Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.
Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?
Indeed, we do many interesting things going on. So we've got new indications of Trump's plan visa v Ukraine.
Would break that down for you.
We also have the very latest with regard to DOJ and Elon getting a nice new four hundred million dollar contract from the State Department is not nice for him. Inflation ticked up, very worrying sign given that there have been very few tariffs put on at this point. So where is that heading egg prices sort of leading the way in terms of inflationary items. Jadie Vance gave an important speech on a I want to take a look at that and some other troubling indicators with regard to
that tech development. Democrats are getting really mad. Democratic leadership really mad at the activists who are calling their office demanding that they stop being like the biggest losers on earth. So we'll get into that. And Nancy Mays is lying to sexual abuse survivors, so kind of a horrific story there, and we'll give you all the details on that as well.
Yeah, that's right, Well we'll talk about it. There's a lot to say, so as christ before we get to that. Thank you though, to all the premium subscribers. We appreciate you. Breakingpoints dot com. We just got a very big interview scheduled here for the show.
Can we give it away? Should we? What do you think?
Sure?
Anyway? So Stephen A.
Smith took notice of our segment and he has agreed to come on the show.
So we're working on that.
Thank you to our premium subscribers, you guys are the people who make that type of stuff happen. We're working with this team now, and I guess we'll have him on soon.
It's always really for real when famous people you know are aware of the show.
I feel the same way. I cannot say because he didn't just post on Twitter. I also posted on his Instagram.
Oh.
I got so many text messages from people who are not interested in politics at all.
They're like, dude, isn't this your show?
And I was like, I, obviously I'm not even aware of this all happening. So that's how I found out on top of the Twitter thing.
So thank you. You guys are the people who make that possible.
Yeah.
So we haven't locked in a date in the time, so it's never done until it's done. But he said he would do it. We're in touch with his team working on dates and times.
I mean, yeah, like you said, he put it publicly. He said I'm happy to come on the show, which is fascinating.
So there we go. All right, we'll have Stephen A.
Smith and I'm excited to see it before we get to And now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's get to Ukraine because this is probably the biggest global news. It is the start of the Munich Security Conference today, which is like usually a big gathering of the Transatlantic elite, but there's been a real record scratch with the election of Donald Trump.
Jade Vance will be there along with the Secretary.
Of State, and it comes on the heels of Secretary of defensee. Hegsat, who gave a big speech laying out new US policy towards Ukraine.
Let's take a listen.
We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine, but we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre twenty fourteen borders is an unrealistic objective. The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non European troops.
If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non NATO mission and they should not be covered under Article five. There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact to be clear as part of any security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine.
So several elements of US policy to change. Here, I'm going to lead them out.
Number one, he said, an official declaration that a return to twenty fourteen borders is unrealistic. Too, NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table.
Three.
Only European troops would be considered for peacekeeping forces, and for those forces will not be covered under Article five. So if you pair that together with Donald Trump then and his most recent comments confirming talks both with Vladimir Zelenski, the president of Ukraine, as well as Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia.
Here's what Trump had to say yesterday in the Oval Office.
Just to be clear, if you see any future in which Ukraine returned through his twenty fourteen.
Borders, well, I think Pete said today that that's unlikely. It certainly would seem to be unlikely. They took a lot of land, and they fought for that land, and they lost a lot of they lost a lot of soldiers. But it would just seem to be And I'm not making an opinion on it, but I've read a lot on it, and a lot of people think that that's unlikely. Some of it will come back. I think some of it will come back. Yeah, some of that land will
come back. Dealing with President Putin largely on the phone, and we ultimately expect to meet. In fact, we expect that he'll come here and I'll go there, and we're going to meet also, probably in Saudi Arabia, the first time we'll meet in Saudi Arabia. See if we get something done. But we want to end that war. That war is a disaster.
So we can also put Trump's truth up there on the screen where he says, I just had a lengthy and a highly productive phone call with President Putin of Russia. We justscrossed Ukraine, in the Middle East, et cetera. We both reflected on the great history of our nations. We agreed we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in war with Russia and Ukraine. President Putin even
used my very strong campaign model of common sense. We both I think it might mean a little something different depending on who you're talking to, we both.
Believe very strongly.
We agreed to work together very closely, including visiting each other's nations. We've also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelenski of Ukraine to inform him of the conversation. So it does seem cristal that things are moving in that direction. President's Lenski put out a reaction, a muted reaction, considering how many of his demands have now been struck down.
Let's go to the next part please, Just to show here, he just met with the Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessant, where he said, we value our partnership with the United States. I'm grateful for the support and defending our independence. Security matters. Moscow and its allies cannot be allowed to gain control over Ukraine, and that means we must work together across this free world. So things are really aligning against the
position that the Biden administration and others took. I mean this is also, of course, goes without saying full blown freak out here in Washington, I watched the Press secretaries briefing yesterday. I would say ten out of twenty questions were on Ukraine, and it was all like, oh, why have you given up concessions before they've even started. It's like, well, it's not a concession to say that a twenty fourteen border control is unrealistic. That's not a concession, that's reality
of where we are right now. It's a tragedy too, because if you think about the amount of territory that Ukraine is inevitably going to have to give up now, if they had just taken that deal in April of twenty twenty twenty two, none of this would happen, and an entire generation of Ukrainian men is dead. The country is completely decimated, their economy, and it's going to take hundreds of billions for them to be able to rebuild it.
They've basically resorted.
To being like, hey, United States defense contractors, you can have free reign. You don't have to pay any taxes in this country for the future.
So they have.
Their prospects are just devastating right now. Whether they wanted to continue to fight, which is effectively impossible, can we were to give them the weapons considering their manpower. But overall, it's a diplomatic resolution and it's one that I'm very happy to see. We're not there yet, and there could still be some Trump idiocy concerning rare earth metals, which we will mention in a little bit, but overall, I'm happy to see at least things are moving in.
The right direction.
Well, I think the rare earth minerals part is actually really central because it's Trump, yes, exactly, no, and it reflects the very different foreign policy world that we live in now, whereas previously, you know, the Biden administration of course wrapped this conflict in these values about you know, a fight between authoritarianism and democracy, et cetera, et cetera.
They had their own real goals in pushing Ukraine to continue fighting this war even you know, beyond when there was a possibility of coming to some sort of a peaceful resolution, because they thought this would be effective proxy war to weaken Russia a global adversary.
That was what was really going on here.
Okay, in the you know, I would say, post Israeli genocide in Gaza, post Donald Trump coming into office and really ushering in this William McKinley.
Style like throwback style colonialism, imperialism.
Russia to Ukraine is no longer in their worldview, is no longer any kind of a crime. I mean, here we are talking about taking Panama, taking Greenland, taking Canada, it's taking Gaza, et cetera. And so you know, with Trump, everything is very unmasked. So no longer is it, Oh, we're going into a rock because we're you know, we're gream fighters and we're bringing ushering in democracy. Oh and it just so happens that they sit on top of these gigantic oil reserves.
But that has nothing to do with it.
Now with Trump, it's all out there on the table, like, hey, Pudin, you got the arms and the strength to take territory.
We're not really going to stand in your way.
But on the other side of it, we might back Ukraine because they've got some rare earth minerals that we want to be able to get and Zelenski being a savvy operator as he is, and we could go ahead and put this is all in a five that tearsheet New York from the New York Times. He immediately shifted the way that he was pitching continued support for Ukraine.
So when it was the Biden administration, he was pitching it in the terms that they wanted to hear about, you know, this global fight between authoritarianism and democracy, blah blah blah. Now he's saying, hey, let's make a business deal.
You keep supporting us, and we will basically allow you to exploit the significant mineral deposits that we have through you know, your your interest in making sure that we can provide that in terms of you know, the development and this is important for electric vehicles and all kinds of the sort of new technology that's coming up. And apparently this idea was floated to him by a billionaire donor who was interested in these mineral deposits, et cetera.
And so that's effectively what Zelensky has pitched.
And you know it's not an accident. That is the Treasury Secretary.
Who is making the truck over there and visiting with Zelenski, because that is the way Trump is now looking at this conflct. He does not see Russia's invasion of Ukraine as being any sort of like problem or violation of international law. He wants to operate in the world in this very same, like brazenly imperialist manner. But if he can get something out of the deal on the other side and find it to be beneficial, then he may be up for continuing to support Ukraine and provide them
with aid. That's basically the pitch that Zelenskia is taking up.
Yes, that's true, but Zelenski's trying to use it as back door to effectively forestall negotiations with Russia and to actually stop any sort of peace process. And look, I don't dispute necessarily anything that you said, but I appreciate its honesty because what have the critics of the US LED International Were or LED Order always said, this is just a fake guys for your imperialism. And guess what,
I will be honest, they're right. And so what this does is just lays it out on the table and we're like, listen, we gave you guys two hundred billion at this point, seventy five percent of it was probably stolen. By their own admission. They've even said that. The Ukrainians, they're like, hey, did all the money go amazing?
Right?
We weren't even allowed to ask that Congress if what was that rand Paul tried to get it just have a rider attached to Ukraine aid for an inspector general.
And Congress would not even vote.
For that because they would not even require scrutiny of this amount of aid. So Trump is like, listen, we're going to take something from you. I also think that this goes back to Lindsay Graham. If you'll remember who was one of the reasons that he started pitching MAGA on this on Fox News. He's like, look, they've got all these minerals over there. If they tried this with Afghanistan, yeah, as well. By the way, they're always like, oh, there's
one trillion dollars in Afghanistan. That's why we need to continue to occupy it forever. So there is a dishonesty in the inverse of it as well, which is, oh, well, we're doing it so that women and girls can go.
To school in Kabble.
I'm like, oh, so that's worth you know, X amount of billion dollars per year. What's happening right now is that we've seen the inversion of Zelensky, where he's caught between a rock and a hard place.
He's trying to play the game.
But the reason why I think he ultimately would be the biggest thorn in the side of this deal is based on my conversation with Lex Freedman.
I don't think you would mind me saying this.
He said a lot of it publicly in his reflection over this Lensky interview. I got to spend some time with him during the inauguration my first I was like, so Zelenski, what are your impressions, and he was like he believes it, like he is a strident, like Churchillian type figure. But Lex's analysis, which he also voiced on his show, was He's like, it's just a mismatch of the moment because it doesn't match the resources, the international mood.
You know, the Ukrainian population now, as Trump even alluded to yesterday, has much more mixed feelings about some sort of negotiated piece, and it really came through in his interview with Lex Freeman, which we have some of that. Let's take a listen.
To make it clear, Let's describe the idea that you are speaking about. I would like to offer you other ideas too, but right now, your idea is that NATO accepts Ukraine minus the five regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zapparizia, Kerson and Crimea.
Just so you understand the situation, the invitation to NATO is legislatively issued to Ukraine, so to us, all those territories are still Ukraine, but the NATO so far can only act in the part that is under Ukrainian control.
This can be negotiated. I am sure about that.
Yes, this would not be a great success for us, but if we see a diplomatic way to end the war, this is one of the ways.
These are our borders and we.
Must understand what is going on there well. The NATO guarantees for Ukraine. Actually this is also a security guarantee for the Russians. Frankly, I talked about this many times before.
So what you took.
Away really from his was about his demands for NATO membership. Basically every demand that he laid out in his Freedman interview has already been struck out by the Trump administration. And this is actually for return to multipolarity, which is really what you were talking about, and that collapse. Part of that is what is that we are the great powers,
which is the truth. The United States and Russia will figure this out, and this is part of the fallacy also of the Ukrainian you know, what was it nothing without Ukraine, nothing with nothing for Ukraine without Ukraine.
This is ludicrous.
We are talking about two big nuclear powers, people who like it or not obviously have an outsized impact on the conflict. You know, we would always talk about this in terms of the European Union, and it's like, listen, if you even look at the amount of military aid, it's this is United States versus Russia. And that was
the dishonesty behind so much of the Biden administration. And occasionally they would say the truth, which is like, oh, this is about killing as many Russians as possible, and so what we are watching is really the fall of a lot of concepts around this. Israel obviously complicated this from day one, and Zelenski he even knew that. I mean, I remember in the days after October seventh, he was
desperately trying to get himself back into the news. But then so many of the you know, so much of the death toll, and so much of his own, so much of the United States posturing around Ukraine, while simultaneously backing is it just fell apart to the point where it just went to the back burner and we did, you know, basically ignored it for a two year period. And now where in a must work situation Ukrainians have
lost who nobody really knows. Trump said something like six seven hundred thousand people have been killed.
It could be that number of.
Killed or casualties regardless, I mean in terms of their population, which was even there.
That's devastating. It's a disaster.
Yes, it's bad for Russia too, which probably lost an equal number of men, but they have a much larger population and all of the hopes of coups it didn't work. I mean, Putin seems stronger today than ever before in terms of his control over the Russian oligarchy and then the economy. Their remarkable ability to basically sanction proof themselves hang on to the Chinese, who would be their financial benefactor,
do weapons deals with the North Koreans. They are more insulated from international sanctions than anyone in modern history, like a state that was aligned with Europe. Something I've been reading to Crystal is that the Chinese and other countries have been studying the Russian sanctions regime, and now the adversaries to the United States are much more sanctioned proof as a result of what happened with Ukraine than ever before. So there have been so many massive failures in US
policy heres. My main thing is, look, you know, in trump Wards, I want to stop the dying, and this is the inevitable conclusion that could have been reached earlier. And I think it's devastating that we even had to allow this all to happen in the first place.
Yeah, well, we'll see, because I mean when Treasure Secretary Bussent presented Zelenski with the economic cooperation Plan, he said it would be in exchange for the US continuing to provide material support for Ukraine. You know, multipolarity has potential
benefits and it has potential dangers. I mean the most obvious one is like, you know, we were in a multipole world when everybody gets dragged into World War One, right, so you can end up in a situation where it is more dangerous, more possibility for larger conflagrations, et cetera.
So's there's that.
It's also important to understand, you know, some of the like Petertials of the world, who are these like this idea of the quote unquote network state where they can effectively instead of having nation states, have like corporate entities. And again, I know this sounds wild, but they're actually like doing this in certain cities around the world. Apparently Greenland was one of the targeted places to have one
of these quote unquote network states. They like the idea of multipolarity because if you don't have any one nation that is the superpower nation. They feel like that opens up the possibility for them to have more power, to be able to execute on their like weird utopian ideas about these network states. So that's part of the push here as well, and part of why Elon is interested
in multipolarity as well. The other thing I would say is there are also pluses and minuses to a movement away from the you know, post World War two international order where things were wrapped in this coding of like democracy and human rights. So even something that was as brazenly a resource grab as the war in Iraq had to be justified in these terms around human rights and democracy,
et cetera. On the one hand, you're right, it's kind of refreshing, I guess, to have the honest truth out there of like, now we just want the minerals, and yeah, we just like we don't really care about Russia taking illegally taking whatever territory they want and are able to take, but we're going to make sure we get our end out of the deal. And you know, I understand why
there's like an appeal to that. On the other hand, first of all, if you're just in the law, the jungle might makes right, Like, in a world that is multipolar, then that can very much come back to bite you when another entity feels they're powerful enough to make a play on your interest, et cetera. Can contribute to the volatility of the world. And then the other piece that's a question for me is like, even though the justifications in places like Iraq were completely fake and phony, the Ukraine,
same thing. Ukraine is the perfect example of this that you know, wrapped in this language of democracy that at this point is just not sustainable because at the same time, we're like funding this genocide and you know in Gaza and speaking out of both sides of our mouth at the immediate time, like, did the necessity of politicians at least trying to pretend, having to try to pretend for the public that there was some larger good that was being pursued.
Did that act as a check on some of.
The larger like imperial ambitions, because it created a pressure point where, you know, once the Iraq War started going sideways and people started to turn on it, the distance between the rhetoric about democracy and.
The reality of the reasons we were.
Really there, that became an effective political pressure point. You know, it becomes an effective political pressure point to point out the distance between what we're doing in you know, Gaza and what we're doing in Ukraine. So that's why, you know, I feel very I don't feel great about this shift into the new era of just like might mix right,
law of the jungle. The big players can do what they want, take what they want when they want, et cetera, and having it all just out in the open of No, it's just going to be a grab for resources and those with the biggest guns get the biggest pay.
I think it's just always been that way, and I'd rather ask to be honest about it. So, this entire idea of the international order, it's like, well, then, how does the UN Security Council make any sense?
Why?
Because the p five plus one powers or whatever the nuclear powers on the UN Security Council are the people won World War Two, They have the nukes and we get to do what we want. So, you know, in an ideal world, like you just use the word illegal, there's no such thing as an illegal invasion. There's just an invasion. An invasion can either be repelled or can succeed. This is all fake, I mean, this is entire thing is an artifice designed to try and keep peace throughout
the world. But the truth is is that that peace was backed by US aircraft carriers, US nuclear weapons. NATO itself was a you know, it's no great, big democratic forces a world. It's a tool of the United States and its empire to secure basically, you know, to the extent that we want democracy, it's because democratic societies do better business with America. The purpose of the United States Navy, I talk about this all the time, is not to
deliver humanitarian aid. That's all bullshit. The point of the United States Navy is to secure commerce on the high seas and the blue water, to preserve ocean tankers so the gas doesn't cost more than four dollars a gallon. Let's all just be truthful, and in that truth we can achieve something. Now, what you're talking about with imperialism
and all that is important. And actually, if you want to talk about McKinley, one of the reasons that Americans turned in the past on the Spanish American War, the imperial project in the Philippines is because it was dressed up in this fake language of oh, we're liberating these
Filipinos and we're bringing all of this greatness. Americans were not concerned, but they were like, hold on a second, you're spending X, Y and Z. We're getting people who are killed over there as a result of this fakery. You're actually enriching all of these Gilded Age oligarchs which are using this to secure riches for themselves. So our guys are going over there dying. You people are all getting rich. What exactly?
You know?
The cognitive dissonance on this is just ridiculous. So I think that the honesty is good. I think it's important. And with that honesty, we can actually talk and instead of going to the North Koreans and saying, hey, you guys should give up your nuclear weapons and we'll make you really rich, and they're like.
Yeah, well look at Gaddafi. It's it's not going to happen.
And we all dance around this idea that the what was it, the International Atomic Agent the IAEA is like this sacrasanct, you know, Sacrisanct organization. Meanwhile, Israel has nuclear weapons and we don't demand that they become Non Proliferation Treaty compliant. So when we go to India, even to this day, if you go to India and you try
and tell them what they should do. They're like, yeah, well, we remember when we went nuclear to secure ourselves against Pakistan and you shook your finger at us and all this when we developed a nuclear weapon. And what we always say, what about Israel? You guys don't demand anything from them. So the fact is is that this has always been a tool for whatever we want. By instead reverting to just saying outright, what's happening here, it leads to,
in my opinion, better relations. And this lack of this hypocrisy almost becomes the point. And when you argue within that hypocrisy. For example, Saudi Arabia is our greatest ally, it's.
Like this, they treat their own population.
With barbarism, and then we're like, oh, we're the paragon. And then we'll go to some tiny African nation and we'll be like, you guys need to repeal this law against gay people, and they're like, what what are we talking about here? One of your greatest allies has the same laws on the books, and so they're like, screw you, We're not even gonna listen. Where if we talk in the language of gas, then everyone's like, okay, I get it now, you know, I think that's better.
I think it's better for everybody.
It dispels as a hypocrisy, and it allows for honest dealings with the world, where in that you know, in the rest of the world they look at us like fools. Around this whole democracy, human rights nonsense, post Iraq, it's
all falling apart. That's one of the things that led to the demise of the image of the United States abroad because people falsely used to believe all that rhetoric, and then when you see the most brazen invasion for no purpose whatsoever that destroyed our own nation, it immediately caused a major turn against us. And then you still have idiots like Max Boot and others who are actually preaching those values and then going abroad worse and lecturing
other people. Just I don't want to be in the business of lecturing other countries.
I mean.
And there's that famous interviewer forget exactly who the president. I think it might be the Turkmenistan president who's talking to that BBC interviewer because she's asking him about human rights and press freedoms, and he's like, who's in your jail right now?
Julian Assan. Yeah, and she fell apart, right, That's that's the problem with us. Yes, this is what we do.
We go abroad and we a tut tut and tell people what to do. But if they're really rich, they're like, oh, forget about it. Prince Faisal, he's one of our greatest friends.
Yeah, yeah, no, I mean obviously on the hypocrisy point, there's no doubt about it. And you're correct that this really starts.
To come undone with the rock. That's where really starts.
All the like edifice starts to come apart with the Iraq War, which was you know, which was foolish.
I just you know, I do worry about.
A world when we have just completely pushed aside the idea that nations should have territorial integrity and that that should be something that you know, is kind of like a if you don't want to say it's illegal, you know, invasions, just like taking territory because you can and you want it. Then at least the norms were in place that it was like, Okay, this is something that's really bad to do, and it did help to create some level of global stability.
It did, you said, you know, the reason to put it in place was to keep peace around the world.
I mean, that was the idea.
Now the downside of that is us being the world's policeman, us operating with you know, whatever suits us at the moment, and the fact that we were so brazenly hypocritical about that has led to this place where the edifice is no longer sustainable. And I do think that our facilitating funding, you know, Bear hug support of Bibi Netna who as they were committing a genocide in Gaza, really was the
last thing that made it completely unsustainable. But you know, I'm just saying there's first of all, I mean, I'm opposed to the whole imperial product project of what we're going to take Greenland, We're going to take Canada, We're going to take the rare earth minerals wherever we want for whatever we want from seems pretty serious about it,
at least according to Trudeau and himself, et cetera. But but there are risks also involved in the shift away from the sheen of international order, democracy, territorial integrity, human rights, etc. There are risks involved in that, and it could lead to a much more volatile, much more volatile and much more barbaric world.
I don't have a I don't disagree, per se. I just think it was probably going to happen regardless, and I think that the worst outcome is being some Biden boom, silent gen worshiper of democracy, human rights and all that, and hypocritically having a real politique foreign policy which agree with the rest of the world. All knows this Jimmy Carter Kumbaya stuff. It's always been a complete farce and anyway, so the fall up part of it is something that I'm going to cheer forever.
All Right.
So we got a couple questions yesterday, both to the White House Pros Secretary and also to Trump himself about whether or not he intends to comply with the court orders that are coming down these At this point, it's just mostly temporary injunctions against some of the actions they've taken, gutting agencies, illegally firing employees, et cetera. Let's take a listen to what the White House Pros Secretary had to say.
More on the judges does so, what House believe the courts have the authority to issue these nationwide injunctions? We believe that the injunctions that have been issued by these judges have no basis in the law and have no grounds. And we will, again, as the President said very clearly yesterday, comply with these orders. But it is the administration's position
that we will also ultimately be vindicated. And the president's executive actions that he took were completely within the law, they were constitutional, and we look forward to the day where.
He can continue to implement his agenda. And I would just.
Add it's our view that this is the continuation of the weaponization of justice that we have seen against President Trump. He fought it for two years on the campaign troll. It won't stop him now.
So she alludes there to comments from the President. Let's go ahead and take a listen to what the President had to say.
If the judge does block one of your policies part of your agenda, will you abide by that ruling?
Will you come by the courts? And then I'll have to appeal it. But then what he's done is he slowed down the momentum and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books. You know, if a person's crooked and they get caught, other people see that, and all of a sudden it becomes harder later on. So yeah, the answer is I always abide by the courts, always abide by him, and will appeal.
So he says he'll comply.
This is the big question right now, because I mean, the truth of the matter is he's already in non compliance with a couple of the orders, specifically with regard to USAID and with regard to the payment freeze. But you know they're holding their position is that, oh, we mean to be in compliance. We're just confused about what that means. And it's hard to do this with the
federal government. Blah blah blah. So it's different than if they're just brazenly out and out, undeniably flouting court orders.
So that's what they're saying right now.
She also got a question, Caroline Levit did about Elon Musk having massive conflicts of interest across all of government. Let's take a listen to how she responded to that.
You talked about the true transparency with DOJE and Elon Musk's print availability yesterday. There is a conflict of interest law in place that says that people who have personal interests can't interact with government entities that could touch on those. Has President Trump signed a waiver for Elon Musk?
Does such a thing exist? If it does, will you guys release.
It in the interest of transparency that he's committed to.
I have not seen the law that you are referring to. What I can tell you is that Elon Musk, as I've confirmed before, is a special government employee. He is filing the proper financial disclosure and he is complying with all applicable federal laws. As you also heard Elon address this directly yesterday and the alleged conflict of interest, and he said, everything he's doing is very public, and if you all perceive a conflict of interest, you're welcome to
bring that up. And as the President said, if he feels like Elon is engaging in something that's a conflict of interest.
He will tell Elon not to do that.
And Elon also said yesterday that before he moves forward with anything, he consults with the President of the United States. So we're very confident with the ethics and the guardrails that have been put in place here.
Obviously a preposterous answer given, I mean, the first of all, there's barely an agency that Elon must could touch that he wouldn't.
Have a conflict of injurans.
But if you go down the line of the agencies that he has gone after boast vociferously, you can see in almost every case, oh they were investigating him. Oh they were investigating him over here. Oh they ran a foul of them over there, and had you know, previously had issues with almost all of these ages. The CFPP is like the most brazen one because X has just signed this deal with Visa. He wants it to be the everything app. He wants to get into payment processing.
They were said to be regulated by the CFPP no longer. That is all done just to get into the specifics too. The question there because some of the details of why she asked that particular question is important. Special government employees are subject to it's actually a criminal statute to avoid conflicts of interest. So it says they can't participate personally and substantially in any government matter that could affect their financial interests. And again this is not civil. This is
actually criminal, violating the laws of felony. It could result in fines, it could result even in imprisonment. Now, not that we think any of that is going to happen with DJ and Trump cat pardon him, blah blah blah. But that's why she's asking specifically about, hey, did you give him a waiver because to avoid coming into conflict with this criminal statute as a special government employee.
And she says, well, I don't know.
Waivers can be granted for special government employees in certain instances, but even those can be challenged in court and deemed unlawful if you're just like you know, if it's not done in good faith, if they don't comply with legal standards, or if they violate ethical guidelines. So that's why she asked that specific questions about whether or not Elon had been subject to any kind of a waiver.
Yeah, it was a smart question actually there on the way, but I mean, look, we return he said he would comply. I think that's important. That's one of the I'm not saying necessarily that what did you say that there's different types of non compliance in terms of hey, it's taking a while for us to negotiate all of this, but as of now, you know, the liberal fanfic about just openly saying that I'm going to defy as like not materializing and not happening. I do think that the elon
thing is objectively crazy. There's no way that you can just certify that somebody has just like I grant you conflict of interests like with the magic can you imagine.
I also do think this is worth explaining to people special government employees, actually, all government employees who work for the president are subject to rigid conflict of interest laws, excluding elected officials the vice president and the president, and members of Congress, and those are so stringent that it is often heard of here in Washington that when people go to work for the office of the President they have to offload their entire stock portfolio famously in two
thousand and nine that I feel bad for these people, but I'm just telling you, many of the people who went to go work for Obama had to sell at the bottom just to be able to go and work for the White House. So it's an immense I agree with you one hundred percent. I think it is outrageous, however, because I just always want to highlight this that the members of Congress themselves have specifically have specifically exempted themselves from these same government interest laws.
These laws should be on the books for everybody.
So it makes no sense that the employees who are making forty five thousand dollars a year as staff assistants have more rigid conflict of interest compliance and they will get as you said, they will be criminally prosecuted. There is an entire office in the government that reviews You're not even allowed to buy stocks, including in ETFs and index funds without reporting them when you're a schedule see political endpointee. Yet whenever you're you know, member of Congress or whatever, you don't.
Now this is where the Elon thing is important.
It imply it applies not only to public holdings, but to private holdings especially. So for example, space x is an entirely private company. Now their private companies also is relying on government contracts. So this is where there is lack of transparency because at least with Tesla Tesla's a fortune five hundred publicly traded company, we have tons of insight into their financials. To Elon's, I mean you can literally go up and look his own you know, stock ownership,
the number of shares, et cetera. Does all of these sec compliance and things that you have to do whenever you're publicly traded, but in your private stakes, so things like the boring company as the SpaceX, et cetera, you don't have the same reporting requirements. There's literally no obligation to ever release your financials like any business that's private. That is where I think that the most objectionable conflict of interest stuff can come. And it's just the most
glaring hole for Elon in the future. Like it's one of those where if you don't have this stuff buttoned up right now, you're going to be spending the next decade in federal court.
Like, let's all just look at this. Clearly, what you think.
Some democratic ag is not gonna let this go.
It's like, yeah, I guess you could.
You're right, So I don't think, but it would have required it would require a literal pardon, just like the same type of pardon that Hunter got, which I pardon you for all crimes in the past and in the future, which okay, I mean, I guess we've normalize.
I think I think that's I don't think there's any reason to expect that Elon would be left in any sort of legal jeopardy here. And just to to drill down on what you're saying here, you know, for anyone who believes this is some you know, noble mission to root out corruption and government, I want you to understand the trajectory of the Trump administration here. The very first week, what was one of the first illegal acts that he took.
Late at night, he fired almost every inspector general across agencies, including ones that he had himself put into that position in his first administration.
So they were all fired.
These are the people that are meant to be the watchdogs at the agencies to provide some public accountability, and we've relied on the ports that these itubes have put out, both regard to Biden and with regard to Trump. So they're gone, so you no longer have people in position to watch over what's going on. So almost like a blackout there, you had him fire the top government ethics official that is supposed to be reviewing conflicts of interest
and other things of that nature. With regard to the White House, he actually signed an executive order rolling back a Biden anti corruption executive order that also was meant to apply to the White House. And then just for fun, because this is something that dear and dear to Trump's own heart, in terms of being the global real estate magnate.
He also has rolled back enforcement of foreign bribery laws, so now you can, you know, as a business person overseas trying to make a deal, bribe whatever officials you want to to be able to secure that for yourself. So there has been a systematic effort to avoid Oh and one more thing. Y one also has said he's not going to make his personal financial disclosure public, so Elon is supposed to be enforcing for himself whether there's
any conflicts of interest here. And you know, it's like I said before, if you look at all of the different agencies that he had run a foul of, you know, Transportation, Intoior Justice, agriculture of the natural a relations for many lawsuits there, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureer or the SEC, the Defense Department, the FBC that's
a federal election commission, the Office of Government Ethics. Oh, that's the one I just mentioned where they just fired the top top person. So it's insane to imagine that the richest man on the planet, who has some fifteen billion dollars in federal government contracts, after the over the post past number of years is going to avoid these
conflicts and avoid self dealing. We already know that that is the polar opposite of the case, and I think it's always really important to keep in mind what the goal is here. The goal is a very ideological, like radical libertarian vision of stripping the government down, so that even if you don't go through Congress and roll back regulations you know that would be enforced by the CFPB,
that would be enforced by the SEC. They are so short staffed and they are run by people that are ideologically opposed to those regulations, So it's effectively deregulation by defunding and by you know, firing all of these employees that you possibly can. You know, obviously this benefits someone who has a lot of business interests and wants to just be able to do whatever it is that he wants to do. So that's you know, a big part. That is the primary thing that is going on here.
And at the same time, you know that education contracts are being frozen, and you had the healthcare the health research freeze that's been rolled back temporarily at least by a judge. We'll see if they're complying with that. But while you have all these problems that are frozen in contracts that are being frozen and rolled back Elon himself, his contracts are going right through. This was a great scoop by Ryan and Jeremy over at drop site News.
So Tesla is set to win the largest State Department contract of twenty twenty five. They're getting from the State Department four hundred million dollars for armored Tesla's. This is apparently armored cyber trucks, in particular that they are so four hundred million dollars in armored cyber trucks to the State Apartment, according to procurement.
Documents that they reviewed.
So again, the largest contract for the State Department for all of twenty twenty five, thus far four hundred million dollars into the pockets of Elon Musk.
How do I buy one? How do I get it nice for him?
Very nice for him.
Look, I think there's a couple of things. I don't think it's deniable that anything that you're saying is correct. I have noticed with great interest of a recent talking point, which is that Elon is so rich that he has no incentive to steal from you, Which is an interesting way to think about it, because by that logic, it means we should just take all of the richest and most powerful people and we should put them in charge because.
They're surely the most honest.
Right soccer, Look, that's wild.
Well, let's move past it and just think about what's I think there's a couple things.
I think Elon is obviously getting his pet stuff.
The reason why this is right now is just so overwhelmingly popular with a lot of the Republicans is because it's also dismantling this like professional managerial class center of gravity, and that is really Elon's political genius here. And what I keep thinking about is he has to wait. They have to wait for him to screw up, to touch something that will really set people off before anybody's going
to care about all of this conflict of interest. I mean, you know, I remember how many times in the Iraq era would we talk about Halliburton and all of those no big contracts that they would get, and Republicans would just shut up and say, oh, no, no.
George W. Bush told me that it was all okay.
It probably took a decade for people to with what was also obviously a very brazen corruption scandal right now by targeting all of these things which are niche and which would also force Democrats to fight on on popular grounds. So for every talk that you're talking about education, you know, cut for what we've seen right now, it's like what a rural health clinic and a few different states. I'm not downplaying it, but it's not going to make you know,
international news. You have to wait until you hit something that genuinely affects every single citizen. And if you don't do that, I'm unfortunately going to tell you it's going to be popular because what are you going to mount your defense on, Oh, we're standing up for the NCAA's right to have transgender athletes, or you know, the education department.
Like I said, as long as the funds continue to go through to all the schools, I don't think this person's gonna give a shit about actually dismantling the education department. You know, maybe you know, if we have some denied program or something, it affects tens of millions of people.
But by and.
Large, the lack of trust right now in the government is so low, and then the lack of the lack of really like faith that these people staying in their jobs was genuinely working for the average person. Is just it doesn't think it exists at a Zeitgeide level, Like there's something very attractive to the American citizen, just broadly from what I've seen here in terms of the popularity and the enthusiasm around those that there is this permanent
bureaucracy that is taking advantage of people. And I mean one of my favorite stats that I see everywhere on Normy Instagram is about how the Coller counties around Washington, DC are the richest in the United States. That is fundamentally the problem is that, you know, we we talked about the post World War two order, but a lot of this can be blamed on Bill Clinton, you know, for the privatization of government and of contract explosion of
government contracts, of the deficits. So that's really why I think the Democrats are in a very difficult position. It's like people really hate a lot of these agencies, and they genuinely do feel like the HR and make workification of so much of government has done absolutely nothing for them. That it's going to be very hard to convince people and until something is genuinely taken away from them.
I think there's probably something to that, but I also think that like they're going for it. I mean, Elon is out there posting repeatedly about social security. The Republicans are targeted.
Take them out fraud and say everybody does know that there is a ton of fraud in so look, I'm not defending it. What I'm telling you is that it will be popular.
People know Medicare touches their social security, their Medicare, their medicaidblic. I mean, the only able to freak out about their adoborities. We're fleecing the government trillion dollars. It cuts to mandatory spending. Seventy percent of mandatory spending is social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. There is, Yes, I'm fraud, especially in Medicare. Yes, you really think they're going after that because that requires going after rich people.
No, they have an.
Ideological far right libertarian agenda to strip down as much as they possibly can.
That is the goal.
And so while you know we're in the early phases here and it's rural health clinic there and meals on wheels here and a school bus procurement in I think Illinois, that hasn't gone through. I think it's inevitable that they do hit bone, and they intend to, you know, I mean that's what move fast and break things means, they intend to hit bone.
So there's that piece.
The other piece is I want people to understand that these first few weeks of the Trump administration have been a historic bonanza for the richest of the rich in corporate America.
The level of regulatory rollback is truly.
Like at this speed is truly not something we have probably ever seen. And as I said before, it's not coming through, you know, passing laws through Congress and rolling back previous regulation because people would object to that, right, I don't think they could do that. So instead, what they're doing I don't know, is they're gutting the enforcement.
They're gutting c FB, they're gutting the SEC. They're gutting the FTC, they're gutting all of these the NLRB, they're gutting all of the bodies that are meant to be the sort of white collar cops that go after elite crimes.
That has been a massive giveaway to.
Elon and the other you know, billionaires who have an interest personal interest in such thing. And then next up on the agenda is a massive tax cut. So while they're all running around austerity and the deficit and the debt blah blah blah, they're about to pass if we're trillion dollar tax cut that goes predominantly to them. So you're right that what is being cloaked in is DEI and trim.
This and Marima and whatever.
True, that's the problem, but so much let me.
Let me ask you a question, Sager. Yeah, what do you think is more popular right now? DEI or Dose?
Well, I saw your tweet on the subject. I'm not sure if we're going to take again if the tweets or are these polls and all of that.
To the bank.
I think it could be an inference point. Now we will find out in the midterm election. So Democrats and all these they're talking about resistance and all that. But my main position here is I'm done being sigh opped by many of these polls, just considering what happened in the election. All of the polls that indicated some sort of cultural left resistance or whatever was all bullshit. I mean, and look, let's just be really, let's be very basic.
Do we think that affirmative action, which is di I is on steroids, which was nuked at the ballot box in the most liberal state in California, is as popular as cutting government spending, specifically if it's cloaked in fraud and in diversity program at a fundamental level, do you really believe that's true?
But it's just not true.
This is no way I will grant you your caveat. So, first of all, to answer the question is if you look at the polls, the is actually more popular one poll which is popular actually even surprise me.
Which is probably shit libs being like, well, well Republicans here against de I. So I have to be pro d.
I think also you have to admit, like there is a there is a color blind merit instinct in the public, and there should be. And so when it when the you know, when there was a movement towards like too much focus on these racial divisions from the left, there's a backlash against that. But I think there's also you know a sense of it can go too far where now you're just you know, you're you're swinging too far.
In the other I want to put that, but it's not.
But that's the thing is merit is is one thing and rolling back, you know, iber Mex Kendy's like, pointless corporate training is one thing, cutting into civil rights is another. And I think there's there is but there I think I think that's where they run the risk, but I want to to to move from that. I think where you're right is there's a reason why they cloak all of this in government efficiency and anti corruption and anti fraud,
et cetera. But where there's a giant risk is if you ask people how much influence billionaires should have in our government, they're like, none.
We don't like this at all.
And I don't think people are so stupid as to not realize that there's a major problem with the richest man on earth making himself CEO dictator of the country and calling the shots.
You know.
I think the polling about how whether you think the numbers are absolutely correct or not, but the shift against Elon and the sense like we don't really want this guy to have this much say in our government, even among Republicans. I think that's really important because there is an instinct of these oligarchs have too much control over government.
They're already too involved. And that scene in the you know, in the White House where in the Oval office where he's standing there, you know, sort of over Trump, and Trump is looking up at him. And the level of deference that Trump has shown to him has really been and perplexing and surprising to me. I mean, we've never seen that sort of deferential behavior from Trump. But again, at Hammer's home, who is really calling shots and who is really in charge? And I do think that there
is a visceral reaction against that. Now, when there is likely to be some sort of inevitable you know, either catastrophe or touching some program that really does have massive impact, I think you will see a swift turning on this. But it's already really not that popular.
I think it's possible. I'm not trusting these polls on this at all. Zero, I'm genuinely I'm My number one thing I'm waiting for is that Virginia election. I want to see the level of resistance, whether all of that is true, because there's just too much countermanding evidence against the idea that cutting government spending or elon or all
of this is unpopular. I mean, just considering the election, considering the mandate, I mean, we had remember mandate, Okay, Fine, I mean won the popular vote.
No, I am a point.
Okay, so one and all seven of the swing state.
Biden won by four and a half points the congressional The congressional margin is like the smallest in history. And also that was Trump getting elected, not Elon Musk. But much of what they're doing, like, no one was saying in the when they were running for office, we're going to dismantle the CFPB. That was not something Trump was running on. And in fact, in fact this well, that's why we're here to explain to them that's the anti.
Can't play.
Vote for him anyway.
No one ran on we're going to defund the white collar crime cops, right, That was not a part of the pitch. And I know they want to sell this idea that voters wanted some like massive revolutionary reform that you know, led by an anarcho capitalist and the richest man on the planet.
I don't think that's at all what people voted for.
In fact, the way I know that that's the case is what was the whole purpose of Trump going on all of those like bro podcasts. It was to make him seem normal and not extreme. And it worked, right, It made people Oh, they're saying he's going to do all.
This crazy stuff. He's not going to do crazy stuff.
He's just gonna like try to get prices down and be a good businessman. Because that's what I remember from the first administration, is that prices were lower and my dollar went farther. You know, we're about to talk about inflation.
He's completely moved back. He doesn't care about that at all.
He's happy to have he even himself said previously, I don't really think that inflation is why people voted for me. I do think that was a big part of the reason. I absolutely think that was a big.
Part of the reason. Actually, I still think it might have been more immigration in culture.
I mean, I think immigration is part of it, for sure. But I also am quite confident that people were voting with their pocketbook. They felt like things were better economically, and they buy into the idea of Trump as this great businessman. And he did a very effective job of like humanizing himself and making himself seem like not this scary threat. And then you come in and you're like, oh, actually, you know what. Twenty twenty five plus was the project,
not just the project twenty twenty five. But we're actually going to go way beyond that. We want a revolution. We're guiding your public schools, We're coming for social security, none of them. We're going to you know, annex Greenland and Canada and Gaza and whatever like. None of this was pisched on the campaign trail. So I think the notion that this program in total is what people voted for.
I don't think that that is backed up by.
A tell I'll tell you why I think that's wrong, which is that what's crazy to you is not what's crazy to a lot of people. What's crazy to you is the idea of dismantling the CFPB. What's crazy to the rest of the at least the people a lot of people voted for Trump is the very existence of permanent bureaucracy, d I, transgenderism, etc. So for them, it's actually normal cool and what they want to dismantle the very interesting.
I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of people like that, but we're not talking about the Trump base who will justify anything. But if we're out there now, like actually us owning Gaza is a.
Great in the normal pro the pro cast, shall we to them permanent bureaucracy, permanent managera class liber whatever you want to call it.
They're the crazy ones.
And in fact, I mean I sympathize and I understand that. What gets to it even more with the CFPB and all this stuff is that at the heart of it, regulatory agencies and all them.
Nobody runs on it. But I didn't run on n lr ever, nobody gives.
A sh about that. Rob That is not what did you say?
And when did Kamala say NLRB on the campaign trail.
Think of the contours of the fight between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. He was running on breaking up the big banks. That is a regulatory reform.
That's okay, okay.
That's also was more of a culture argument at the time, which because what you did, your old.
Yes, that's right, that is a regulatory reform. And Hillary did what these people are doing, which is to say, oh, well, breaking up the big banks isn't going to end racism discrimination.
In democrats structure.
And you're right, it was very effective. And guess what, the whole Bernie Sanders movement, the Donald Trum movement, comes out of the destruction of a previously effective regulatory regime. When you deregulated the banks over successive administrations, but especially with the end of Glass Seagle, which separated the like you know, wild speculation part of banking from the traditional
like you put in your deposit kind of banking. That's what helps to lead to a complete financial crash, so to wave, Oh, nobody cares about the CFPB, No one cares about the SEC. No one cares about it until you have a massive bubble that pops and destroys the entire financial system. And that's the path they're on, Like the level of deregulation that is going on right now by stripping and gutting these agencies, making it so that
there is no enforcement whatsoever. Even it has been so radical that David dan and Matt Sueller were tracking this, the banks were like, actually, we need some guidance about what's even legal now and what we can do because we can't operate in this just deplete wild West system. So even the banks are like, we need a little bit of guardrails and guidance here because it has been
rolled back so precipitously. So listen, what will happen in terms of how people feel about this or that, etc. We're both just guessing, right, based on what we think about the politics and how it's going to play out, who's going to make the pitch most effectively, whether people will be revolted by this billionaire or they'll buy into, like, oh, cutting the waste, fraud and abuse.
That sounds great. That's all guesswork.
What I can tell you is that what's being done is very damaging and creates massive risks of a giant bubble popping, of a redux of the financial crash that we had before.
It is a smash and grab.
It is a destruction of any force that could have been oppositional, not just to Elan, although that is his primary goal, but to the entire cast of billionaires, the ones you like and the ones you don't like as well. That's why that's what matters about what's happening right now. And you're right that it's being wrapped in these you know,
things that are or popular. But that's why I want people to really understand the big goal here, which is not about you know, cutting some DEI program or condoms to whatever nation they're sending condoms to Jordan. That's the big ideological play is to destroy these regulatory agencies so that the masters of the universe, billionaire class can do
whatever the hell they want to do. And the other thing I'll say is some of this it's very hard to put like even the destruction that's already been done, will be very hard to undo, even with these temporary restraining orders, and even if they do ultimately comply with the judges wishes and blah blah blah, even if Democrats win in four years from now or take the House, and not that that even really matters two years from now.
Once you strip down and you're right about Clinton starting the privatization trend, once you strip down the capacity of government, it is very hard to build back up, and so destruction that is happening right now is going to have constant.
I understand your argument now, which is that it's not about in the interm it's about in the future. And I don't even disagree. I've said from the beginning, I think the big risk is that the smash and grab, the move fast and break things can in government. It's not like in the It's not like an industry where you know, ultimately we were just talking about money.
We're talking about peoples lives, talking about programs.
If there is some massive bubble, You're absolutely right, they could get blown out and everybody will look back as they did. You know, nobody in two thousand and seven knew what Glass Steagle was by two thousand and nine, or when did the big short come out?
I'm forgetting.
And you know you have the famous scenes that Adam McKay has in there of people literally explaining these you know previously, what was it?
CDOs and CEO square. I remember learning about.
It too when I was in college, complex financial terminology that nobody outside of Wall Street had any business knowing. I totally will grant you that. I just I am trying to process it in the moment about how is it exactly that we got here and to what end
this will be? And I think the risk also for a lot of the Democrats is you can have all this language about how it's going to be bad and all of this in the same way that they did from Trump in twenty seventeen, but if none of it ends up happening, then you actually will end up looking either alarmist or as if you didn't have any understanding
of the public. I think that's a big reason why Russiagate and the interim like trump rehabilitation of his image came to be was people said, oh, this is going to be the end of the Republican We're like, wow, it wasn't so bad, right. Actually, maybe democratic norms and all of that rules is worse. That's why a lot of people ended up voting for him. So I do
understand how the process argument you're making. I think I'm just trying to think politically and where what if the alternative happens, where they do cut medicare, cit apb SEC and all of that, and the S and P five hundred continues to grow by twenty percent for the next four years, there's no crash and there's no major international crisis. I mean je or Donald Trump junior, probably Trump Junior. And now I guess since talk about that a little
bit later, it's going to be sailing to election. You know, he could It could be easy. It would be one of the easiest power grabs and successors in modern history.
If things going on, it is gonna give me a panic, really, so.
Maybe should come on the Vans train.
At least you can think, right, Is that is that even something that Americans value?
I guess point should be honest with you.
I said this before, like, I'm just cheering for Trump to take back control of his own presidency. What do you make of him being so like deferential and cowed by this? Like what is going on?
I think Trump is wowed by attention, uh, and he understands the power of like celebrity.
And money more than anyone else.
And the reason why he's deferential to Elon is I think he has gotten it into his head that this like control and this like Elon has almost a Steve jobs as quality of like the reality distortion field around him where he can turn whatever his pet issue is into a thing that people on Twitter and others are just mindlessly willing to turn it. I mean, Usa, I nobody gives a shit about usaid until Mike Benson Elon must start a tweeting about him, Like, let's be honest, right,
nobody cared. Literally, I would single handedly give credit to Ben's and then to Elon for paying attention to it. Elon, I mean that whole UK thing. I covered that scandal at the time a decade ago. I thought everybody had moved on, and then he think over overnight is able to you know, create this thing.
So Trump views that as an extremely powerful I don't think he's wrong.
Actually, I think he might be right in terms of Elon's ability to just like completely on a dime, create narratives and really bring a lot of the elite billionaire class people who really look.
Up to emails have given him that power exact way to be able to drive. I mean, that's when he says, like you are the media, That's what he means, Like he is able to He doesn't have to try to make it interesting for traditional news media to cover whatever his like pet project is that day. He can do that and pull the levers all himself. I don't know, I'm I just there's something weird going on with that
relationship between el and Trump. I don't think it's just because even even you'll relate to this the spectrum of Elon in the Oval and.
A T shirt.
Oh yeah, listen, I'm hating it, trust me.
I mean, I mean, and you know, Trump is more probably of a stickler for dress code than you are, famously okay, on the same level, on the same level, and so to see Elon there standing over him in a T shirt, I was like, whoa and we know that Trump has changed a bunch of his views to match Elon's project, you know, in the question of what was going to win out the like you know, national conservatism, right wing populism, whatever I want to call it, or
the anarcho capitalism like Javier Malay crap, Javier, Like, it's pretty obvious which direction things have gone in. Even though that is and this comes back to, like, that is not how Trump positioned himself on the campaign trail.
You know, we continue he was driving the dump.
Truck and working at McDonald's and trying to get unions to endorse him or at least stay out of the race or whatever. Like, he was still positioning himself in that way versus this is Koch Brothers on steroids. This is Javier Malay on steroids. That is actually what he is now allowing to happen under his administration. So I don't know, I think there's something something else going on with this relationship.
I don't know any one.
You're right, I'm curious to see actually how it plays out, Like I said, watching for those elections and all of that stuff very very closely, just to see what how whether it matches elite Democratic cast.
Well, here's the thing, and in Virginia they're gonna get crushed because you know how.
Many crush to what you know, how many you know.
How many federal government employees there are in Virginia. I mean, and I'm not just talking about northern Virginia, no, I know, like where I live, the whole town is, you know, civilian scientists. If you go down to Virginia Beach, I mean, these are the big population centers. Okay, Northern Virginia dominates, right, And it's not just federal government direct workers, the.
Contractors there FBI.
That's the whole.
Ecosystem in uh you know.
And then there's a lot of military bases Virginia Beach, massive number of government workers.
There as well.
That's Virginia Beach Norfolk, that's all.
And then the other one is Richmond, which would be less you know, less dependent on federal government.
They're going to get crushed in Virginia.
All right, Well, let's see if they lose by fifteen is lose by if they lose by five.
Actually, I'm actually just giving you a point that you can use at the time, which is that it may not be reflectible, but
Good part I like it,