitutional. They also write in this article that Trump's presdential administration is poised to oversee major cuts to the powers of the National Labor Relations Board and firing the democratic members of that board. And I know this can see really in the weeds, but we've covered
it extensively here. So if you've been watching the show for a while, you'll know some of this this wave of grassroots union organizing that we've seen at places like Amazon, at places which is represented by parts of the organizing driver being led by the teamsters. At places like Starbucks, the workers get all the credit for doing the you know, doing the work and taking a risk and all of that.
But it also was really dramatically enabled by a pretty aggressively pro worker National Labor Relations Board, the general counsel of which her name is Jennifer Arbruzzo. She is very likely to be fired by the Trump administration. I don't think there hasn't been the whole like you know, Lena Khan conversation. She hasn't been conversation conversation. She hasn't been made central to this, but she really should be, because if you actually care about expanding union rights, this is
someone who has done incredible work. The Biden administration, which Jennifer Bruzzo has also worked to ban these meetings that they force workers to go in to to hear like anti union propaganda. There have been very important decisions made about even the way in which the Starbucks organizing could unfold, and so that's been super consequential. And with Elon Muskin here, as I mean, this is the guy that Brian brags about firing striking workers. That Trump was like, Yeah, way
to go. Good job with Elon Muskin here as an incredible influence who thinks unions should just basically be illegal. It's still still if you're a labor supporter, as I am, I don't think you should be resting easy by the fact that they picked, you know, the scygressoonman who supported the pro Act to head the agency. There's still a lot of huge questions about what the orientation is actually
going to be. And of course, in the first Trump administration he was aggressively anti union, which fits with his business career in which he also was a notable union buster.
Yeah, this is one of the questions that I asked my friends who are sort of working in the people who have seen these negotiations behind the scenes in the off season, as you put it earlier in the show, to see what a a new Republican administration with their fantasy policies in place. I've asked them like, do you have enough people to staff a potentially pro labor labor
department under Donald Trump? Like those all of those middle positions, right, which are also extremely consequential, who are you going to put in them? That's not from the like Coke world truly, that didn't grow up like in that time. It doesn't come with some of those predispositions, And I don't know that that can happen, And so you just it means that maybe a lot of careers will be protected at the Labor Department.
I don't know, maybe, But you know, the other thing is like, okay, so you you give Sean O'Brien what he wants here, and you have Elon and Vive coming in to basically take an axe to the whole agency.
Although they don't have any power, but they'll want.
To Yes and Russ's vote and others have the theory that you can make unilateral cuts without having to go through Congress. So you know, I think it's very possible that you have her at the head of what ends up being sort of a skeleton agency that, even if it wants to, doesn't.
Really have the power.
Already, the Department of Labor in the National Labor Relations Board does not have sufficient staffing to be able to handle worker grievances and disputes and elections in a timely manner.
Like it's already stretched incredibly thin, especially as there's been a significant increase in union organizing activity, So it's entirely possible you end up with a figurehead overseeing what's effectively like a skeleton agency that you know, basically gives gives a nod to the union voters and to Sean O'Brien and people who supported Donald Trump, but isn't actually effectively able to protect workers rights because that does take bureaucrats and people in positions who can you know, do the
work to make sure those rights are protected.
Somehow, the bureaucrats at the NLRB had enough time to subpoena me over a joke tweet that my.
Then, are you serious five years ago?
Yeah, maybe i'll tell the story about that one time, but it's been reported it was. Yeah, it was like a joke tweet about like whether employees at the Federalist would unionize. You could google it, but they did just subpoena the women, and they somehow found the time to do that. It's really fun.
They're protecting you.
Right, Yeah, you're right. But we can put this Dan Maren's tweet up because I think it's really interesting. And Chris, so I know you and I disagree in this. I've always been frustrated about the pro Act itself being sort of the litmus test. This is kind of conservatible freaking out about the Shaves de Raymer nomination because, as Dan points out in one of his posts, even some Democrats have issues with the pro Act forcing companies to treat
all gig workers as employees. And we could debate that. I think maybe we have, like a couple of years ago, but it's significant even that, as some Democrats have issues with the pro Act. This one Republican was like, Hey, I'm getting on board with the pro Act even though I'm like, even the corporate Dems are uncomfortable with the pro Act.
Well, at the Senate level, I think every Democrat except for Mark Kelly and Garson Cinema Cinema supported it.
Yeah, those pretty Amaus. And then once Mark.
Kelly started getting floated for being the vice presidential pick, he also was like, I support the pro Act, but hey, listen, I'm happy to go back to car check, which was what was being pushed, the Employee Free Choice Act, which was what was being pushed under the Obama administration.
We can go ahead.
Forward with some of these tweets a week and show there's you know, real freak out happening here. You say, a Republican labor secretary supports the anti worker broad would be a very bad star for Trump. Arguably the worst bill in Congress, anti freelancer, anti franchise, the anti secret ballot, anti worker. Can go ahead to the next one. If you think union leadership is in step with the union
rank and file, you've learned absolutely nothing. Union members didn't vote for Trump to end right to work and empower teachers unions.
They just wanted lower prices.
So this is an interesting argument that one of like, no, they knew that Trump is anti union and they voted for him. Anyway, That's an interesting that's an interesting take.
And maybe correct on it partially.
Yeah, and then this one, this person says Lori Chavez Durymer cosponsor the pro Act. That's all I need to know. I don't think they mean that as a positive family so.
So many people like that though, I mean truly like this is the Koch brothers were the engine of the let's say, the labor nonprofit movement on the right. And it's not as the people needed to be paid by the Koch brothers to have anti union positions. It was just that the Conservative movement was reflectively in supportive business over organized labor. Yeah, it was part of the ideology that we trust the business more than we trust the government.
And I mean, it's just it's baked into the cake here, and so I don't most of the people in the conservative movement who focus on labor issues have those takes. And there are some people like Orange Casts who have been toiling in the trenches and getting trashed by guys like that to come up with a slightly more pro worker policy agenda for the Republican Party. And even when they step a little bit out of line, they get you see Sager get it, I get it, Like it's
not a big deal. But for people like Oron, who are the figureheads of this, like they make it impossible to get money from people who want the conservative movement to have like a slightly more pro worker agenda. If you take any money from the left, you'll just get trashed. And so it's that's that reaction. The pressure is going to be on. There's just no question about it.
Yeah, she'll get confirmed because I think quite a number of Democrats will actually vote for her too, because of the available choices like you are not going to get a more pro labor Department of Labor head than she is. But it'll be interesting whether there are any Republicans who
vote against her. You know, the super business like Chamber of Commerce types are going to be under pressure, probably, although maybe they don't really even apply pressure because they know it's a bit of a lost cause with Democrats being willing to vote for her. So I'll just say for my part, you know, I do think it's obviously noteworthy and an important break from the Trump administration last time around, and from Republican orthodoxy in general. I think
is incredibly positive for the labor movement. If there are some Republican bipartisan support for unions, no doubt about it. I'm going to need to see a lot more before I'm convinced that Donald Trump is going to be remotely good for labor organizing, given his personal history and given the way the first administration unfolded, and given that probably the most powerful person advisor to Donald Trump right now is Elon Musk, who is vehemently opposed to unions even like existing in the world.
It's an entirely fair point, and the one thing that I always say to people on the right about this as I grew up in a split household. My dad is a union and my mom worked in HR, so it was like.
A little bit funny.
But my point is you, basically, if you don't trust corporations, if you think that there's like a moral vacuum in corporate America and that these executives are bad and that's what was driving a lot of DEI, will imagine how they actually treat their workers. Imagine, like, take that and apply it. You know what, if they are suddenly adopting all of this DEI bullshit and it's reflective of them having bad character and being cynical corporate losers, then imagine
how they treat their workers. Like just take that and say, if you believe this is reflective of moral rot insteade of corporate America, then imagine working for Amazon.
Yeah.
It's really simple. Yeah, translates right across the board.
Yeah, so such a great point.
Yeah, all right, we've got another great guest standing by an activist who has been pushing to try to implement a weapons embargo against Israel.
Let's go and get to that.
Very happy to be joined this morning by Mohammad Nabulsi of the Palestinian Youth Movement movement has been engaged in some very interesting activism. We're hoping you would break down for us here on the show.
Welcome Mohammed, thank you for having me. Yeah.
So, we have seen how the US, in particular about other countries as well, primarily the US though, has been reluctant to follow our own laws, let alone international laws. And so you a Palestine and youth movement have decided to take some actions to put pressure on shipping Maresk in particular regards to shipping weapons to Israel. To break down for us a little bit about your organization and what you all are up to.
So yeah, the Pastaanian Youth Movement is an organization of Arab youth in the diaspora, primarily located in the West and in North America and Britain. And we've been organizing over the last year and a half since the start of this genocide to place pressure specifically on the Biden administration to relent in its support of this ongoing genocide.
And so the main demands obviously have been ceasefire, but as the war proceeded, the demand of an arms embargo became more central because we started to recognize that first that the Biden Harris administration was able to co opt the language of ceasefire to say that they wanted to cease fire while also doing nothing to actually bring it about beyond just empty platitudes in front of podiums. And so an arms embargo became the central demand because we recognize that that is the only way we'd.
Be able to actually achieve a ceasefire. And so.
After that sort of recognition took place, we also saw that the Biden Harris administration was reluctant to do anything in the way of arms and bargo despite sort of
the global pressure to bring that about. And we've launched this campaign mask off Mirsk in May of this year, and we began by recognizing or understanding that Merk, this Danish company, one of the largest, if not the largest logistics and supply chain company in the world that's responsible for basically taking goods, products, military cargo from the US
from everywhere really and transporting it across the globe. And so mask off Merk was meant to unveil the role, exposed the role that Mirk is playing in sustaining this
genocide against the Palatine people in Gaza. We published a report more recently, and I'm happy to discuss the details of that report because there have been major developments in response to the publishing of the report, the coverage by the Intercept and by Spanish media resulting in the Spanish government banning or preventing the docking of two MARSK ships on its shores.
Well, yeah, I was going to say, please tell us more about the response, because you know, it may sound like one company, but MRSK is an incredibly consequential company in the global economy. So tell us a little bit more about what's happened, and maybe even specifically a little bit more about how MRK, like the ships themselves are involved. As the report outlines, in some of this.
Activity absolutely so.
We basically documented and this is from publicly available information reviewing the actual shipments that have taken place. From September of last year, twenty twenty three, MERSK has shipped millions of pounds of military goods military cargo to the Israeli
Ministry of Defense from the US. And these are the US manufactured military cargo paid for by the US, paid for really by US taxpayers shipped across two thousand shipments, and these shipments included hulls, engines, specialized parts for armored personnel carriers, tactical vehicles, specifically a vehicle that I think your audience and a lot of people would recognize, the Oshkosh tactical vehicle where you might have seen the photo
of Palestinians blindfolded, stripped, rounded up in place in the back of this truck essentially being carried off to be either tortured, imprisoned, or whatever.
And so these.
Ship these RSK ships basically the way that it operates. They're called transshipment vessels, and they're picking up goods from the Port of Houston, taking them to the Port of Elizabeth in New Jersey and then they drop off their
cargo in Spain at their transshipment pubs. And as you can imagine, MARKS leases essentially controls terminals at multiple ports at the entry of the Mediterranean, and so for MARK these vessels they drop them off in Spain and from there MARK ships that are responsible they're smaller in size, are responsible for basically doing a loop around the Mediterranean where they pick up the goods from Spain and then drop them off either in port said and Egypt and
Turkey or directly towards the actual port in Haifa. And so these vessels are they need to drop off their goods at this entry point. Now, with Spain basically issue implementing an arms embargo them spelves, the Spanish government has spoken extensively about the fact that they're not going to allow any weapons to be shipped to Israel, either from
them directly or through their ports. And so Spain, following the reporting from the intercept covering our report, essentially it was forced to respond and as a result, they BANNEDMMERK from docking these ships at its port. Now MRSK itself responded. They first stated that they don't ship any weapons or ammunitions to Israel or conflict zones more broadly, and that they take care of sort of humanitarian concerns, all of this sort of jazz. But you have to be really
like specific about the language here. So MERSK says we don't ship weapons in ammunitions, and this.
Is a.
It's really a way for them to get around what they're actually doing. Weapons here refers to you know, assembled parts, like actual assembled weapons or ammunition, meaning live ammunition involving gunpowder or things of that nature.
Basically, what MRSK is doing is shipping everything but that, right.
It's so so for example, they say, well, we're shipping the body of a tank, the engine of a tank, the armor of a tank, but we're not shipping the tank, right, but that is the tank, it's being assembled in Israel itself. So the same thing they're doing about like bullets, they'll ship the bullet casing, they'll ship the actual body of the bullet, and the same for the rockets. They'll ship the body of a rocket, they won't ship the actual ammunition.
And this is because, first of all, it's much more costly to do so, and it involves higher wages for workers at docks to be able to actually carry because this is really hazardous material and dangerous material.
So they send everything but that.
And what we've seen, I mean, if anybody's followed this war so extensively, which is obviously one of the most documented war on social media, you know these exact vehicles you know the name or armored personal carrier, which is what they're responsible for sort of transporting all of these things are what they're transporting, and they use this turn of phrase, this technical word, to avoid basically conceding that
they are shipping actual weapons. And you know, at least in a layman understanding or in everyday person's understanding of weapons, these are weapons. And for the Spanish government, that's how they understood it as well, and so they've banned them. And now as a result of that, as a result of banning them from being able to dock in Spain, they've moved to Tangier. It's another terminal they essentially control.
Tangier is located in Morocco. Morocco has obviously normalized relations with the State of Israel, and now the fight has shifted to Morocco because the population there, the actual.
People of Morocco, are up in arms over this.
And we've seen several dock workers walk off the job, they've resigned. We've seen multiple leaks from within, you know, these are essentially mersed employees because they work at this terminal that's leased by Mark leaking photographs from CCTV footage they've leaked, you know, essentially a bunch of a ton of information to media locally, and there's been a mobilization
across Morocco and specifically at the support in Tangier. Now I'll end here because I know I'm talking on for a while, But the main point I want to say is that you have to understand this is an extremely important area for MIRSK to be able to operate the Mediterranean.
We know what's occurred essentially through the Red Sea and Yeman in.
Terms of you know, the port of Iliat in the south, and we know that MIRSK needs to ship to drop off these goods at these specific ports. They have really two options Morocco and Spain. If Spain is shut off, Morocco shut off, where are they going to go? And you have to understand that the cargo that these ships carry, the military cargo, is just a small component of a much broader cargo, most of it consumer goods, and so
this is a small aspect. You're jeopardizing this broader, your broader ability to ship throughout the terranean for something very small on your ship in terms of the.
Space it takes up.
Well.
So these developments have been really important for the campaign.
And something that we all learned in the pandemic, and I think activists have known for many, many years, is how critical these supply chains are and how when they get mucked up, it becomes very difficult to operate and do the things that you're trying to do. I'm sure
Israel is quite keenly aware of that, Muhammed. While we have you, I wanted to also get your reaction to last week, we you know, got the long awaited news that the ICC was in fact issuing arrest warrants for Bib Natna, who Yoav Galant and also a leader of Hamas. The US is, you know, not a party to the ICC, and we actually have something called the Hague Invasion Act that threatens war against the Netherlands were they to do
anything that we don't want them to do. A US Senator Tom Goddon already threatening to invoke the Hague Invasion Act, but many other countries around the world said no, we will abide by these arrass warrants and if Bibe Natanya who comes here, he will be arrested. Justin Trudeau of Canada was one of the world leaders who made comments to that effect.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Now that the ICC has issued warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense minister joof Gallant, Canadian law enforcement is obligated to arrest them should they come to Canada. Will you allow that to happen or will you step in to prevent an arrest?
First of all, as Canada has always said, it's really important that everyone abide by international law. This is something we've been calling on from the beginning of the conflict. We are one of the founding members of the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. We stand up for international law and we will abide by all the all the regulations and rulings of the international courts.
Trudeau is not alone there. I can put this tear sheet up on the screen. There are one hundred and twenty four member nations of the International Criminal Court. We don't know that they will all comply, but quite a number of them have said that they will. This is a map showing those countries that have responded thus far. They include Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Lithuania, Canada, Ireland,
South Africa, Turkey, Jordan, Norway and Sweden. How significant, Muhammad, do you think that we should we should find.
All of this to be.
I mean, it's going to really depend on the actual implementation. I do think that the formalization of arrest or warrent allows for greater capacity for popular pressure to actually exact pressure on governments to end their responsibility or role in
this genocide. And so I think, for example, if you look at more recently that the European Union's Foreign policy chief, Joseph Barrell, he stated, this is just a few days ago that EU member states cannot pick and choose which warrants they execute, and so this is going to create
pressure on European Union member states. And I think it's also going to create pressure on companies, multinational companies that are sort of bound by EU law to recognize that complicity in this you're essentially aiding and embetting a war criminal.
Right, it's very direct.
It's one thing for people to accuse Israel of genocide or accuse Israeli leaders of war crimes. It's another thing for an international institution that countless countries are bound by, bound by their decisions, bound by their prescripts, to actually be then bound formally.
To implementing these types of sort of rulings.
And so I think it's going to be important for us to be able to use this more so than it is to see what happens because at the end of the day, I think you all know and your audience knows that the US is likely to intervene in one way or another, whether it's through political or economic
pressures on these countries. We've seen that in the way that it's happened through is the US's prevention of them, prevention of the United Nations Security Council ceasefire resolutions, or whether the pressure placed on the ICJ, the threatening of sanctions coming from Congress against the ICC prosecutor all of these things. Will see how they're able to weather them.
But I think for companies like MRSK for example, it's a Danish company operations throughout Europe, now unnoticed that weapons that it's shipping directly to y'all of galant in the Ministry of Defense are going towards aiding and ambtting war crimes. So they can't run away from this, and they might be potentially legally complicit in the same way with the other countries.
And the genocide.
And that's why the genocide sort of ICJ probability ruling right the US, US officials, various other officials across the globe, they could be found they could be themselves found to be complicit in a very direct way.
I think those are all really important points. Mohammad. Tell people where they can find and support the work that you're.
Doing, absolutely, I think so you can Palacini and youth movement across social media, especially on Instagram. Maskofmersk dot com is where you can follow the campaign, and then you also have if you're a.
Worker, a doc worker, if you work for MIRSK, if you.
Have any important information related to Mersk and it's dealings with the Israeli genocide, you can email us at maskofmersk dot proton dot me. I think it's important for people, your audience to know that you know, this is a campaign that's built on popular power. It's about implementing on arms people's arms embargo. We heard from seven labor unions sent a letter to to President Biden telling him urging
him to implement on arms in Bargo. And we're building a campaign through labor, through the student movement, with a strategic target, one that has specific role in this genocide, MERSK, one that is vulnerable because of where it is in friendly countries with powerful unions.
One that is also.
Has an incentive to change has an incentive to its complicity because of the small part that this cargo plays and its overall operations, and so you know, we're gonna we're trying to target ethical investment screens and get those implemented and added verse to it. And so you know, if you're a union, if you're a member of union, if you're a doc worker, if you're a student, you can become involved in this campaign. You can reach out
to us and talk to us. I think what's going to be important is for us to organize democratically through the sectors, through these popular institutions like trade unions, to actually end this genocide, because I think I was listening to your show last week and there was an Israeli journalist on and he said he believes this war is going to last for a few years. The occupation of Goza, the starvation of an entire people is going to last
for a few years. And I think it's on us people to implement this in arms and bargo, because it's not going to come from the US, and these rulings in the ICC or wherever are only as effectual as we make them, and so that's what our role will be. So I look forward to, you know, coming back on this show, sharing with you the developments as the mask off Meerce campaign continues to grow, and hopefully next time we talk it'll be about how MRSK ended its complicity in this genocide.
I think it's a really important movement. Muhammed, thank you so much for your time, and we definitely definitely stay in touch with us and keep us updated about what's going on.
Thank you, I appreciate you our pleasure.
Crystal's going to be talking about the future of MSNBC, but I guess Crystal, this is a rare moment of agreement between you and Elon Musk because he is also really not confident that MSNBC is going to be able to sustain itself in this corporate restructure and the spinoff of properties that Comcast is doing right now, which leaves the fate of MSNBC hanging in the balance and also some other companies.
Is not just MSNBC, but Kyle's very invested in the future of the Golf Channel is actually tied up in this.
I'm not surprised to learn about that.
Now.
They didn't decide to spin off Bravo, which is huge news for that right, disruption to the housewif Kyle.
Said, if they take away the Golf Channel, he's doing his own January sixth, it's on the record with that.
But at Promcast headquarters, like he's in midtown with the brows and they're just taking their.
Nine hours in a bunch of seventy year olds.
Actually, that's exactly what would happen.
And maybe you but that's a key Donald Trump base right there.
That's true.
Point.
Yeah, Trump loves the Golf Channel. The Golf Channel would come out fine.
So Musk, though is appears to be you can never quite tell, but it appears to be flirting with a purchase of MSNBC. I'm not sure exactly how that would play out, but let's go ahead and put this first element up on the screen. The memes were relentless over the course of the weekend. So Donald Trump Junior said, Hey, Elon Musk, I have the funniest idea ever, in response to a post that said Comcast is putting MSNBC up
for sale, CNN just announced massive playoffs coming. Maybe the new owners will figure out that lying NonStop to your audience is a lousy business model. Elon replies, how much does it cost? And then we can put the next meme on the screen, which is what greeted me as
I was scrolling Twitter on Saturday morning. It says, if you're listening to this, you're missing on on a hell of a visual and lead us not on some temptation dot dot dot And it is a monk with the caption Elon mush trying not to buy, and a woman with the MSNBC logo obscuring her. Noother regions, just classy, Just make America classy again. And then I mean, it's just this has just been blowing up all weekend. Joe Rogan jumps in and says, if you buy MSNBC, I
would like Rachel Maddow's job. I will wear the same outfit and glasses and I will tell the same lies. And Elon replied, deal with a fire emoji, a rocket emoji, and a laughing crying emoji. Crystal, as a resident MSNBC expert, Yes, how on a scale of love it to really love it? How much are you supporting Ela Musk BBC.
I honestly feel like it's kind of irrelevant because, as I'm about to go into in depth, MSNBC like you did it already. It's already dead. Like, it's not going to occupy the same position. It may you know, hobble on, et cetera, et cetera, but they won't have the NBC News journalistic resources behind them. So then they're just you know, a bunch of like not that interesting talking heads and their whole theory of the world has been destroyed by Donald Trump winning and by then Joe Amica going and
like bending the knee. So like, if you're not about Trump resistance, what are you exactly? And you know, they face the same business trends that all the cable news nets face. Fox News is in a better position simply because they have a larger audience, but these are all aging demographics declining year over year. People are moving to the podcast world. You know, this is the podcast election.
Independent media is only going to grow. Gear garantee that landscape is superior by the way to the one that we already have. But I just don't know why you would buy this asset at this point, no matter who you are, when it's already effectively been neutralized in terms of the ideological warfare space.
Well, this is also the entire kind of conversation surrounding X and Elon Musk's buying X was that these sort of old media properties are dead compared with places like social media, and he's he brought Tucker onto X for example, because it's exactly it's more powerful than Fox News in theory if you're able to have a massive audience, and it's more sustainable in the long term if you're able to have a massive audience. Now, I think CNN has recently gotten sort of smart about how their off ramp
could look. They do big numbers on YouTube, Like there's there's some recognition at some of these old sort of dinosaur businesses that there's something they can kind of transfer, they can do both at the same time. For now. I don't know if that's actually case, but they're trying. MSNBC is not one of those places. And I don't know why it would be worth it for Elon Musk, even, I mean, he clearly thinks it would be worth it just for the memes.
Yeah, I guess maybe.
I guess that'd be the only thing that'd be worth worth of work, because I mean, you already have plenty of conservative, ideological, conservative pro Trump media out there, like adding one more to the list I don't think is really going to particularly help their cause. Much savvier in terms of the ideological project was buying Twitter. So I don't know if he's serious about this stuff or not, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Well, you know what's interesting is CNBC is also being spun off and Donald Trump apparently really likes CNBC, is like newly in love with CNBC, And so, I mean,
there's something I think that's actually kind of interesting. If there's something that could potentially be done with someone, I don't think it would be Elon Musk, but like you would have to have someone a quote unquote disruptor who recognizes that the future of cable news is not super sustainable at the level that it's at, and that would require like really dramatic you might have to actually do a n plus because as ridiculous as it sounds, that's
always my least popular take of the last several years is that CNN plus was not the dumbest thing in the world. It was implemented in the dumbest possible way, but like they were they saw what Fox Nation was doing, which was getting people to subscribe because that ad money. The ad revenue for cable is going to dry up, so you just need to be looking at different revenue streams. And so if you have someone that's actually going to do it, maybe you can turn it around. But the staff,
the hosts. Part of the reason, I guess is like the Morning Joe hosts are making tons.
Of money, oh tons, I mean that's fun.
And not just the host, but the operation there is so much larger, right, the number of production staff, the overhead of the you know, the sets and the design and the hair and the makeup and all those things. It's just like the business model does not business anymore. It doesn't make sense, you know when especially you no
longer have news gathering resources. Okay, then just in the hot take game, like you know Rando on YouTube with a microphone and a camera, who is spending nothing on production. So none of these people, I shouldn't say none, very few of these people have their own organic audiences that will follow them to wherever. I think Rachel Mattow is an exception to that. There may be a few others, but by and large people watch because you were on this network.
That's it.
And so if you pull them out of that space, and they're trying to make it in the wild West with all the rest of us, like good Luck.
They have a couple of big podcasts, by the way, that's one thing that always gets overlooked about MSNBC. They've been sort of successful in that space.
But Rachel has a podcast that does well right right now.
I don't know if it's actually an MSNBC or an NBC product though, because she has distinction.
And she has her own production company, I don't know if the podcast is like her thing in collaboration with MSNBC or what.
I don't really it's a greatquestion, but I mean.
Former MSNBC head Phil Griffin runs her production company for like her long form stuff.
Oh, this is actually an MSNBC production production. And that's again, like this is all relevant because to your point, so much of what was MSNBC. I know you're going to talk about this in a second, but it's based on the relationship with NBC News and so much of the resources comes from NBC News. So much of it is like a house of cards. It's like built on the foundation of NBC News. Without that, you're in trouble.
So MSNBC appears to be in total free fall as ratings decline. Comcast announces a spinoff, and we've just learned their biggest star, Racil Mattow, is taking a multi million dollar pay cut. Things are so rough that, as we were just discussing, Elon Musk is even joking question Mark about buying the network outright. It's hard to see what the point of that would be, though, since there isn't
much left of the place to catch and kill. An article from Lachlann Cartwright on the Ankler Substack lays out the state of panic and chaos that has grow uped the network post election. In addition to getting the scoop about Mattow accepting a salary cut from thirty million to twenty five million. I know, poor thing right, Lachlan also scoops that multiple anchors, including Rubber Al Sharp and Jonathan K Park, could be on the chopping block entirely, apparently
in a tense meaning. With the new spinoff company leadership Mark Lazarus, there were more questions than answers about how the network would operate and what the future held for the network's talent, especially those people like Peter Alexander who pulled double duty over.
At NBC and MSNBC.
They mused about whether perhaps the network could partner with an outlook like maybe the Washington Post to handle news gatherings, since NBC's journalistic resources would be staying with the parent company, Comcast. The whole thing is a giant cluster, and the details are pretty interesting, but ultimately maybe not all that important, because while the network might continue for some time in some form or another, it may look and feel something
like what MSNBC has been. That previous network is now dead. It's gone, and it wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing actually just collapsed, as surely as neoliberalism has been dealt a final crushing blow by Trump's victory. One thing is for sure. MSNBC will no longer serve the role that it once did as perhaps the most significant space
of liberal consensus making. Here, like nowhere else, consent was manufactured among the Democratic Party's liberal base with a worldview and tactical philosophy that was dictated by the party's elites. No more, with its worldview and credibility shattered, it will now at best be one among many competing ideological spaces alongside riffraffle like yours truly, and many others in the
alternative media space. And you know what's funny, It wasn't actually Donald Trump who put the final nail in MSNBC's coffin, though he certainly held pace in their decline. The crushing blow came from some of the network's biggest stars, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brazinski. With a single act of cowardly self preservation and capitulation of Donald Trump, they revealed to the entire MSNBC liberal audience what a bunch of spineless frauds they actually are when they decided to turn on
a dime. From calling Trump Hitler st voyaging to Marl I go to kiss the ring, they knoked not only their credibility, but that of the entire network, exposing in a single act, how their entire cosplay a brave resistance over eight years was really just for show and for personal benefit. Last week for Crystal Colin Fronts, I interviewed a former Morning Joe regular, Steve Schmidt, and he was scathing in his assessment of what that pair had become.
Take a listen, and.
There's additional reporting and I wrote about it today from Puck News that the.
Motivation, of course for this is fear.
They're terrified, and they went down tomorrow Lago and they did what they had to do to cover and protect their asses, which is not the thing to do if you hold a seat which you hold with importance in the hierarchy of American journalism. So Mika justified this by saying it's a big new Brazenski a poll. The Jimmy Carter era National Security Advisor would have appreciated this because he was a diplomat, and he would have processed this as a diplomatic act nonsense. He would have regarded it
as a capitulan act. He would have seen it for exactly what it was. And it has created a profound crisis of credibility at MSNBC, which actually won't exist for very much longer at all as we enter into the early hours of the Trump administration.
Crisis of credibility.
Let me just take a little bit of time to explain why Joan Mika's act was so devastating, because that matters for what is going to happen next. So MSBC had a particular ideology and worldview in the Trump era which was very tightly controlled. This worldview had two central tenants. Number one, opposition to Trump is everything. Every issue position is defined in reaction to Trump. Every candidate is analyzed
in relation to how they feel about Trump. This is how you end up with a bizarre world which Liz Cheney's a hero because she hates Trump, and white working class men writ large our villains because they tend to vote for Trump. Number two, the way to defeat Trump runs through establishment democratic politicians in collaboration with never Trump resistors. Any candidate or issue set that colors outside the lines of Clinton's style triangulation is to be rejected as unsafe
and unseerious for the task of defeating Donald Trump. If he didn't agree with those two central tenants that Trump was everything and that the way to defeat Trump was established with Democrats, you would not last long on that network, to the extent that you made it there at all.
In this calculus, Nicole Wallace, who cheered for the Iraq War, was a hero and welcome ideological fellow traveler, and someone well maybe like me who thought the way to defeat fascism was through social democracy, just as FDR did, was a villain. The one two punch of Trump winning and Joe and make us capitulation to Trump detonated both of those pillars which were holding up the entire MSNBC universe.
So their theory for how to beat Trump was totally broken and their posture as brave resistance to Trump was utterly shattered. Trump destroyed their theory that establishment Democrat politics was the way to win, the key to electability. Kamala ran the platonic ideal of that MSNBC campaign. She ran to the center, She bragged about her glock, She pivoted hard ride on immigration, She even buried her own popular price gouging proposals, and ran around the country with the
likes of Liz Cheney, Bill Clin and Richie Torres. And the corporate tists can run around all they want trying to blame the left for this campaign, but this was their candidate and their campaign, their tactics, their consultants, their media.
Approach, all of it. They own it.
And their theory that this establishment approach was the way to defeat Trump was so incontrovertibly destroyed that even people like Chris Murphy and David Brooks have been forced to admit, you know what, maybe, just maybe Bernie had a little bit of a point. Joe and Mika's decision to run to Trump to bend the knee provided the death Now for the other pillar of the MSNBC worldview that resistance
to Trump is everything. If the network is no longer about opposing Trump, what is this network about at all? The whole thing, including the universe of heros and villains, and which issues matter and which don't. All of that dependent on Trump as the ultimate final boss of politics. It's what could unify Joy Reid and Chris Hayes are more or less left liberals with Republicans like Nicole Wallace and Joe Scarborough. Now Joe and Mika are running around
talking about working on common ground with Donald Trump. What common ground could there be with a man that weeks ago they were calling literal hitler. Unfortunately, as Adam Johnson writes, there are actually plenty of various where Joe and Meeka and other establishment Democrats may be happy to collaborate with Trump in all of the worst ways possible. After all, Morning Joe was as deranged as any program when it came to cracking down on pro Palestine protesters, marring them
as antisemitic, demanding crackdowns on speech. Some Democrats already happily handing Trump power to dismantle any nonprofit group he deems to be supporting terrorism. Already, of course, we've seen Democrats except the Trumpian worldview that pins the nation's ills on immigrants and seeks a brutal crackdown on migration. I'm sure they'll be happy to find common ground as well on
social safety netcuts of the type contemplated by Elon. After all, Morning Joe is the same show that slabberd all over Paul Ryan and treated him like the golden boy of politics. I am quite confident Joe and Mika will also be happy to cheer lead the next war as well, since they've i think literally never seen a war they didn't
think we should endlessly fight. And of course they can find common ground in their obsession with power Trump in having it, Joe and Mika in orbiting, flattering and groveling at its feet. Now whether their show even continues in the new post spinoff world in order to explore all of this copious common ground, and that's another question, since already, even as the shows continue in truth, only rubble remains.
After the ideological underpinnings have collapsed. Now, if MSMBC was actually a liberal outlet, I would experience its.
Death as a loss.
After all, liberalism as an ideology has plenty of failings, but also some strengths. Liberal journalism has continued to make important contributions in the Trump years, and in the absence of anything approaching a mainstream anti capitalist media, liberalism serves an important role as an adversarial force towards Trump himself and trump Ism as an ideology. Sometimes too genuinely brave
commentary did also slip through the cracks. On MSNBC, for example, is the only place where you could find any significant criticism of the Israeli genocide in Gaza. But MSNBC's goal was not to advance a liberal ideology. It was to advance and protect a corrupt Democratic Party elite. And that's the reason why there is very little to moar in
their death. It's bitterly ironic that the very network most centered around defeating Trump did the most to grease the skids for his ascent by blocking the Bernie left populist movement most equipped to actually rival Trump's ideological project. They wanted to beat Trump and protect their executive's class interests. Those two goals were mutually exclusive, and when it came down to it, the goal of protecting their class interests was vastly more important to them than the goal of
defeating Trump. Now the pathword for media to me kind of mirrors that of the country at large. Most likely
everything is just going to continue to get worse. That's most likely outcome the gutting of mainstream mountlets round leading to some flourishing a vibrant, honest, courageous independent media instead leads to a bunch of even more shamelessly corrupts, the cathantic slop as liberals brush themselves off and look around, they could easily be consumed by a liberal version of the same deranged conspiracy nonsense and partisan cheerleading that right
wing influencers find so much money and success pedaling. As trust in mainstream institutions faded, Charlatan's poured in, it feels like we're plunging deeper into a post reality world, and liberals gave us a preview and Russiagate of how easily they could be swept up by fantasy and delusion. But Trump's win has also created a possibility for something new and better that wasn't there before without the liberal establishment media enforcers. What could grow organically left of center that
might effectively rival trump Ism? What would that look like, What candidates could gain traction, what issues could be champion,
what media outlets could gain purchase traction? Genuine sway. MSNBC was the central weapon for convincing liberals the caring about things like, well, I don't know, healthcare, unions, wages, housing, that all of that was a luxury, that wanting a genuinely democratic process to select a candidate was pure frivolity, all distractions which could hobble the party in their quest
to defeat the ultimate bad guy Trump. Now, as it turns out, delivering for people materially and modeling a commitment to democracy were critical in that fight for democracy against Trump. If not for msmec's years of gaslighting and manipulation, pretty sure that would have been obvious, and now perhaps it will be. Although in Trump's business career he was a builder, in politics, he really knows how to destroy. Might something
better be built in the rubble. We've got no choice now but to find out, and Emily it really is.
And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue. Become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Thank you guys so much for watching. If you're able to support us over at Breakingpoints dot com, that would be amazing. Help us do more things like the cool focus group with AOC Trump voters.
Getting to talk to them. Really I got a lot out of that. I hope you guys enjoyed that as well.
And if you cannot subscribe or you're already a subscriber, please like and share our videos on YouTube because that really helps us out a lot. There are a lot of people searching for new media locations at this moment, and we would love to be one of those destinations. So Emily thank you as always, and Emily will be back in tomorrow for another pre Thanksgiving show, so we will see you guys then