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.
Our good morning and welcome to Counterpoints.
And it was our first show since Thanksgiving. Hope it was a good one.
We've missed a lot since then.
Yeah, the news just doesn't stop.
It's really not.
We thought it would get better when the election was over, but no. Yeah, you can never get off this ride.
No chance.
So I mean today, obviously we're we're gonna start by talking about the really pitiful attempt at a coup over in South Korea, where the prime minister himself tried to coup his own government with the military but didn't have the military behind him, And we'll talk about how well that worked out.
Yeah, not well, We've got some video footage. There's all kinds of good stuff. Stay tuned for that.
Yeah, you thought January sixth was pathetic? Like, wait till you see this one.
I don't know how many people thought January sixth.
Was pathetic they stood up?
Yeah, I mean it was pathetic in the sense that what were those January six people thinking they were going to accomplish if they took over the capitol, right, Like you think, if you get the gavel, you've beaten the final boss and now you're the speaker. Like that's not actually how it works, Like this is not like seventeen eighty nine in Paris or something.
Thank god.
We'll also be talking about John Stewart laying into Democrats over their handling of the sweeping Hunter Biden pardon.
So we've got some video of that.
And breaking news actually that Pete Hegseth is actually being considered as or being considered to be replaced. Yeah, being unconsidered. Donald Trump is considering replacing Pete hag Seth, his nominee to head up the Pentagon, with none other than Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. That's a report in the Wall Street Journal that has since just in the last twelve hours.
And to Sanctimonius, the Sanctimonius is qualified because he served in the torture chambers in Guantanamo.
He did do that.
So we'll get into all of that because the story is fluid and moving quickly. There's also a major Supreme Court oral argument hearing today over the transgender treatment for minors ban in Tennessee. So there's all kinds of interesting stuff that we can talk about when.
It comes to that.
And we have Ben Wickler, who's running for DNC chair, making a very powerful effort to head up the DNC. The head of the Wisconsin Democratic Party.
He's going to be joining us.
Yeah, he's one of one of He may be the front runner. Ken Martin of Minnesota might be the front runner for a chair At this point, it's not entirely clear.
What's wild is Ben Wickler, who comes from the kind of progressive ish wing of the party move on that that sort of world, just got the endorsement of Third Way, the centrist organization, which is which shows which says a lot of interesting things about where the Party is now also at at dropsite. My colleague Jessica Burbank interviewed Dan Osborne, the independent Nebraska Senate candidate, and we're going to exclusively
run that entire interview here. Jessica lives in Iowa, so just drove over to Nebraska and sat down with him.
It's really really fascinating kind of window into how a working person reflects back on a Senate campaign in which he faced, you know, millions and millions of dollars in negative ads and ended up losing fifty three forty seven and out performing every other Democrat in the country except for he was tied with John Tester for over performance and John Tester Montana Center, you know three you know,
three times elected. So in other words, running as an independent who has a genuine working class story to tell is as good for your kind of brand as serving for eighteen years as a populist kind of in Montana. John to guy, he's a farmer, he's lost his finger in a combine. You know, he's got he's got that whole flat top thing going on.
So it works for him until it didn't and Montana got too red.
Yeah, I mean that had the had Mitch McConnell raddled, for sure that race heedd. Mitch McConnell rattled, so excited to see the interview. Ryan, you had a fantastic report at drop Site this week. I mean it was like riveting, and we're going to break some of it down here.
Yeah.
It's our first collaboration that we did at drop Site with three other independent media outlets in Europe looking into this giant of investigative journalism that is that was instrumental in doing a lot of the investigations you've heard of, like the Panama Papers, the Pandora Papers, a lot of
these investigations into oligarchs around the world. What we collectively can reveal now for the first time is that the primary funder of this organization is none other than the United States State Department.
And so we're going to we're going to get into that. One other thing I wanted to flag before I start the show.
On two days from now will mark the one year anniversary since Israel assassinated Palestinian poet Ray fought Alareer. After his assassination, his poem if I Must Die, Let It be a Tale became this absolute global sensation.
It's a.
It's a poignant it's a point poem that is addressed to his daughter, basically asking her to carry on hope for him and for the world.
His daughter was then killed in April.
Next week on Tuesday, there's a book called If I Must Die, which is Ray fott Alareer's possumously published book of prose and poems. And what we are going to try to do and this is where this is where you come in. We have nothing to do with the publication of this book. It's by it's by our books.
But what we're going to do is we're going to try to turn this into a bestseller as a small measure of if not justice, at least a tiny bit of revenge, to let people know that the world is still watching, that the world has not forgotten about the Palestinian people, and also that the world has not forgotten about the assassins of raf fat Alayer and his and his family. It's also an incredible book. It's one you're going to want to own. I would do not order
it yet. It comes out on December tenth, so order it on that day. We'll put a link down in the in the notes or in the in the comments where you can like sign up to get a reminder to order it on Tuesday, because if everybody orders orders it on Tuesday, that will fuel the algorithm and push it to the very top.
And I think, I think we can do it.
You only have to sell five or ten thousand books in a day, yeah, to hit basically number one on the lists.
So it's possible.
Definitely, it can be done, and it should be done for Raefatt's book, It's definitely possible.
Yeah, that was an amazing poem.
Really it really, it's an extraordinary Just go google that poem it's and you'll and as you read the poem, you will see why.
We're doing this.
Let's get to South Korea.
Ryan so over in South Korea, over the last couple of days, we watched a farcical attempt at a military coup without the real support of the military unfold as President yunsuk yoel and we can roll this here.
On Monday night, South Korea time declared a martial law.
This is a man with about the ten percent approval rating and accused his opponents of being North Korean communist sympathizers who were harassing him by impeaching in his cabinet officials by investigating him.
By the way, here this turns out to be a South Korean reporter here, the one who where is she?
Anyways, if you're watching this, there's a woman who grabs a gun. And if you're listening to it, you see you're seeing it. If you're listening to what we're watching right now, is a woman grabbing a gun from a soldier. She turns out, as Ryan was just about to say, to be a.
Reporter, right mm hmm.
Then there's the soldier pointing a weapon right at or she doesn't she doesn't back down at all, which is which was a metaphor for kind of the the civil civil society response from the South Korean people to this
declaration of martial law. You had, you had some you know, you had some soldiers basically storming the capital, and we put up this put up the put up the next element here, kind of storming the parliament to try to you know, take it over, to try to block the parliament from overturning martial law, because the constitution says that if basically of Parliament votes against the martial law, then it's then it's lifted so the marshals were trying to
keep the law from you know, getting into the place where they could cast the vote.
Uh.
There there's this great viral video of the leader of the opposition scaling a wall. We can put the next element up here, scaling a wall to get in. They ended up they ended up voting I think one ninety
to zero or something to lift it. At one point, you had soldiers trying to get in and they were they were beaten back by reporters and other and kind of staffers and lawmakers by you know, who wielded a fire extinguisher, sprayed the solutions with a fire extinguisher, and otherwise just kind of used their camera flashes in their in their faces.
And you can put up this. You can put up this next element here. Believe this is the one.
Yeah, where they South Korea's parlamly was one ninety zero to lift the martial law. After that vote, you finally capitulated, and he went on, Uh went on early in the morning and said, look, it's too early to get a quorum, but I promise once I finally get a quorum, I will I will lift the I will lift the martial
law and will return things to where they were. I think, uh, if you want, if you want a good rundown on kind of the the history of what led up to this and also the details of how this went down. We'll have a story later today up over a drop site news.
You can check that out.
Uh, Emily, the Biden administration is claiming that it was caught off guard.
By this, that he did not tell them, that he.
Didn't tell them they were going to do this, and that the apparently the intelligence community, whose job it is to know that these kinds of things are going to happen when done by your top ally apparently also didn't know.
Uh.
They also claimed some ignorance about the seizure of Aleppo, which people have been like, how do you how are you ignorant about that?
You're these are your guys seizing Aleppo?
Maybe st our President is sleeping through the day presumably.
Yeah.
So, So the best case scenario for the United States here is that they were caught completely off guard. The worst case scenario was that they were that they were okay with this and thought it thought they could pull it off. Some background here, which I which I think is unlikely because it was such a comical farcical loop,
you know, pathetic attempt at a coup. So the background here is that Yun is a very very tight ally of the United States and has given the United States the you know, the thing in one person that they have wanted in South Korea for a while now, which is not just somebody who's willing to go after labor unions, which which that is the US interest in South Korea to crack down on labor unions because we want cheap exports out of out of South Korea, but also that
they will make make a tight alliance with their former colonizer Japan and and form a bulwark against China like that is our that is our thing in North Korea, and North Korea is North Korea an emerging scene as a China right, and so that there could be nothing less popular and I mean in South Korea to do than to create warm and friendly, cozy relations with Japan.
And it's not surprising that the president who would do or the leader whould do our bidding on that question would also be somebody who's got like a single digit approval.
Writing and so just if we put a two on the screen, this is some of the political backdrop here he was narrowly elected president of South Korea, was nearly elected from the conservative it's called the People Power Party. Their rivals are called the Democratic Party, funny enough, who
just had a big victory in the parliamentary elections. And so he's a lame duck, as Politico reports in this piece, and he's accusing the Democrats, members of the Democratic Party of quote, sympathizing with Pyongyang and paralyzing the government with anti state activities.
Those anti state activities obviously.
Targeted him and his party hampered him and his party were arguing over the course of the last couple of weeks over a budget build that the Democratic Party would not green light. Again, he's a lame duck, and so that's the kind of political backdrop of how he ends up declaring martial law. In this speech, Biden administration says it doesn't give a heads up. It was not given a heads up, which is shocking given that over the last half a century, this is one of our top
recipients of aid. If you look at the last half century of foreign aid from the US to different countries.
South Carolina, South Korea is a leader. And then I think people don't realize that.
Yeah, it's it's like top I would say it's like probably top five. Yeah, over the course of its it's probably a little different in the last ten years, but.
Over the court years second.
Huge, huge recipient.
And so the fact that they get so much support from the United States and then the president, who has been close to our president, doesn't give a heads up before declaring martial law. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying it's a massive slap in the face to the Biden administration and it leaves a Biden administration looking ridiculous.
Yeah, and this we supported the brutal police state and military dictatorship in South Korea up through the late nineteen eighties, and.
So it's this.
There are Israel in the region basically like the are kind of outposts, and this is just hugely embarrassing. Now the opposition party is fairly American friendly too, but they're more labor friendly, and so we're annoyed by that because that means we have to pay a little bit more for stuff that comes out of South Korea, and they'll be less much less interested in making a common military cause with Japan against China.
And they put up this is a three. The opposite, the Opposition Party simply said the declaration is illegal and unconstitutionalis is not all met actual requirements for emergency martial law declaration that are stipulated in the Constitution and the Martial Law Act. So it wasn't even legit martial law according to the Opposition party here, if you're going to declare martial law, you should do it within the law.
Yeah, and the unions immediately declared a general strike and are saying that they're going to remain on strike until un just until you resigns. And it's it's really his entire staff is resigning. It's very hard to see how he is still in power even by the end.
End of this week.
So CIA should send a transport plane and get get there, get their man out of there.
Like this, it's a wrap for this.
So on that note, let's roll a five. This is Joe Biden egging on martial law president to sing American Pie at an event last year.
Bill O Riley would say, to play us out.
To play us out.
This is a five and a good illustration of just how friendly this relationship is. And I think maybe what a statement on Joe Biden's his own lame duck president. How exactly lame that lame duck president is so enjoy.
Well for you, and the music has died. I think we can leave it that right.
That was the day that the music died. South Korean pie.
Yeah, yeah, there you go, shame well.
I hope everyone enjoyed that little musical interlude. It's not often we get to do a musical interludes.
So a little treat.
John Stewart is excoriating the Democratic Party for its reaction to Hunter Biden's pardon or Joe Biden's pardon of his son Hunter Biden. The sweeping pardon has not gotten a ton of criticism from Democrats as they've been asked to respond to what the president did. So let's take a listen to Stewart here.
It's not like he's ever gonna run again, So why not take care of your kid even if you said you weren't gonna I respect it.
I don't have a problem with it.
The problem is the rest of the Democrats made Biden's pledge to not pardon Hunter the foundation of their defense of America. This grand experiment. Yes, yes, yes to everything that you guys were saying, if you hadn't made Hunter Biden not receiving a pardon, the Mason Dixon line of morality between Democrats and Republicans, there's a big gap between the laws. The only thing that separates us from the animals and monkey through shitting me first. I had no choice, rules, loopholes,
and norms. The distance between the systems Democrats say they are revering and the one that they're using when they need to is why people think it's rigged.
Use the rules, use the loopholes, the norms, but also use it to help the people.
So Gavin Newsom has been basically the only major Democrat I've seen gently condemn what Joe Biden did. But Ryan, there's an interesting point also that Stuart is.
More people than that I think have been going after.
Him more than Gavin Newsom. Yeah, like people got elected officials.
Yes, like the Colorado Center Michael Bennett went after him, Breeheart. There's a bunch of because because I think he's on his way out, and I think people feel like it's a free shot at him.
Yeah, I've been curious about that. Actually, I mean it seems it's a pretty.
Easy cableheads have not covered themselves.
In glory and they have no reason.
Politicians actually who actually have to deal with voters you'd think, have been actually I think pretty critical of it is.
Stuart had a good montage of Jasmine Crockett, other elected Democrats who have been very defensive of Biden.
But I totally take that point.
I think it's yeah, the Gavin Newsom is one very as much as I can't stand at me, he's sort of his political instincts are smart. The point you're making about understanding where voters.
Are on this is a free hit.
And this is exactly where I was going.
The Biden actually said over and over again, as Crystal and Sager have covered, that he wouldn't do this. But what's interesting about that is it was all before the election. So Hunter was going to be sentenced this month, and I think in both cases, but not to say over and over again before the election that you wouldn't pardon him,
and then after the election to pardon him. Whether the timing had to do with the sentencing or the election, voters are going to feel totally lied to and cheated by Democrats and by journalists who weren't as skeptical of those claims as they might otherwise have been. So Yeah, obviously it is a huge free hit.
Yes, and I think we're covering this now because I think people might be curious for our takes on this, even though this is a day or two old. Now, I'm curious more on yours. But from my perspective, yeah, there are a bunch of different layers to this. On the top layer, to me, if you are a mother or father of a child who is child and I'm calling him a child some years old, who has committed a non violent crime or hundreds of non violent crimes, you are a complete jerk if you just don't use
your part. You can pardon them, and you don't, and they're in recovery, like, just pardon the person. It's what you do as a parent. The other layers, though, are the hypocrisy. Biden is the guy who deserves as much
credit for the drug war as anybody else. Hundreds of thousands to millions of people rotting away who he has never shed a tear for, and has the opportunity now to pardon hundreds of thousands of nonviolent maybe tens of thousands, nonviolent criminals who didn't get out from the first step, and who are in federal prison and he hasn't done it. He campaigned on ending the death penalty. He could commute every federal death sentence today, and he ran on it, So it would be a legitimate thing to do.
Is he going to do that?
No, he's not going to do that.
And then the layer below is, of course the lies, like you want to pardon your son, fine, but did you really have to lie about it and say that you absolutely were not doing it when you knew you were considering doing it. And then beyond just the lie, it's one thing to lie and then flip and do it, to lie and build the sand castle of your integrity on top.
Of it, the sand castle of your nsycritic.
Like, come on, get out of here.
That's actually the title of like your.
Next book, Democratic Party.
Yeah, the sand castle. Y.
So what's interesting also is that Trump's defense has also already used his legal defense has already invoked Biden's pardon of Hunter in its own defense, saying, well, clearly this shows or this proves just malfeasance, and the Biden doj like this is a reflection even the president himself, which is interesting because Biden's DOJ was already going fairy lenient on Hunter to the point where a judge had to stop when she looked at the deal that was being
presented by the DJ. This was what a year and a half ago now and said as norieka is I think the judging question? She said, I'm sorry what this is the weirdest thing I've ever seen the prosecution present me with.
Right, And even if you believe their rationale there, it doesn't excuse the lying because they spent years saying that the problem with Donald Trump is that he planned to weaponize the Justice Department to get revenge against his political appointees if he was re elected as president. Like that was one of the top lines that Democrats used against
Donald Trump. So if you already knew that, why were you saying that you weren't going to pardon Hunter to then cite that, cite Trump's vindictiveness and his willingness to put cash matel or whatever as the head of the FBI as the reason that you.
Change your mind.
It's like, wait a minute, were you not watching your own ads for the last two years. You're the ones who were saying that he was going to do this. So yes, the lying, the hypocrisy, all of that is the problem to me, not the part in itself. Like I would have been angrier, and I was actually angry at Biden when I foolishly thought that maybe he might not actually pardon Hunter Biden, Like I thought.
That was.
Cruel and vicious, like as a father, like just pardon your son, just do it.
Yeah, Well, I mean Hunter Biden is somebody who, to your point, has perhaps committed hundreds of non violent crimes over the years, and he looks like he's.
Going, well, we definitely know, I mean he committed, He probably committed. There were probably days during his bender where he committed one hundred crimes.
In a single day.
Now, the reason they went all the way back to twenty fourteen and gave him this blanket pardon is because the more serious crime that he may have committed is FARA violations, which is not registering as a foreign agent and then lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. The hilarious defense that his team has been making behind the scenes and was prepared to make if it went to trial was that he was so high and so irresponsible that yes, he was paid to.
Do foreign influence work.
But he couldn't.
But he just cashed the checks and spent it on drugs and put it up his nose and never actually did the work. And it's the work, the unregistered work, that would be the crime, not taking the money, so
that it'd be hilariously novel legal theory. Like it's like if you were arrested for selling drugs and you're like, actually, this was just baking soda and I just kept the guy's money, that way be like, Okay, well, actually, if there was literally no cocaine in that bag, you may have committed some fraud against this poor sap who thought he was getting an eight ball.
But you didn't actually sell drugs.
You saved his life.
Hunter actually unless he snorted the baking soda. Well, I mean it's so pleasant, I'm sure.
Yeah.
But in this case with Parah, the violation is actually just not registering, as opposed to it's totally legal to do the lobbying. It's more a question of like whether or not you after you sign a contract, which he did register, which is a funny kind of part of that's why their defense just might not work, except.
If you didn't do the lobbying if you only took the money. But if you registered but he never registered, well no, if.
He signed the that's right.
But if he signed the contract and then he's supposed to be frauded. You're supposed to register as soon as you sign thirty days, right, like you get the thirty day grace period.
Right, I mean, So that's why the pardon him, because like this novel legal theory might be laughed out of court by jurors.
Do you never know?
Amazing theory though, And just lastly, I'm reading from playbook here they say lawrish for Trump deployed the President's statement explaining his pardon of Hunter and a filing seeking the dismissal of the hush money case against Trump in New York.
His lawyers argued that.
Biden's assertions about Hunter Biden have been selectively and unfairly prosecuted and treated differently. We're tantamount to a quote extraordinary condemnation of President Biden's own DOJ so an amusing tidbit there?
Yeah, And I will I will say that the only thing that got him so far on was this filling out the form on the when he went to get the gun and said it had this, and we've talked about this before. My argument that I would have made it. The jury didn't didn't pass water, I mean didn't pass posiblely did the jury. But it says are you currently using drugs? And he checked no, right, And from my perspective of if I'm filling that out, if I'm in the gun shop not using drugs, then I'm not using drugs.
Like did I use drugs yesterday? Maybe? Do I plan to use drugs tomorrow?
Absolutely not. Never touched them again as long as I live. And then maybe you relapse. It didn't work, But in that moment when you filled out the form, and then aside from that, it's like, aren't you all these big Second Amendment champions, Like we're in the Second Amendment? Does it say you know the pass no law? You know there's shot pass, no law, the restricts you know the right to keep bare arms except federal form that you have to fill out about gun ownership. And then I
mean about drug use. And if you're okay with that, are you okay with mental health?
Well, I mean you can flip that around so easily.
And Roe Biden like, aren't you and Hunter the opponents of, you know, an expansive second second Amendment interpretation, and you shouldn't. Shouldn't this mean that everyone who's you've been convey on these.
Starts of venturegell It would have been quite ironic if Hunter Biden ended up being used to go to the Supreme Court to blow even greater holes in our gun safety laws.
Yeah, that would have been pretty interesting.
So that's one another thing that won't happen.
Hypocrites, all of them, right and left, no question about that.
Yeah, I think that's about right.
So, speaking of people's personal addiction problems being weaponized against them, Pete Hegseth is getting absolutely torched in the press. Before his alleged drinking problems. He's talked about some of this personally after he returned from war. But NBC News published a story just yesterday detailing allegations all anonymously sourced, by the way, from people inside Fox News, essentially saying that he would show up to work hung over and that
everybody knew he was a heavy drinker. Now, since the publication of that story, it has become clear that.
NBC News did not reach out to Pete.
Haigsas coworkers like Rachel Campo, stuffy and anchor actually on Fox News. All kinds of people have come out on the record and said they've never heard anything like it. They're obviously all friends and allies of Pete Haigseth. But after the publication of that story, which comes after allegations of sexual abuse, it comes after allegations of drinking and wild sort of incompetent runs overseeing concerned vets for America, Pete Haigseth now is being potentially replaced by Ron DeSantis.
We can put this element on the screen.
A Wall Street Journal report last night exclusively broke the news that Donald Trump was mulling a replacement of Pete Heigseth with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. What I saw last night, Ryan, is people who seem to be in the DeSantis camp saying this story is true. They have people that are telling them the story is true. It was confirmed by other news outlets in different ways after the Wall Street Journal published it.
And that is significant.
My former boss Jon Davis, who is very well sourced from the Federalist in Trump world, says the story is not true, that it's being planted by Desanta's allies. So maybe there's a kernel of truth that they're using to plant stories in places like the Wall Street Journal, making it more likely that DeSantis ends up just stepping in for Pete Hegseth. Hegseth's mom is going to be on Fox News this morning, so literally as we're taping this, and then she is also going to be He's actually
going to be on Brett Baer Show this evening. He's meeting with senators here in Washington all week. So, Ryan, this is a very precarious nomination at this point to head up an agency that is deeply suspicious of outsiders, that doesn't want outsiders. Whatever you think of Pete Hegseth, there's a definitely a campaign to get him out of the door.
Yeah.
And what's annoying to me as somebody who would love to see a wrecking ball brought to both the Department of Justice and to the Department of Defense, right is I would like you guys on the right to kind of get your act together. It's like, come on, like you have a chance to take on these these titans of elite power centers, and the two people you throw at them are like, do seem to be real?
Wrecking balls.
I got differences with them in some areas, but like these these both Matt Gates and Hexas what would be real wrecking balls thrown into these institutions capital And if you're going to take on the man at that level, you got to be squeaky clean.
These guys aren't squeaky clean.
Probably today, well Brett Kavanaugh was squeaky clean.
Well, Brett Kavanaugh squeaky clean. Also, he's not taking he's not a wrecking ball, he's not taking on anything.
He's he's he's just a.
Servant of the of the Republican Party, like apparatus for twenty thirty years.
I agree, But I think your point is actually really important, which is that and also he got through. I think
he's really important because he's Trump nominees. Like if you want to upend the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Pentagon nominating Pete Hagsath and Matt Gates right out, like right right away, you know that there's going to be there's such easy targets, and you know that, let's say, hypothetically, even though I think this is probably true, there are people inside the Pentagon and their allies in the press who are really eager to discredit any nominated that is
going to dramatically shake up the department. They will go to any length to stop you.
From being confirmed.
So not only should you be squeaky clean, you shouldn't be Matt Gates so obvious, or somebody who is. In Pete Hagsath's case, he's admitted to drinking too much. He's admitted we know that he's slept around with all kinds of different women.
So it's it.
And that's and the thing with the mother is amazing like that, and that's what you know. She in her email that was published, which is wild that like a mother's email to their son, is now part of the conversations, she refers to him as like a serial abuser of women, and people read kind of violence into that.
She doesn't say that in the email.
What she's really talking about is is emotional abuse and you know, relentless cheating and denigration and just treating women terribly. And even if it's the case that the the charge of sexual assault rape that he was accused of isn't isn't true, like there's he wasn't charged there it's you know, it's great. So he said she said let's say that
he didn't do it. At minimum, he was having an affair within like weeks of his new girlfriend having a baby, and that baby was breaking up his last marriage.
Like just.
Hillary Clinton's description of deplorable would fit that situation.
Although she probably wouldn't use it that way because it would be uncomfortable for her own husband.
Yes, right, And once you're in the category of being compared to Bill Clinton, that could then you're like, you've kind of lost And again, you know, we're not saying everybody's got to be a choir boy, but you got to do a little better than this guys. Well, and if you're going to try to take on like, if you are going to toe the line and just do what you're being asked by the powers that be, then you can actually probably get away with all of this stuff.
The problem is you're going to take on the man, right, you got to you got to be a little bit more stitched up.
Well, I think you and I both know.
The problem is that if you are somebody who actually wants to radically transform a department like the Pentagon, you're probably going to be a little crazy, right, Like that takes a crazy person to say I want to go into the Pentagon and upend it and fire people and threaten contracts, billion, multi billion dollar contracts like it's It's very difficult, Rhonda Santis. And this is why I think
the story is particularly interesting. It's a similar dilemma that Trump had with Attorney General Pam Bondi is a lobbyist for major corporations, cutter, she is not Matt Gates. The benefit from Trump's perspective and even from the perspective of those of us who say, like, enjoy the schadenfreude because we believe that these departments desperately need some type of like metaphorical grenade to be tossed in. That is, you only get that with Matt Gates. You don't get that
with Pam Bondy. You only get that with Pete Hegseth to the extent that he would be capable of it. I don't know if any individual is actually really capable of it.
You don't get that with Rhonda Santis.
But a revolutionary does not have to be reckless. Now, the person you're right is interesting. You're right that the personality type that produces a revolutionary is often somebody who is has reckless tendencies. But your buddy Steve Bannon is always talking about Lenin, Lenin and the vanguard, and he does. Look,
he loves talking about Lenin. Go read some Lenin and talk about revolutionary discipline, Like, these cadres need more revolutionary discipline, Go read some now, Like you think that any of those revolutionaries would be tolerating this level of indiscipline when they actually believe that their revolution is important, is so important that it is going to save humanity. Like, if you believe it, then you can zip it up at a conference when your wife is like, just had a baby six weeks ago.
Come on on, revolutionaries, Lenin didn't have syphilis camp that's no, come on, but no, I mean, I think that's all completely true. It's just and like if you look at, for example, Bernie Sanders, somebody who on the right, let's say, is what is the revolutionary comparison to Bernie Sanders on
the right? I mean, on the right, people who have gone full maga and are true like quote unquote revolutionaries and the sense that they want to throw the medical metaphorical grenade into all of these departments.
Look at Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz is more of a Rond DeSantis.
Though right, well, now Donald Trump not exactly the most.
But never drinks or touches drugs to that point.
He does the raping and the pillaging.
But yeah, the yeah, I mean, it's just hard to it's it's not an easy thing because you tend to be pretty eccentric if you are from that camp.
But I do want maw would not tolerate any of this.
Mal would not tolerate any of this. And as somebody who's looking at the FBI and saying, what the like this is?
This is disgusting.
You can't It's incredibly frustrating to see like somebody like Matt Gates put in the nomination position to oversee the to oversee the.
Dog and the validation.
From my theory, it looks to be cash Betel like he's he seems like personally as far as we know, button up, like we're not hearing story, we're not hearing from his mother, not yet. But it's into depressions and he's just as much a revolutionary as arrest them.
And he's probably going to get confirmed.
Yeah, we'll see, and that is, by the way, we'll see with hegseeth there is a question of whether to be fair, if you've ever seen the Pentagon, I understand why. Obviously drinking, if he is an alcoholic, which I don't think there's evidence that he's an alcoholic right.
Now, But if you are.
Sleeping around drinking a lot, there's potential for being compromised. There's potential for being you know.
In a He's seen a lot of combat, right, I'm sure he's got a lot of trauma that just got to work out.
Yeah.
Absolutely, And there's potentially self medicating with this, with this exploitation of women and drinking and whatever.
If there's a I mean, if if there's a national security emergency and the head of the Defense Department is drunk, that's a problem. But it also creates opportunities again for foreign compromunt and all of that. So I get why some senators are joany Arns, for example, But.
They're probably just seizing it because they really don't want him in there.
But it's an excuse.
He'd be a hand grenade thrown into the Pentagon.
Yeah, I think it becomes an excuse for all of the lobbyists tripping in your ear about how bad this is and how dangerous it is.
If too much drinking disqualified you from a position of power in Washington would be an anarchist system.
There'd be nobody in power.
Yes, the people who leaked to NBC News and honestly saying that they suspected he was hungover at Fox and Friends, I was like, how is NBC News publishing great great scoop?
All right, let's move on.
The New York Times describes the oral arguments happening at the Supreme Court today as the quote marquee case of the Supreme Court's term. They are considering a challenge to a law in Tennessee known as SB one.
You may have heard of this.
It was passed last year that bans the use of puberty blockers hormone therapy for teens who identify as transgender. Scotus Blog says the dispute could be one of the most significant decisions of the term, and with similar laws in twenty three other states, the Court's ruling is likely to have broader implications for the protections available to people
who are identifying as transgender around the country. So those twenty three other laws are really critical here, and people on both sides of the case are rallying outside of the Supreme Court, as you would expect for a quote unquote marquee hearing or oral arguments, So that will be happening throughout the day here, So I'm going to read a little bit from this New York Times article that
we can put up on the screen. They write, in the intervening years, transgender rights have become a ferocious battleground in the culture wars and controversies of our healthcare, bathroom sports, and pronouns play a prominent role in the presidential campaign. But the Supreme Court has had only glancing encounters with such issues since the employment discrimination case in twenty twenty, which featured a majority opinion from Justice Neil M. Gorsich,
mister Trump's first appointee to the Court. Now that is interesting because this is the intervening years between Boss Stock.
So you may remember the boss Stock.
Ruling and which was Boss Stock.
But Bossk's the employment law that they're just referring to about.
Where Gorsa sided with the trans rights right.
Yes, so that gender identity is protected under sex, that
you are necessarily discriminating on the basis of sex. If you're discriminating on the basis of gender identity, infuriated conservatives, which is interesting because conservatives are feeling really good going into the case today, and obviously they can afford to lose Gorsic, but Gorsich wrote the opinion in that case, so they can afford to lose him going into the case today, but they could it is Gorsich a Canarian, a coal mine is the boss Stock opinion a canary
and the coal mine for how other justices who some conservers have been unhappy with the Trump justices. Obviously we know what happened with Roe, but there are cracks in what some people consider to be a really strong foundation, obviously given that they were plucked straight from the list of the Federal Society list of approved justices, and people have not been happy with how all the.
Justices have performed.
So the challenge to the Tennessee law feels a lot of people feeling very confident about it. But obviously there are reservations about what you could see from a Gorsich or possibly someone else. I would say those fears would be probably unfounded in this case. This was a law that was passed by the representatives who were duly elected by the people of Tennessee. So you have that going for you if you are on that side of the case. So I wouldn't be as concerned about Gorsach in this one.
Is the difference for Gorsach here that one involves children and the other involves adults.
Probably, Yeah, it's like.
When it comes to adults, I think most Americans, probably even most people in Tennessee at this point, I don't know, you tell you correct me if I'm wrong, would say adult trans people should not be discriminated in any way and should have all the same rights. Is everybody else now what those rights entail When it comes to what's sports teams you're allowed to play.
On, or bathrooms and locker rems, I.
Think it's a source of contention.
But when it comes to employment, yeah, discrimination, I think everybody would say, you can, you absolutely should not be able to discriminate against somebody.
I oh that reason.
I think public opinion is on that side of the debate.
But I also think, yeah, it's because the conversation is so dominated by bathrooms and locker rooms that's become really difficult as a kind of wall to get over more For the New York Times here they say the Tennessee law prohibits medical providers from prescribing puberty, delaying medication, offering hormone therapy, or performing surgery to treat the psychological distress caused by incongruence between experience gender and that assigned at birth.
But the law allows those same treatments for other purposes. So this is where that question again, the boss that question about sex discrimination comes in the Times continues. The primary question for the justices is not whether Tennessee's ban is wise or consistent with the views of medical experts. It is instead whether the law makes distinctions based on sex. If it does, a demanding form of judicial review quote unquote, heightened scrutincy scrutiny kicks in. If it does not, the
Tennessee law will almost certainly survive. So when Gorsa surprise everybody by saying gender identity, you're necessarily discriminating on the
basis of sex. If you're discriminating on the basis of gender identity, or he also talked about sexual orientation, that becomes a question here if you are a boy who is allowed to or let's say, if you're a girl who is allowed to take puberty blockers because you have an early menstrual cycle or other medical condition that were Previously it was commonplace to use puberty blockers to treat certain medical conditions, and you can get those puberty blockers
for that purpose, but you can't give them to somebody of the other sex.
Is sex the question?
So I don't think it. I don't think sex is the question.
There the question there is the condition and the condition that you're talking about. There is the early onset of puberty, which is related to sex, obviously, but everybody, both sexes go through puberty, so it's not intimately tied to it that the details of it are tied to your particular sex, but you're going to go through puberty either way.
So in that sense, I think it wouldn't It wouldn't apply.
And Gorsuch is logic in that case was always interesting and it's like, it's like so slippery is hard for me to keep my mind around. But what he's what he's basically saying is that it is sex discrimination because if a man shows up to work dressed as a man, they will not be discriminated against by the employer, like just as a matter of fact, like of course they won't if a woman shows up dress as a woman, they won't be discriminated against.
But if a originally.
Biologically a biological woman shows up to work dressed as a man, which is how conservatives would describe but trans man, then they might face discrimination. And so a person dressed exactly the same gets discriminated against according to this Gorsuch logic because their underlying sex is different, and so therefore it's sex discrimination. Therefore it's covered by the Civil Rights Act, which was always really to me an interesting way of
getting to constitutional protection for trans writes. But I don't think it applies in this case if you're Gorsic, because the reason for the ban is the condition now is the condition that it's being treated Now. I'm sure for many people, including me, it's like it's really uncomfortable to have state lawmakers going in and saying precisely what a doctor is out allowed to prescribe as treatment for particular conditions, like that's that's that's that that makes me really uncomfortable.
On the other hand, the way that this entire conversation unfolded was was it was so fast and it was not very democratic.
It was not it was not kind of out in the open. There was no.
Discussion about it, uh, And there seems to be so much like inability to do it in the normal scientific way, like like researchers who are trying to look into it from different directions, like won't publish information if it doesn't conform.
To like what they were hoping for like that.
So that part of it, you're like, all right, well, I understand why the public is now intervening because the faith that we put in the scientific process was undermined by the scientific process itself being politicized. So if it's political, it ought to be democratic broadly, rather than in some back room, insular case as.
Just just as a process.
And I think it shows that the that the approach that the trans Rise movement took at which was and this was their strategy from the beginning, was to go right to the top, like to change minds at the very top, and then from the top down change everybody else's mind.
And I think what that it shows is.
That that that is that's not going to work. You have to change everybody's mind. You have you have to really reach people rather than.
Just the elites.
You have to get buy in.
Because they had like one elite buy in for many years, and it wasn't enough because people weren't bought in.
This is a really good point about how there was censorship within like scientists censoring science in a way that may have ultimately hurt the goal of those scientists.
Right.
They succeeded in their their strategy that worked, but it didn't work in the long run.
Right, Yes, so short term games might not pan out long term. Yeah.
I think that's a good point. And this is from the Times. They say Tennessee is brief. Their legal brief said that scientific uncertainty meant that legislatures, rather than court should decide what treatments are available to minors. It pointed to what it said was a lack of consensus abroad. Politico has a kind of tongue in cheek piece about how conservatives used to bemoan the influence of European politics on American politics and laugh about whether we want to import.
European stuff here.
But I think the reason conservatives point to Europe in this case is that a lot of these smaller concentrated countries with democratic socialist healthcare systems have really concentrated samples, and they were all in to your point, their elites had bought all in on this, the public had bought all in on this, and then it shifted when those concentrated samples didn't turn out the right way as they anticipated they would.
In those cases, there was a medical question.
There was research done, and they care because it's public money, right, like, is this working.
As a treatment?
Right?
And it didn't. Yeah, I mean it.
Initially the argument was if you don't do this treatment, these people are going to commit to it side exactly. And so then he studied it and they're like, oh wait, there's actually that's not.
There are some other effects too that have to be factored into a cost benefit analysis about protecting and preserving the lives of people who are suffering from gender just for you, an extremely real and anguishing condition if you
talk to people who are going through it. And so the reason that a lot of conservatives point to it is that actually it is because it's an example because these countries were so culturally progressive on the question that even them walking it back and it's not totally banned. The Biden administration which joined the parents and doctors that were suing the State of Tennessee.
Over this law.
The Biden administration. That's why it's USA versus. In this case, it's the Biden administration joined to the suit. They have said that in Europe there aren't blanket bands like there's in Tennessee, which is true. They have basically restricted like even the cast review from doctor Hillary Cass in the UK said that some of these treatments should still be available in some cases. So there aren't blanket bands in the same way that Tennessee has.
A blanket band. Just feels wrong.
It's interesting because it's it is saying that in this case medical professionals can't like we have outright banned and a lot of this came. We can put the second element up on the screen. After Matt Walsh got documents from the University of from Vanderbilt, I'm sorry inside Vanderbilt. The Daily Wires Matt Walsh blog says Benjamin Ryan is not exaggering when he takes credit for triggering the Supreme
Court case over pediatric gender transition treatment. The Tennessee Attorney General's brief to the Court in defense of the state's ban makes more reference to Walsh on page one. In the Fallow twenty twenty two, Walsh publicized the first gender
transition treatment and surgeries that Vanderbilt was providing. This prompted the legislature to ban the practice and ultimately gave rise to this case against the state that will now reach the Supreme Court, and it is being argued by Chase Stranger of the ACLU, who is trans. Walsh got documents from that. Basically, we're showing there was like a profit motivation inside some of these medical conversations about wishing trans
care for minors. It's just really icky stuff that obviously to your point about getting the buy in, it hurt when all of this information starts coming out that there's other motives and that cost benefit analysis.
And it's not saying it's the only motives.
I think most of these medical professionals sincerely believed that this is life saving care, that this is the right thing to do.
Right and their argument was it's much more it's much harder for somebody to transition as an adult than it is to transition as a child before you've gone through the puberty and that sex you were born into. But that's a that is an empirical question that was being treated as an empirical fact but had not yet been answered exactly, And of course it turns out that you know, stopping delaying monking with natural puberty has major implications for the development of your every body, of course.
Yeah, And so then it's a.
Cost benefit question of what is the what is the psychological cost of not doing and delaying it until you go through puberty and adult And what about people who you know, aren't necessarily sure at ten or nine years old exactly what they want to do, and if they do something at nine or ten that's irreversible, what is the cost of that and is it being factored in right?
No, I think it is a really good point about the way the even the way some of this was explained to the public and to parents has been overreach in a way that's hurt the cause of the people who were trying to promote these treatments in the first place, because it ends up leaving people like feeling and so the rug was pulled out from under them, and then not trusting and saying like, yes, blanket banned, there's no appropriate way to prescribe these medications for this condition, et cetera.
So I think that is an important point, and of course, what they're actually deciding at the Supreme Court today.
Is sex discriminate. It's a different question.
That's what the argument is going to be over whether or not this is Obviously, it'll factor in whether or not this is these treatments are appropriate. Obviously, what's being argued by the State of Tennessee is that these are experimental. And that's kind of what we're getting at you. If you're not being honest about whether these treatments are experimental, that can factor in. So there will be some debate
about the merits of the treatments. But sex discrimination, it's sort of like the Boss Doc case, a really sort of fascinating constitutional issue at hand. All right, let's move on to our guest, Ryan, I'm excited to talk to Ben Wickler.
Ben Wickler, candidate for DNC chair and current chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party.
Stick around for that.
Well, the illustrious tenure of Jamie Harrison is coming to an end of the Democratic National Committee, which means this mess of a party now is a new leader leaping at the opportunity to take on that thankless task. Is Ben Wickler, among other people. Ben is currently the chair of the Democratic Party in Wisconsin. And look, anybody that comes on this show, I think is already in our minds one of our favorites for the job. So, Ben, thank you for joining us.
Good morning, thanks for having me on today.
Yeah, so let's start with the question of the basic question, why do you think democrats lost and what can democrats do differently and what is the DNC's role in facilitating that.
The big picture this year is that in every wealthy democracy around the world, left right and center parties lost votes. And when you look at who they lost, it's not concentrated among one when ethic group, or one racial group, or one gender or one geography.
It is across the board.
The biggest uniting thing is people who are the most affected by high prices. And the second thing, in my view, something that's much under discussed, is that it's people who were the beneficiaries of support during the COVID pandemic that dramatically raised the income that people had, especially in the bottom end of the economic spectrum, and then that support
went away. And so even though wages were growing more at the bottom end of the economic spectrum for the first time in a long time in the United States, thanks to a lot of policies that they strongly support people's experience of how much money they had went down at the same time as prices went up, and the fury and frustration about that for folks who had to choose between filling a prescription or buying groceries. That led people to vote for something different. It's not an endorsement of
Trump's plans or policies. The highest swing came among the people paying the least attention to political news, and the biggest swing towards the strongest support from Harris came from people who knew the most about her policies and Trump's.
And what that tells us about what we have to do is that we have to mount a permanent campaign that actually breaks through and reaches people who are not paying attention to politics to make totally clear that we are fighting for them and what the other side plans to do to them, which is to rip them off in order to enrich a handful of the wealthiest people in the universe who are now peopling the Donald Trump incoming administration.
I mean, I think that's true.
I think twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two kind of opened a window to people that said, oh wait, you actually can have a better world. Like overnight, we cut child poverty in half, and Democrats were celebrating it. Look, we cut child poverty and half, like, wow, we can do that. We increased unemployment benefits to such that people who lost their jobs had a little bit.
More breathing room as they.
Were looking for a new work, and then we took it all away.
So I think you're exactly right about that.
But then what can Democrats do about that between now and the next election and also.
In general, Well, we know the biggest policy battle most likely for next year already, which is that the Trump administration last time they were in their one major signature legislative accomplishment was passing a multi trillion dollar tax cut for billionaires and giant corporations, and that expires next year. And so we know that there's going to be a huge fight in Congress over what should happen with those
tax cuts and with that money. And we know that the Republicans across the board are going to try to shovel gigantic amounts of money that a lot of people could urgently benefit from instead to the people who already have the most. And Democrats can unite and fight back against that at every level in a way that makes absolutely clear whose side we're on and whose side the
GOP is on. In this moment, there's a lot of disagreements, and it's a healthy thing within the Democratic Coalition, but there is a united belief that we shouldn't be dismantling the support that the middle class and working class folks across this country rely on in order to enrich the already ultra wealthy. And that's a fight that we can wage that resonates across our whole coalition, and it will be in this center of the fight next year. So
that my platform is unite, Fight, Win. We're going to do that next year, and we've got to do that each year to show who we're for and who the Republicans are for, why they're trying to divide us in order to rip us off. I think if we do that, we're going to be able to make dramatic gains at the state level and local level, at congressional level, and build up towards a chance to win control the government back in the twenty twenty eight elections.
Ben there are or are there structural changes that need to happen when it comes to fundraising, Obviously Democrats have benefited significantly from corporate money and from billionaires as well as Republicans. So would you commit to changing fundraising practices at the DNC or does anything like that need to happen at the DNC so that the party becomes more recentered with working class voters.
So I think the biggest thing for me is to win the political power to change the rules that affect everybody. And the second thing is I think as Democrats we should be clear about the big uniting values we fight for, which is including very much fighting for working people and fighting for the fundamental idea that everyone deserves freedom and respect. And folks can invest in that or not, and hope they I hope that they do do it it to that, but we're not going to shrink away from that kind
of fight. We're not going to try to make a deal to give, you know, half as many trillion dollars to billionaires in order to curry favor with folks who might decide to support the Republicans or Democrats. If only Democrats would get on board with Trump's policies on this, I think we have to fight for what we're for and then list as much support as we can to build a winning coalition to make that happen.
And so your roots are really on the kind of progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But the people who are voting on who becomes DNC chair, they are not a whole lot of people from that wing. So I'm curious as you're kind of positioning yourself for DNC chair, like tell our viewers like who votes for DNC, what types of Democrats are those and how does that shape how the DNC thinks about what it's going to do.
But my job before being the state party chair in Wisconsin was the Washington d C director at move On and It move On, I was deeply involved in the fight against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and then moved back to Wisconsin when I ran for wisdam's chair, I discovered a lot of the people voting in the electorate for chair of the state party. We're getting my emails at move On and they knew about that work. The members of the DNC, they represent the full kind
of ideological coalition to the Democratic Party. But the central thing is that they believe in the Democratic Party as a force that can make positive change in people's lives. And that is a belief that I deeply share. And I know there's lots of critics left, right and center. I think that the Democratic Party has been a driving force behind many of the biggest steps forward in our country's history. It is absolutely there's lots of other moments that are in our history, but we need to build
on those things that are good. And what I've done in Wisconsin, my pitch now is that I can help you unite a party where we're going to be a big tent. We're not going to force out folks who identify as centrist or moderate, or folks who or folks that was my coffee, folks who identify as progressive. We're going to find the big uniting values and fights that can bring us together. And in Wisconsin, you know there are Democrats running in different kinds of districts who have
different views. Often, I think to identify as a centrist means to say to voters who believed in a caricature of what the left believes in. No, I don't believe in that caricature. But centrist Democrats, progressive Democrats, everyone are going to be together and fighting against Trump's giant ripof attempt next year and against his most extreme and awful nominees.
There's a whole bunch of stuff that brings us together as a party, and we have to find the energy that comes from those kinds of fights in order to demonstrate.
While we're about and.
Ben and I are both from Wisconsin, but as someone on the right, I've been kind of fascinated by the debate swirling over whether or not the Kamala is for quote unquote. They then add that the Trump campaign ran over and over again in swing states actually was working. Is that something that significantly moved voters. There's some research
that says it did move voters. So I'm curious Ben fear take on whether that ad was successful in states like Wisconsin, where obviously you oversaw Tammy Baldwin overperforming Kamala Harris and Tammy Baldwin obviously openly gay, So there's something to that as well when we're considering the ad in question, So was that ad successful? If so, why and what would you do to sort of combat messaging like that from Republicans in a way that helps Democrats win the war there?
Well, what's interesting is the states where that ad was being run the most are the states where the shift towards Trump were the least. The Wisconsin had a shift of one and a half points towards Trump relative to twenty twenty. Nationwide, it was six points. Outside the battleground states, it was six points seven points. So the places where Trump campaigned the hardest and Harris campaign the hardest, Harris did better than the places where neither of them were campaigning.
And we saw the same flood, a massive flood of anti transads attacking Tammy Baldwin and down ballot Democrats. We flipped fourteen state legislative seats and Tammy Baldwin won her race. I think the central argument in that ad that I would guess, did have some effect, and they ran a lot of tests of It was an argument about who signed Tammy's on because she's for they them, which is a bid to I guess non binary phobia, not for you.
It was an argument that she wants to spend money on people other than you, and that was tapping into it was trying to inflame division and fear, and at the same time it was making an economic argument that she's not focused on your priorities and fighting for people like you. And this is a context where Democrats lost people making under fifty thousand dollars a year. So there's
a cultural message. But the central, big message that Trump was trying to win with was I'll bring down your prices, i won't do taxes on tips.
I'm going to be you know, do all this stuff.
And for Democrats, puncturing that and showing that in fact Trump is not is completely against working people. He's the guy who smashes unions and wants to fire people who are striking. He's the guy who wants to carve up the federal government and give them handouts to people with
hundreds of billions of dollars in their bank accounts. That argument can puncture those kinds of appeals to division that are that are fundamentally about othering some community in order to make voters feel like Democrats would put them in an out group. And I think we need to be able to narrate and explain why they're doing that and then punch back. And we have won a lot of races in the face of those attacks up and down the ballot in the state of Wisconsin.
We can do the same thing nationwide.
Our colleague Crystal has made an interesting point about that ad which I agree with, which is that and actually flows out of your point that it was the he's for you part of it that may that probably landed
harder than the previous part. But the idea that Democrats care about other stuff like they're that they're not they're not serious about taking care of your needs here domestically, And I think there's a counterintuitive kind of connection to democratic foreign policy there as well, Like I feel like the amount of energy and time forget the money, but the money matters too, but the amount of focus on the war in Ukraine and also the Israeli genocide going
on in God's a plus that which then you know, unspooled into this regional conflict beginning really in October, the worst possible time for the for the Biden Harris team deliberately, so I'm sure you know from that Yahu's perspective, But as voters see Biden focusing so much on things overseas, the war's overseas, it feeds into that perception that Democrats care about things other than what's going on here to me at this moment, So I'm curious for you, what
role do you think the the kind of more militaristic approach that Democrats took bringing Liz Cheney onto state, onto the stage with them really in Wisconsin, like really solidify that idea that this is the thing that we care about. Uh do you think that that hurt Democrats?
So I know that others disagree with me on this, I don't think it hurt Democrats. And I will say that the counties where we actually increased not just the number of Democratic votes, but actually increased the margins worthy suburbs of Milwaukee, they moved towards Democrats this year, while the rest of the country and the rest of the state moved a little bit in Wisconsin on a lot nationally towards Trump. And the question is you know which
message wound up landing the most. You have to be a pre tuned in voter to think to think about foreign policy. When you see Liz Janey Kamala Harris on stage talking about democracy and talking about how across the spectrum we think that Trump is a disaster. Now you have to be a fairly tuned in voter to be
thinking about democracy too. It's not a message that if you're trying to figure out how to not lose the place where you put your kids to bed at night because the cost of housing is so high, you're probably not thinking about, you know, the erosion of democratic norms. So this is a message that was fine tuned towards voters who were still trying to make up their minds, who had misgivings about Trump. But from the evidence that
I can see, it did move those voters. At the same time, your broader point that a lot of Trump's argument against the foreign policy of the Biden administration and of previous Republicans is fundamentally about this is all about other people elsewhere, and we should be focused on right here. That's the kind of core of America first, and that is a is a potent argument, especially when people are
in economic pain. And I think that for Democrats centering the fight of the moment on actually being on people's side, understanding their struggles and fighting to change it and explaining why it's so hard, why it's so expensive. The fact that every single Republican voted against trying to expand the extend the child the child tax credit, for example, and voted against support for childgaard and against support for housing.
All these things every Republican voted against them, and a couple of Democrats didn't, you know, weren't ready to go along. But there's overwhelming, near unanimity, and I think in this Congress could be unanimity around extended priorities that actually do go directly to people lived experience and struggle. I'm a believer that people vote, as Kelly and Conway said, who I don't agree with mon much. Fundamentally, people vote on
what affects them, not what offends them. And I think when you look at a lot of the Republican ads and messaging, you think it's about something that defends you, but it's actually a way of saying Democrats are focused on a thing that offends you, and they're not focused
on what affects you. And for Democrats, our strongest argument against that is to fight about the things that affect people in a way that provokes a reaction from the Republicans, to make clear whose side they're on if they're out there trying to protect the rights of the ultra ultra wealthy, to smash social security, and to break apart the supports that allow people to have a middle class life and
be able to support their kids. If Republicans are defending that terrible policy and weird on offense, then that makes clear what the battle lines are. And that's why it's so critical that we engage in these fights, as we did in the healthcare fight that became the defining issue of twenty eighteen. Because we fought so hard in twenty seventeen again to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That changes what an election is about, and that to me is a cute role for.
The Democratic Party.
It is to help define and narrate where the battle lines are in a way where the large majority of the country actually wants a country that works for working people, and as shared focus on building infrastructure in every state, figuring out the critical fights we need to have, making sure we have that people and the resources to do them, and then leaning into those fights that bring the majority of the country together against people who are trying to rip off almost everyone else.
And one of the reasons I think your bit is so compelling of people is that the Wisconsin Democratic Party was, let me put this in a charitable way, sort of a mess in the Scott Walker years, sort of wandering
in the wilderness in the Scott Walker years. But What was always interesting about the Scott Walker years is that Wisconsin isn't exactly a purple state, is a pretty blue state, and these kind of Tea Party era austerity messages were for some reason attractive to Wisconsin voters, not just at the top of the goodnatorial ticket, but down ballot in races, assembly races, Senate race, state Senate races around the state for a number of your it was almost a decade,
And I guess I'm curious been what lessons you took from bringing the Democratic Party of Wisconsin out of the wilderness after the Scott Walker era. Why were those policies so attractive to Wisconsin voters at that time, and how did Democrats sort of rebuild and repitch their message after that era.
So I agree with you that I think there's a kind of beating blue heart or a heart that is at the root of the progressive movement is in Wisconsin.
And there's also a far right straight in Wisconsin.
The John Birch Society is based in Appleton, and Jail Gunner Joe McCarthy came from Wisconsin, and both Wisconsin's exists. They're always in contention for political power in the state. We saw this zigzag where Obama won a massive landslide in two thousand and eight, Scott Walker won big. In twenty ten, Obama went again and Tammy Baldin in twenty twelve.
Scott Walker won again in twenty fourteen. In twenty sixteen, what we saw was the culmination of what Walker and Republicans did in all those years, which is to rig the state, to break our de mindocracy. They gerrymandered the living daylights out of our legislative districts. They suppressed voting rights, they smashed unions, They defunded public education and public services.
They used every tool they could to try to undermine the basis of worker power and of people power, out of an educated citizenry, and all the things that allow what the public wants to be expressed through their votes and turn into public policy. And that culminated in twenty sixteen when Trump won the state. He was the first Republican to win the state of Wisconsin since nineteen eighty eight.
Now that said, it was also a very close year, and.
Wisconsin elections are close over and over five the last seven presidential racism Wisconsin have come down to less than one percentage point So the thing for me has been to work with our whole coalition, with our amazing allies and local activists all over the state and say we need a permanent campaign that organizes in every corner of the state of Wisconsin, that builds trusted local communicators to communicate with their own communities door to door, neighbored in neighbor,
organizing campaigns that'll operate year round, and not just in the big elections, but also things like state Supreme Court races, which you know, to make this vivid, we just had an election. We're gearing up for a state Supreme Court
race this spring April. First, Susan Crawford, a judge who defended Planned Parenthood in court and its defended workers' rights against Brad Shimmel, who was Scott Walker's Attorney general and helped lead the fight against the Affordable Care Act for abortion bands for gerrymandering, defended that in court, supported Act ten and terrible anti worker policies. That fight is gearing up right now, and we have an organizing team right
now pulling together the voter universes, making the plans. Will be knocking on doors in freezing cold in the winter of this year, and it's by winning those fights that we've been able to unrave the legislative maps that allowed
us to flip fourteen state legislative seats this November. I think there are Sudent Crawford's and Brad Shimmels running for offices no one's ever heard of nationwide, and that, to me is what the Democratic Party nationally should partner with state parties and local parties around this around the country to lean into those battles because those have enormous ballot
consequences and can help tip presidential elections. If you make sure that the rules actually empower people to have a voice, then you can stop those who want to put our democracy in chains for being able to rate the system to ensure that they stay in power.
And I wanted to ask you about one of the more high profile things that you've been criticized about by some party activists, and that is ballot access during the presidential the twenty twenty four presidential election, Dean Phillips kind of sued the Wisconsin Party, which you're the chair of, in order to get on the ballot, and some party activists have said that you and the Wisconsin Democratic Party were too closed off and made it too hard, you know,
for people to get on the ballot, and that's anti democratic and so on. Now, I personally don't think that this issue will be relevant in the DNC race, And because I think DNC delegates don't care about that, I think that's a different problem.
I think they should.
I think they should care about it, But I think the kind of the party insiders you're going to choose this or probably all on the side of following the following the rules, and if Dean Phillips doesn't follow rules,
you screw him. But I wanted you to give your your your perspective and your counter to this criticism that that the Wisconsin Democratic Party kind of unfairly kept people off off the ballot, and that Joe Biden really needed a challenge, and that the lack of a challenge to him was one of the things that undermined Democrats when it came to, you know, the final election results.
So in Wisconsin, there's two ways on the on the presidential ballot if you're running in a Democratic or Republican primary. The first is that the party, which had long before endorsed Joe Biden, can put the names of candidates on
the ballot at a meeting that's held. And then the second, which my team explained to Dean Phillips' campaign manager, is that you can go and collect eight thousand signatures from your supporters to get you on the ballot, and you have a period to do that, and we collect many, many times that number of signatures for ballot access. We're in the midst of doing that right now for local candidates. We'll get on the ballot for school board and city
council races. That work happens in winter in Wisconsin every single year because every spring there's a spring election, and the Phillips campaign decided not to do any organizing. I don't know if they had supporters, they could have asked to go and stand outside a grocery store and ask people to sign the nomination papers.
But this is a.
Matter of course for almost everyone who gets on the ballot for every office in the state of Wisconsin, and they chose not to do it, and instead they decided to go to court and then launch a media campaign to say that this was the big Party stomping out their right to get on the ballot and run for president. They wound up getting sixteen thousand votes. They did worse than Rona Santis in Wisconsin who dropped out a long
time before on the Republican side. And you know, ultimately, to me, I think you have to be able to demonstrate and build support and do some organizing if you want to run for president of the United States or just about any office. So I hear the criticism, but to me, there was a very clear path that my team made clear to the campaign that they chose not to take and have decided instead to launch a media campaign about it.
Once they launched the media campaign, why not just fold and put them on?
All right?
Fine?
And why not put it?
Why in the party just put him on like in that meeting because it was clear he was running, or maybe he wasn't running by then, I don't know.
He was he was.
I mean, they they reached out and asked about what the process does. We explained that that process. They they sent a letter about their candidacy. They didn't literally ask. I'm sure they would have liked us to put them on the ballot. We had an extensive message with a very clear ass from the Biden campaign. But fundamentally, if you're going to challenge US sitting president. You should have
a campaign that builds capacity to do that. And we're the Democratic Party of Wisconsin had endorsed Joe Biden, and you know there the opportunity for them was right there in the law. They didn't launch the media campaign until they launched the lawsuit the day before the filing deadline for those signatures. So I was honestly a little bit baffled. I thought that the period where they were collecting signatures and then said that was when they were preparing their lawsuit.
But you know that is that, that is how it went down. There are different rules in different states, but in Wisconsin it's there's a very clear path for people who want to challenge, you know, challenge, want to get on the ballot, even if a party didn't put them there. And this is something that you know, for decades has been the practice when there's an in common president, the party puts that candidate on and other people, you know, go collect some signatures if they want to get on the ballot.
I guess the family doesn't have anything else.
Last question, we would be and some news that is breaking this morning, Third Way Endorse has endorsed your bid for d M c chair. From my perspective, that's kind of shocking, Like I feel like that should disqualify you. But then on the other hand, Third Way has taken some really interesting positions over the last couple of years. They've been supportive of the child tax credit like they've been, They've been supportive of a lot of kind of social
spending and even said nice things about Bernie Sanders. You and I, you know, twenty years ago, you know, we remember Third Way being a wortal enemy and you know, probably said some pretty vicious things about you back when you move on, what the heck's going on here? How did you wind up with Third Wave support? And why shouldn't this just kind of rule you out of contention as far as progressives.
Are concerned, Well, my argument is unite fight when, and uniting means bringing a whole bunch of people together to fight fights that we can agree on. That I think spell out the core difference between what Republicans are about in this in this era and what Democrats can and
should be about in this era. If you read the opb ed I read it this morning, they made the argument that I represent from the Midwest, I see how campaigns actually happen in a place that's incredibly you know, contentious, and where Republicans throw everything they can and we fight back and we're able to win more often than we lose. They argue that I'm from a new generation and I think seriously about how we communicate, where we communicate. I'm here with you right now. I have a background in
new media. There's a lot that we need to do to retool how we reach people who do not trust mainstream media sources or don't tune into political news, and
that's something that's non ideological but critical for victory. And then their last point is that I recognize that there will be candidates, you know, in different places in the ideological spectrum, and I believe in a big tent, and I do I think that, you know, I was talking to the chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party last night, and how you win in Louisiana is very different from how you win in Vermont or lots of different places. But there are some core values that are fundamentally the
same across all those places. And that's I'll go back to where I started this interview. Democrats believe that our economy should work for working people. And there's some debates about exactly how to do that, but that is a fundamental core belief for this party, and we believe everyone is worthy of freedom and dignity and respect, that that is just a fundamental value, and making that case often
with different language in different places. There'd be different messengers who are more trusted in different places than others, finding ways to puncture the right wing caricature of what it means to be a Democrat. That workplace differently in different parts of the country. But fighting for those fundamental values is actually uniting victorious proposition, and when voters clearly hear what it is that we are actually fighting for, they
do respond. And I think we have to get a lot better at making those battle lines clear and making clear who we're for, which is the many in this country, The vast majority of Americans do much better when Democrats are able to set these policies. If we can do that, then I think we're going to be able to win sweeping like many, many, many elections down ballot in twenty five, six, seven, eight, and we can end this era of pretty frightening kind
of mega extreme authoritarian attacks and plutocracy. That is the ultimate recent white people are backing those attacks. We can end this over the next four years, and there'll be a lot of challenging fights in the middle, but we've got to do this work.
And I guess just last last question and just quickly, I'm just curious personally, because of the work you've done in wisconstant bringing that party back to life. You can kind of punch your own ticket in the party. People have talked about you as a potential senator or governor, cool jobs. Becoming d NC chair if you actually do it probably sets you back from any of those ambitions because DNC chairs are not generally popular.
So what are you thinking, Like, why go for this job?
I am drawn to this job because the stakes of this job are so enormous, and I think this is a time when I hope a whole lot of people are running into the fire. I think the stakes for the rest of our lives, the rest of our kids lives, the rest of the lives of all the people in this entire country are going to be affected by what happens in these next four years. And trying to contain the damage and also fight back in a way that builds strength for Democrats and for people who believe in
democracy and in an economy that works for everyone. Over these next four years, we can win trifectas in states that are out of reach right now. We can break Republican drivevectors. We can break Republican super majorities in states like North Carolina where they just won this critical state Supreme Court race and now Republicans are trying to throw out tens of thousands of votes. We can make changes that will affect people's lives in every corner of the country,
including in my state in Wisconsin. And that, to me, I'm drawn to this job just for one reason, which is the impact that we can have together if we unite and fight these fights. I think that if we can win, ultimately, the only measure of politics is the impact that it has on people's lives. That's the thing you have to work backwards from when you're deciding what
to do. And if you think that the stakes are as high as I think they are, I think that the opportunity to work with folks in every state across this country with the Democratic Party at this moment, is that the highest impact thing we can do to try to create that change the people.
That's really need.
All right, Well, that's Ben Wickler, chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party candidate for DNC chair. If you're watching this and your name is Ken Martin or your name is Ram Emmanuel, feel free to reach out to us.
We're happy to have you on as well. No favorites here at Counterpoints, but then thank you so much for coming on.
So much for read me.
You got it.
All right.
As you guys know, we covered the independent Senate campaign of Dan Osborne in Nebraska here quite closely. Osborne was a union leader who led this iconic Kellogg's Strike I think in twenty twenty one in Nebraska, where they saved the enormous number of jobs went out on strike, captivated the tension of the Nebraska public.
He then ends up running as an independent pre Senate.
The Democrats decide not even to run a candidate, which was a smart move on their part because they weren't going to be Dan Osborne, who's a veteran, he'd worked in the plant for twenty years. He'd been a registered independent his entire life, or at least since he had registered as an adult to vote when he was eighteen or so. He ended up overperforming basically every other Democrat in the country, but it wasn't enough to win. He
still lost fifty three forty seven. Republican incumbent deb Fisher. My colleague over at drop site News, Jessica Burbank, who lives in Iowa, drove over to Nebraska and sat down with Dan Osborne to get his reflections on the race.
And we're gonna play this that just in a moment.
And one thing, just thank you to everyone here who watches this show who has supported drop Site News. Something like ten percent of our paid subscribers come from the kind of breaking points world, and that has enabled us to expand what the reporting that we're able to do.
To bring Jessica Burbank on.
You guys might know as she filled in for a while as Brianna's replacement over at Rising, she quit that to join us, which we're proud of, yes, and so thank you guys for that.
So here is and so the reporting that we're.
Able to do with dropsite then helps us over here and Daniel builds our capacity.
As we reported about a month ago, Dan Osbourne had the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Led by Mitch McConnell. The time very nervous towards the end of they.
Always spent millions and millions of dollars calling him Democrat Dan, calling McBurnie brow because they.
Didn't realize what was happening. They didn't trust the polling that was coming out until way too late, when there it was, you know, you're getting to a month before the election and there are polls that are really close coming out. They just didn't trust it until that point, and it caught him off guard, which is really cool.
And Democrats for their own part, completely botched the entire thing.
They didn't help Osborne.
National Democrats didn't help Osborne basically at all on his own. And at the very end, you had Chuck Schumer telling people like tweeting like, hey, everybody, go vote for Dan Osborne to help Democrats save the Senate.
And it's like.
You're not helping him at all. No, Like, he's not a Democrat. He's never even said he's going to caucus with you. The number one attack on him is that he's a Democrat in disguise. So you're doing nothing to help him, but you're publicly saying that he's going to help you when he comes to Washington, Are you trying to stop him, and it's like, are you actually trying
to stop him? Because it because him winning would actually be a threat to the Democratic Party in every rural area because it would show that actually the path to election.
Is not through the Democratic Party. He would you did you actually tang him on purpose?
It's an amazing camp.
Because that because those Shumor quotes were used in ads against him.
Then yeah, of course.
Anyway, So check out this great interview by Jessica Burbank with Dan Osborne.
Here you go, we're back again. Did one of the first interviews. Now we're doing the last. Dan Osborne was in a campaign that outperformed every single Democrat that ran in the state that was supposed to go Republican, either narrowly or by a large margin. And out of all of these states, you can compare yourself. You outperformed every single one. How'd you do that?
Well, that's fascinating. I haven't I haven't dug into numbers yet, Still licking my wounds.
I mean I thought, I mean, I really thought I was gonna win.
I did that because people are thirsty for a change. You know, at the end of the day, I feel like, you know, people ask me, what could you have done differently? And I don't think there's anything I could have done differently.
I think, at the end of the day, lies one.
You know, all the ten million dollars came in against me in the last two weeks, and it was all about lies. And you know, people read enough of it. I guess they believed it when they went to the voting booths. So but I did it because also I was just being myself, just a guy who's punched a clock, who knows what it's like to put Christmas on a credit card.
And I focused on the issues.
You know, I would tell people I don't think Republicans and Democrats are enemies here.
We're all America.
At the end of the day, and let's just talk about issues. Let's talk about what matters to the people in the room that I was talking to. So when we did that, everybody's head started nodding together, and you know, neighbors became neighbors again.
And you know, if nothing.
Else I accomplished, I would drive around Nebraska and I would see my sign next to a Trump sign, and I would see my sign next to a Harris sign in the same neighborhood. So I brought neighbors together and it makes me feel good.
Something you said on the campaign trail was along the lines of Congress and people in politics are a lot of millionaires that work for billionaires. How much of your campaign success do you think is people that are just sick of that?
I think the.
Bulk of it for sure, And I don't think enough people are getting that message. The millionaires that work for billionaires are not going to work for people like me. They're just simply not They're going to take care of themselves. I did an event with Sean Fayn and one in Omaha and one and Lincoln. We did rallies together and he tells a story in his speech about a society of mice that they're just like us. They go to work, they send their kids to school, and they vote in
elections every four years. But the kicker is they vote for cats. And you know, a different set of cat comes in every four years and tries to tell them that their lives is going to be better. And finally, one day, you know, they elect all kinds of different cats. But eventually they wake up and they realize that that we're mice. And the problem is is We're being ruled by cats, and I think that's what we got going
on here. But I think more people are starting to wake up to that fact every single day that you know, the millionaire and the billionaire class are not going to be have a worker's agenda. They're going to take care of each other, and the cats are going to take care of the cats.
Something that's going on right now in the media a lot is people trying to figure this out, a lot of Democrats trying to figure out what we did wrong, Why aren't people voting with us? And you hear a lot of different reasons for it. But the phrase economic populism is starting to come up as a part of that conversation. What do those words mean to you? Economic populism, they.
Don't mean anything to me. I'm not a political analyst or anything like that. I'm you know, I'm going back to work and right now my priorities taking care of my family and you know, my debt collectors. They don't care that I ran the closest Senate race in the country.
They need their money, so I'm back to work. But economic populism, I don't know what that means.
All I know is I held almost two hundred public events, and we focused on issues and we just talked about what mattered to people who Every policy and issue that I formed an opinion on or drafted even a policy on was based off of those people that I talked to every day, not based off of a party boss telling me what issues I should think in a certain way. So I think that was part of the success, was just listening to people and what it is that they need.
It's just listening.
You were in your campaign differently than I've seen a campaign run. I went to one of your events where it turned into a town hall right. People were bringing stuff up, you were responding to it. How much did your campaign change for your speeches even change from beginning to end based on what people said to you.
Yeah, I would say a lot of it changed, you know. For example, student debt relief, student loan relief. When I first heard of that, I was like, oh no, I don't like that, you know, because I worked, I paid my own way through life, and I think people should do the same for the most part. But I was speaking to a teacher and she was a teacher for over ten years, and she said that she didn't she didn't qualify for it because she hadn't been in the
business long enough of teaching. So it's not like they just I just figured they'd start a to z and start handing out money.
It's not like that.
What it really is like is is nurses and teachers and really important fields like that that are taking care of us and taking care of our kids.
You know, like farming, teaching, and nursing.
We have to take care of those people because if we don't have those people, I don't have to.
Tell you what happens next.
So it was really about learning what these things actually meant.
And I changed my mind on that because I was like.
Yeah, if you've been teaching for ten years or over ten years, and you still have fifty thousand dollars in debt because in order to make more money teaching, you have to go back to school, so you have to go further in debt. And so these professions are so important we got to take care of them. And so I definitely was able to change my mind on a few things like that, And my speech didn't really change other than I suppose things got added.
So by the time I was finished, my speech was probably too long.
And another thing, and another get in here. Yeah, I think there's not a lot of listening going on now.
I mean, maybe that's it, listening populism.
Listening populism.
They should try it, because we just coined it right here, right now.
I think it's good. The people you hear from are, like you said, the people who run the country. They keep it moving, and for some reason, in our politics and in our economy, they are not treated as the most important members. Much less than that, they're treated as almost expendable in many ways. And what I've heard is
when people talk about economic populism is okay. So you're saying the Democrats need to focus on welfare, on social security, on entitlements, and I'm curious what you make of that. And I will say I think a lot of people in the labor movement if these democrats were listening, when they talk about reducing economic inequality, they talk about earning better wages, earning what you've already worked for. We're already paid way less than we put in as working people.
And so that's very different from a sort of structure where the money goes to the company, it's taxed by the government, and then we get to decide how it's spent and how it gets to you. It's still robbing working people of their agency in some way. What do you make of this conversation about, oh, economic populism, So if Democrats want to win, they need to do more welfare.
No, the vast majority, well, the vast majority of people that I've talked to, they're not looking for handouts.
I'm not looking for a handout. People just want to know.
Plan and simple simply says simple as I could put it. They just want to know, if they work hard in this country, that their paycheck matters, that they're not going to get taxed to death, and that they're going to be able to afford a house, be able to afford groceries, be able to pay their bills, and have a car to set on a side all year for Christmas and some for college.
That's it.
That's what they That's what they want to know, and what they're seeing is too big a government and too many handouts. Do handouts need to be had, Yes, of course there's people that need it that can't work right.
Those are the folks that we got to take care of.
Uh and and most most people that I came in contact with are fine with that, but I think they just feel like it's just gotten too far.
But most people aren't looking for a handout.
Most people just want to know that their paycheck is going to be protected.
Paycheck populismycheck pul coined another one.
Yeah, I like turning out on us.
Yeah, their motion detected, So get up and run around.
Yeah, scrappy. A shout out to Grunwald for housing us. Thank you.
Yeah.
So I sent you an op ed, like I don't know, a couple of days ago. I don't think I mentioned, but this is where I first saw it. Did you know Bernie Sanders tweet that out?
No?
Yeah, So the op ed was about your campaign, what you contributed, the need to center working class people, working class voices, and working class candidates.
Interesting. I spent a tremendous amount of time. Oh my family looks good, a tremendous amount of time. You know.
They they called me Bernie Brow, democrat in sheep's clothing.
What else? I don't know?
Democrat Dan, you know, all the all the name calling, uh, you.
Know, because again lies to try to win an election.
I've I've been a registered independent from the time I could vote I've.
Never really understood why.
How you know to join a party you have to be on this side of every issue and reject all of this and I don't really get that.
So uh but no, I did not know about this. That's interesting.
Yeah, he also wrote this email that a lot of people are speculating what it could possibly mean. I'll give you a copy of it. But a lot of people think that I don't know. He's going in the direction of starting his own party, starting his own thing. It's a lot about how the Democratic Party has failed working people in some ways.
Yeah, it's came across my ex and this happened around.
The same time he posted this tweet of an op ed about your campaign. So in a path forward after this election, it seems like people are looking to you as a roadmap what to do next. How does it feel to be in that position?
Well, you know, it feels good because it's what I believe, it's what I stand for, and you know, I'm to work now.
I started a pack fund Working Class Heroes dot fund. People can go there and they can actually nominate candidates who they think might fit the bill, that want to run in their perspective areas and we can help them.
That's what I want to do.
I want to take this to a national level what we did here in Nebraska, because again, as simply as I can put it, Congress needs to look like us, right.
It needs to look like this building right here.
It has enough business execs and lawyers, which we need those two, but we need people who are going to approach issues based off of their life experiences on working sixty to seventy to eighty hours a week, punching a clock.
I'm not saying that's a qualifier. It certainly isn't.
But we have to have those people that are qualified to do that, that are going to be able to Now I'm sounding ridiculous, but you're not qualified, you know what I mean though, Like, yeah, just because you're a working person doesn't mean you're qualified to be a leader, certainly, But there are people that can do it that we need to do it, that will have the worker agenda. So when they approach social Security, they'll approach social Security like they need it someday because they do.
Right.
That's the difference I think between somebody who comes from a background like mine and a background owning their own law firm in New York City.
Let's talk about this for a second, because I know so many people who have never set foot on a college campus that are a lot smarter than people who have. And I think there seems to be an expectation, or maybe it's a belief that has been pushed on us, that to be a member of Congress you have to be a lawyer, be a policy expert, be a businessman. What would you say people who still think.
That one, Oh, I would say they're wrong, because I would agree with some of the smartest and I know plenty of people with fancy degrees.
I've met a lot of them recently.
And some of the smartest people I know are in the trades or even auto mechanics. They just chose a different path in their life. And it seems to be again the millionaires working for billionaires. It seems to be
this ruling class agenda. It seems to be this elitist mentality, if you will, for example, you know you mentioned in the very first video, less than two percent of our elected officials in the House and Senate come from the working class, and actually veterans, less than two percent of veterans who run actually come from the enlisted ranks.
It's all officers.
So there does seem to be this mentality in order to be in a leadership role you have to have gone to a fancy school or been an officer at West Point and things like that.
So but like for me, I just took a different path in my life.
You know, my wife got pregnant. I had to go get a job, so I dropped out of school. My degree wouldn't have gotten me. I don't believe anywhere anyway. I like working with my hands, So that's how I ended up here right now.
But you know, that's our path that we choose.
It's not so much that we're saying working people are valued above people who are lawyers, right, it's maybe we should see everyone as equals, and the fact that we have to fight for that is interesting. Do you feel like that's changing that people are after the pandemic, maybe realizing essential workers really are important and essential?
Yeah?
Yeah, And you know I kind of bag on lawyers too often. I feel like I pick on them too much. So if you're a lawyer out there, I'm sorry, because there are obviously I know a lot of very good people that are lawyers.
And you know, and they make good money.
That's that's great, you know, that's that's capitalism and its finest. And I think again, everybody wants to know that, they want to have the opportunity to get ahead in this country, and I feel like that's dwindling away. I think the or at least the belief that that people can get ahead, you know, for some folks, is dwindling away because of you know, the cost of housing and groceries and everything else. It's becoming more and more difficult every day to just
stay even, let alone get ahead. But yeah, again, lawyers, business execs, folks like that have their place in government. But again, Congress needs to reflect its people, and right now it just simply doesn't.
Do you feel like the media understood this message that was so central in your campaign?
Yeah, I don't know the media in general. I think I think people did understand that. I mean, you know, we saw one of the biggest red waves in history, and I believe they used what populace what do you call that? Economic economic populism? Yeah, as their root, their base of their campaign.
If I'm not mistaken, Yeah, the Trump campaign.
Did ye See?
The difference is is he never you know, did anything like this.
He didn't.
He didn't put in a sixteen hour day outside or with his you know, coming home with knees and backs and hips and elbows and wrists hurting. So I don't really understand that why white people buy that hook line and sinker from somebody who's never really done.
It, and that experience just being a working person in America, putting them time in, you feel gives you experience to be an economic populist or a listening populist.
Because if I've walked the walk, you know, that's that's the big difference. I nobody can understand anything like somebody who's been there and done that.
You know, you could read.
About it in books, but to actually experience it day in and day out for twenty years, it's a big difference.
And do you feel like the coverage of your campaign understood that?
Yeah? I would say so, because.
I've heard when folks talk about the outcome of this election, they talk about you. They talk about how you are a leader with Kellogg's and as someone who grew up working class. I hear it and it almost sounds like, well, this is something that can be replicated with anyone if we just have this message. But is there something to having the experience of growing up working class?
Yeah, definitely growing up you know, my dad was a railroader, and you know, we grew up very modest, i'd say comfortable. I never I never, you know, felt like I went hungry as a kid or anything like that. Definitely didn't grow up poor, but modest for sure. And then you know, walking the walk myself, you know people somebody Sometimes people ask me the question, I'll say, what do you want people to know about you that they don't know already?
And I would say it was, Well, people know me for the strike at Kellogg's originally and my fight against corporations. But what they don't know is for twenty years I worked daying near seven days a week, three hundred fifty some days a year, and I worked hard. You know, when a line as a mechanic, when a line was down at my plant, it cost a company one hundred thousand dollars an hour when that line was down. So I went out there and I got really good at my job, and I would fix it and I took
pride in what I did. And when the company asked for volunteers for grassroots committees to try to, you know, make the plant better and make the company better. I volunteered for everyone because I knew if they did good, I did good.
So that's what people don't know about me.
And that's that's what it means when I say walking the walk, I've lived it.
I've done it, and I understand it.
At it at a deeper level, more so than somebody.
Born with a silver spoon could possibly.
Ever to work for a living means something.
In America, It does it should do you think.
That's a part of why Congress has not done a good job addressing economic inequality.
Absolutely, Yeah, because they simply can't understand it. They're inoculated from the very laws that they enact because it doesn't affect them.
Do you see some of these folks who are voting for Trump as just being upset about that and seeing him as an outsider.
There's people, Yeah, there's people again.
They they just want to go to work and provide for their family. Most people get their politics from their commute to and from work and they don't pay attention to it the rest of the time. And you know, during the election cycle, we get the mailers and we get the commercials, and that's for a lot of people. You know that that type of voter who isn't super plugged in and does a lot of research, that's how
they get their information. And I think that's how I lost was they were just I guess you'd call it an uninformed voter.
Something that certainly hasn't changed after this election is the way I've noticed the media, especially liberals, talk about Trump voters. They say a lot about Trump, they criticize what he says. That's good and fine, but I think a lot of assessments have just been tacked on to his base, and maybe uninformed voters, like you said, are working people who can't possibly have the time to understand every single politician statements and policies.
Sure, how do you.
See this sort of information asymmetry of what people know and what they're expected to know contributing to people's feelings of you're an elitist and you're looking down on me. Do you see that as shaping our politics that you notice it on the campaign trail with people you talk to.
Yeah, you know a lot of the people that were conservative minded, Again, one of their biggest problems was they were getting talked down to by Democrats, and then you would talk to somebody who leaned progressive and they would feel like.
They got lied to by the Republicans.
You know, we live in an age where there's so much information. It is so difficult to decipher all of the information we get. Like, I feel sorry for my kids, like my sixteen year old daughter, and you know, the constant bombardment of information that they receive on a daily basis. I don't think the human mind is equipped to deal with that right now.
We haven't evolved fast enough.
And so as a consumer of information, how do we find the truth in all of it? For example, I was on the road, I think I was in Norfolk, Nebraska, camp painting when Trump got convicted at thirty nine felonies, and I crossed the time zone the night before, so I didn't realize I had another hour before my first event. So I stayed in my hotel room and I turned on the news and I watched thirty minutes of Fox News, and when I got done, I was like, Wow, this
guy is getting a raw deal. You know, there's just people coming after him. He may be guilty of a few things, but for the most part, this is a political you know, scam. And then I watched thirty minutes of MSNBC and I was like, dang, this guy needs to go to jail. You know, which is it is? Are they coming after him and lying about him? Or is he guilty? And so the answer is, I mean, I would have to have all the information in front of me to decipher myself on like a jury, if
you will. But we don't have access to that information. So it is it's so hard and I don't have an answer for it other than it sucks, you know. And but the uninformed voter that I believe is one of the key ingredients to winning a successful election is you know. And you know again, deb Fisher spent ten million dollars in the last two weeks on mailers and ads painting me out to be somebody I'm not, and they just believed it because that's the information.
That they received. You how do you reach that? How do you change that? I don't know.
And it's a tough state. There's ninety Republican counties. The two that are Democrats have about forty six percent of voters. But this is a state that the Democrats didn't run a candidate in for the Senate race. How much of this picture of our politics today is painted by the Democrats sort of leaving certain parts of the country behind and not investing in them.
Yeah, you know, especially I mean I can only speak to Nebraska, but you know, you I've traveled to the state and all of the radio stations are owned by Mike Flood, who's a congressman in Congressional District one. The newspapers are all by Republicans, so the information that they receive.
Is certainly going to be biased.
You know, every radio show you listen to in Greater Nebraska is conservative, so they don't even get another side of the story unless they're you know, plugged into the Internet, which most people probably aren't, you know, scrolling politics on the Internet and rural Nebraska I can't imagine. But so you know, that's where I think they've they've given up. And you know, if you want to be successful in rural Nebraska, you have to at least have your message out there for people to hear.
And there couldn't be two candidates. Further on the political spectrum, when you talk about elites running our economy and government, then you and deb Fisher. This is someone who has served in the Senate, who has taken a ton of money from railroad lobbyists while North Platt, the largest railroad in the world, is here in Nebraska, and she's an active legislation to essentially allow these huge companies to regulate
them selves compromise safety. Do you think running against deb Fisher helped you make this case to people who were they aware of what she was doing?
No, most people aren't. Most people. Most people aren't aware of right to repair. Most people aren't aware of you know, what she has done, always sided on the corporate side of almost everything, you know, because that's her big donor base, and that's how they keep winning elections. You know, working people can't afford to buy senators. Multi national corporations do or can, and they do. So that's the uphill battle that working people have is we don't have the money.
And that's what I'm hoping this fund will do is somewhat level of the playing field, so people do have a resource that they could go to and not have to take corporate money and just fall right in line with and do their bidding.
Do you see the pack as ever being a path towards the third party?
I've never thought about it that way.
I mean, I would certainly consider thinking about a third party, you know, I just mostly think about just getting a seat at the table first of all, for you know, people like me, nurses, teachers, plumbers, carpenters, bus drivers, you know, people who do these trades and do these things every single day to provide for their families, to give a different outlook. That need that is so sorely needed in
our government at all levels of government. For example, in the state legislature here, twelve thousand dollars is the annual salary for a state senator in Nebraska.
I don't know how you can.
You can't live off that, so you either have to be retired personally wealthy, or have a spouse that can take care of things so or have a business, you know, be a successful business person. So those are the only people that were tending to get that's a problem. Again, our state legislature doesn't represent you know, the full array of the people in the state. So it's the same on the federal So hopefully this is something that we'll be able to minimize that.
I like how you brush it off, like, oh, I never thought I would ever need a party because you outperformed these candidates with a huge party backing them. Yeah, and I think some people maybe are searching for a political home. So how can people around the country get involved with the pack?
You know, it would start by going to the website Working Class Heroes Dot fund and learning about it, and you know they can solicit to it as far as wanting help from it or donating to it would be a good way.
You know, my.
Average donation on the campaign was forty dollars, so I believe my campaign was truly powered by the people the way the framers of the Constitution intended this country to be a government buying for the people. And hopefully that's what this pack does as well. So you know, people think if I gave five bucks, that doesn't matter, Well, it definitely does matter, you know, if enough people do it. So so it's going to be working people helping out
working people. Because if enough working people donate five, ten, fifteen dollars, you know, and we can help get three people elected, well that's worth it right there and then, and then it's only going to grow from there.
It seems that coming out of this election, the Democrats aren't doing much listening a lot of the pundits I've listened to have said that a focus on social issues is what cost us the election, which I don't know
that everyone has that takeaway. A lot of people say, maybe we should have focused on economic populism, we should have focused on bread and butter issues, But it seems that nevertheless, that's not something that it seems that they're taking away as a lesson or are going to focus on in the future, which kind of creates a lane for something like your pack to eventually turn into a party. So are you open to it?
Yeah, yeah, I'm open. I'm open.
You know, I'm leaving everything on the table as of right now. You know, again, right now, I'm focused on getting back to work and getting into that groove. But also, you know, in twenty twenty six there's quite a few seats coming open in Nebraska.
I'm leaving all those on the table. Everything. I'm not ruling anything out. Yeah, I'm going to see where the wind takes us with our sail up here.
That's good. The fight not over.
It sounds like it is not over.
Thanks for talking to me. Yeah, I'm giving you all this homework.
You can keep it.
You want to keep it hanging on the fridge.
One of the largest and most influential investigative journalism outits around the world that you've probably never heard of is called occ RP. That's short for Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
Now.
OCCRP has been instrumental in some of the biggest kind of global scoops that you probably have heard of. Some of those are called Swiss Leaks, Panama Papers, Pandora papers. These are collaborative journalistic collaborative journalistic projects that involve news organizations like Lamone, the Der Spiegel, the Washington Post, the Guardian,
like the biggest names around the world. But the muscle for a lot of these projects has been the organization OCCRP, which has more than two hundred journalists around the world operating in at least sixty countries. They're the ones that really put the meat behind these stories that then get
published in major papers around the country. We have a new investigation up at drop site news we can put up on the screen here which reveals for the first time that more than fifty percent of the funding from occr for OCCRP comes from the United States government, and the bulk of that coming from US A I. D. H The first important grant that went to occ RP was from a the international was from a law enforcement agency within the state department.
UH.
Now we will put.
The full link to We'll put the link to the full story here at the notes of this article. We'll put it down in the comments. And always, of course, UH if you're not getting our emails yet over at drop side News, go to drop side news dot com. UH sign sign up to get those. We can put up this next element. We worked in collaboration with three with three independent news outlets over in Europe, and you can read more about them in the article that we
have linked down here. And in order to in order to find the detail of this funding, we didn't actually need anybody to leak this or to blow a whistle.
What we had to do is find the audit reports that are that.
Are on file, that are that are available publicly, and cross reference them with federal budget documents. And it was a rather painstaking process, but the result is what you see here.
Our calculation was that more than.
Fifty percent of this of the money ended up coming from the United States government. Now, when we went to OCCRP for comment, one quibble they had with our methodology is they said that you should not actually count federal government money that is given to OCCRP that OCCRP then sends on to sub grantees. Okay, I kind of think you should count that, But if you exclude that money, you are still left with forty six percent of the
funding coming from the United States government. Now that also sets aside the fact that the UK and other major Western powers in Europe also contribute money to OCCRP something like roughly fifteen million dollars over the last over the last ten years, on top of what the US is already setting.
So why does this matter.
Well, from the one hand, and I'm curious for your take on this, you could say, look, it's very difficult
to fund investigative journalism, and investigative journalism is important. And the argument that OCCRP makes is that there are there are no kind of serious strings attached to this money because the United States stands for freedom and democracy and the free press, and it is in America's interest for there to be investigative journalism around the world, and so they fund it with a clean, hands hands off approach, and you can just you known any product of that
is going to be beneficial to the world because investigative journalism is good, corruption is bad, and the US supports, you know, the US supports that that entire process. Now, the one one detail counter argument to that is that when the federal government gives money to an organization, it does actually come with strings.
One of the strings, some of them.
Are silly, like not silly, but trivial, like the journalists have to fly American American airlines, not American airlines itself, but an American airline if it's possible.
Okay, that's kind of funny, but.
That's not actually harming the journalism. The other string that comes attached is that the US government can veto the top hires of the organization, which is a pretty significant one. And then on the other hand, there's the kind of the atmospheric where you don't have to directly let an organization know what America's interest is in a particular country. Everybody already knows, and people know like, if we're investigating let's say, America's adversaries, that's going to be looked on fondly.
If we're invested.
If we're not, we're if we're going after America's friends, that you know that might come with consequences, might not, but it might, and I'm sure that's in the back of people's minds. So I'm curious for your take on broadly what it means that this giant of journalism is actually majority funded by the US government.
I mean, I think their excuse or their justification or their rationalization where they say, actually, if you crunch the numbers, it's only forty six percent of their funding is laughable because to any person, if you explained that they are quietly half funded by the United States government at the very least forty six necessarily you're pretty close to halfway funded at that point. Even getting a significant chunk of your funding from the United States government is meaningful when
you are primarily chasing stories on foreign targets. And that's really important because to your point, Ryan, you wrote in the story is very fair and helpful story. They have gone after the United States government and certain reports they have done things that may be unfavorable to the United
States government. But if we're using taxpayer resources to intentionally muckrake on foreign adversaries, that's very worth knowing when you're considering the source of the reporting and their denial ish reminding me a little bit of what they said when I know you remember this the Cuban Twitter fiasco of like twenty fourteen, when USAID tried to create a quo Cuban spring with like a Twitter in Cuba. They said, this is the USAID. This is a comment to Time magazine.
They said, working to improve platforms of communication is a core part of what USAID works to do. It's an accurate to say that the program goes beyond that. So their defense is really similar that what they're doing is just improving communication. They're just furthering democracy via the free press.
It's with a bunch of bots in Cuba.
Yeah.
And the history is I think really important, and we go into it in detail in the story, but it goes back interestingly to the Philippines, where there was a nationalist leader there, Joseph Strata, who had a stand offfice relationship with the United States, because then anybody who was a nationalist and is not just completely in the pocket of the United States is by definition going to have
a standoffish relationship. And there was a nonprofit investigative outfit there in the Philippines that broke some significant.
Corruption news around Astrata.
That outlet has taken money from the National Endowment for Democracy, which was created in the nineteen eighties to move The CIA is kind of under underground, clandestine funding of civil society. You know, in Europe, for instance, post World War Two, the CIA was funding Paris Review and basically any any cultural project in Europe was had was getting money from the CIA.
That was exposed in the nineteen seventies. It was embarrassing.
So in the nineteen eighties they created an e D which is legally a nonprofit, but is almost exclusively funded you know, by the by the US government for these national national security interests purposes.
And we've said as much.
Yeah, and this is is not a conspiracy theory.
This is I mean, it's a conspiracy, but it's not a theory. It's done out, it's done out in the open, and it's part of our uh. It's part of our foreign policy.
UH.
And it and it operates a hand in glove with US. A I D U S A I D was making the grants to any D and any D would then fund them, would then send them to O C, C RP and other places. And so this this Philippine organization broke this news UH. It created an impeachment inquiry, which did not succeed in UH in impeaching him, but it also created street protests, and the street protests eventually led to his ouster in a coup.
UH.
Michael Henning was a State department official who are consortium of news organizations.
Interviewed for this article.
In particular, NDR, which is a German public broadcaster, interviewed him and he said that he when he was stationed in the Philippines, he saw the effectiveness of the of the of the pen being mightier than the sword, that being able to wield that investigative journalism against a geopolitical adversary was extremely powerful.
UH.
And also you know it gives the USA a deniability there this is these are these are just the Philippine people standing up for the corruption that they have the witness and they want and they want to clean it, clean it out. Henning that then gets sent over to Bosnia where he where he serves in the embassy over there, and he was instrumental in getting the initial funding and helping to and or helping to set up O c c r P.
He said that he connected.
UH the drew Sullivan, who was the founder of O C c r P and still runs it with the editor of that Philippine paper, so that they could they
could swap they could swap notes. Uh Sullivan, who also gave an interview for this project, said that, you know, transitioning Eastern Europe, you know, from a more kind of Soviet leaning, Russia friendly, state centric type of economy to a neoliberal, Western friendly, market oriented, you know, free of corruption economy was central to the spread of journalism in that in that region. So nobody really is denying at all that the mission here is the pursuit of US national interest.
It's not novel.
I mean, there's that quote that was given to David Ignatius in nineteen ninety one about how the NED a lot of what they're doing overtly was done covertly by the CIA years ago. Its from like Alan Winston, right, Yeah, it was. I mean, that's the government said it openly. So it's not novel that the US government would do this, which is why some of the denials are sort of funny.
It's like, this is part of this is a practice of the United States for a long time, and that's where I thought your story hit on something really interesting about how the impeachment or the whistle blower and this gets to Ukraine. So if you're on the right and you're not sort of like a diet in the wool adversary of the NED, which was supported by Reagan era sort of cold.
Warriors and all those things.
I mean in all, seriously, the thing the problem with practices like this are pretty clear when you think about how in the whistleblower letter that led to the impeachment was just part of the predicate for the pH.
Of Donald Trump, of Donald Trump, the mphment of Donald Trump. It immediately cited.
The report a report from the CRP.
Yeah, the OCCRP, And you start to put the that doesn't mean that what was in the report was wrong.
But it does.
There's a real wait a minute quality to it where you're like, wait a minute. Yeah, the whistleblower letter to Congress about Donald Trump, Yeah, cited in its footnotes OCCRP reporting four times. And OCCRP is half funded by the federal government.
And then the CIA.
There were CIA email addresses used in the organization of the letter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop reporting. Right, the CIA is not friendly to Donald Trump. The FBI is not friendly to Donald Trump. There have obviously been the FAI was talking about a qute unuote insurance policy against Donald Trump in twenty sixteen, and then the CIA. There's email addresses used by the CIA to organize the letter suggesting that the laptop was disinformation, leading to its
suppression in the media. You put those pieces together and you think, huh, what is the CIA potentially planting with friendly sources. And one of the things I thought your story was really helpful and elucidating was how these casual connections at USAAD and reporters, you know, even though they say we're not getting top down directions about what's being planted or propaganda or what we need to write, it's just sort of like you're hired because you're on.
The same wavelength, right.
Yeah.
And also and we don't know, we don't know what's being talked about.
Right and if it's and if it's just an OCCRP to its credit, I will say, does disclose their list of funders like they will say we do get money from the State Department, like you can find that on their website. They've never said we get half our money from the State Department, but they have disclosed that.
They do get some money from this area.
But when you're reading an article in the Washington Post or the Guardian that was actually you know that the meat of the reporting was done by OCCRP. As a reader, you don't know that this is heavily funded by the US government because you're reading it in the Washington Post or the Guardian.
So it's a way to launder it back back through.
And you know, we talk at the very end of the story about the obvious counterexample to the idea that the US just loves investigating global investigative reporting, which people watching US if probably in their mind they're go, wait a minute, hold on, the US loves global investigative reporting.
They love least, they just love that. What about Wiki League, do they really so?
Wiki Leaks, which expose you know, enormous amounts of corruption in the Middle East and helped to spark the Arab spring, was on the rise at the at a similar time as OCCRP, and the reaction and the posture of the United States government towards Wiki Leaks. Now, obviously there's some differences. The you know, Wiki leaks also deals with much more often in classified information.
Oh, se r P is almost very rarely to your deals in classified information. They deal in.
You know, huge caches of bank documents or other you know, off offshore financial operations will will be you know, the massive amounts of data will be leaked on that and exposing financial corruption often of you you know, oligarchs and other US adversaries.
So there are differences between WikiLeaks and o c c RP.
But Wiki leaks exposed massive corruption in the Middle East help help lead to the Arab Spring. The response of the United States was relentless you prosecution and persecution and attempts to extradite publisher Julian Assange and ultimately convicting him of publishing classified information in this plea deal that let him go back to Australia.
So completely different approaches.
Well, and if I'm misremembering this, you'll know better.
But if I'm remembering correctly, in the similar way that there are conspicuous questions about joining Assange and Russia, like where there thing is unfearable to Russia that didn't come out in Wiki leaks, there are sort of similar questions about Pandora and Panama papers. Right, They're like it's a sort of complicated, multi layers.
A lot of people are like, well, wait a minute, what about the stuff, where's the where's the good stuff on our holigarchs?
Yeah, it was a lot of like it.
It was heavy Russian oligarchs, yeah, right, which is not journalism by the way, if you have all of the information, right, if you have the information on all of the oligarchs in the data, and you're only publishing on the Russians.
Right, But they may have only had the information on the Russians, right, we don't know where the heck did they get this stuff?
Yeah, right, but we don't know even though it's potentially being funded by our money.
Their sources just never seen to get exposed either.
Crazy stuff.
But why can't they Why can't they see how they find their sources?
It's a great story. Interesting, there's a great story, and you managed to I think break through the right too.
Oh good, I'm glad people are reading it. Yeah, so check it out.
We'll put a link down there, but it's you can find it over drop site news dot com where you can find it at Media part which is the French independent news organization. I forget the name of the Italian one is very Italian, and it's the Reporters United, which is the Greek Greek paper that.
We worked on it.
So we'll put links to all of them because they it was a real thrill and privilege to work with all of these journalists. Stefani Marizzi, you may know, was the Italian journalists who worked on this, has done a lot of work on on on Wiki leaks, and hopefully we'll do more kind of collaborations with them and grow the network of independent news organizations around the world that are they're willing.
To take on these kinds of stories.
Maybe I'll get some money from the government. I don't think so. I don't think so.
We might have bitten that hand a little bit too hard.
Well, there's also the fact that you're already working for the CIA.
That's right, Yeah, never forget, Never forget well, Bran, great reporting. Great to be back here on the festive Winter set. As we discussed all kinds of terrible things. It's nice to have the charming Snowflakes behind us, and.
We will have a counterpoints Friday, So come back.
On Crazy One, very crazy one. Yeah, looking forward to that. And the merch is back by the way is. The holiday merch is back.
So if you want our faces and stuff, pick it up breakopoints dot com.
See you later,