Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here, and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Coverage that is possible.
If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Good morning, and welcome to Counterpoints. Emily. I don't know if you've caught The Bro Show on Monday, but one of the segments was Woke or Based. We're going to have the subject of that segment on the show today, Doha Macky looking forward to that.
This is a great new game show. I'm all for it, Like we should be pitching this NBC.
We really should.
Yeah, I mean, Thursday Night's the NBC Woke or Based hosted by Ryan Graham and Sager and Jenny. You'll never know who's woke.
And who's based until the end of the program.
That's right. Well, huge news continues to come in. We're going to start with the very spolashy At least it was Bill as being splashy interviewed between Sean Hannity, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump that happened in primetime last night. We're going to go through what it all means, what they said. We have lots of good clips.
Ryan.
We're then pivoting to Israel.
Yes, So the hostage exchange went off over the weekend, despite the best efforts of Trump and jo to keep it from happening, and now they are talking about finishing Phase one faster than they had before. We're going to talk about you know what's next there. They're also an indictment of five Israeli soldiers for their role in raping a detainee. If you remember, there were those infamous right to rape protests Israel after the allegations were first made.
So we'll talk about the indictment that that was just handed down. We will not get a chance to talk about big news last night, but you guys just go read the story on this. Jared Bolsonaro, former president of Brazil, has been charged a lot with more than thirty of his alleged co conspirators in trying to do a coup
in twenty twenty two to stay in power. Some pretty incredible details coming out of there, including the alleged attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice who, if I recall, correctly became a Supreme Court justice in a corrupt bargain with bolsonarow to get him into the presidency in the first place, and an alleged attempted poisoning of Lula to
Silva the actual president. Like so, according to the allegations, Bolsonaro was aware of and approved of a plan to kill Lula and a Supreme Court justice in the process of retaining power. He failed to do so. He came with the king and missed. He's now polling even with Lula for the next round. And so we'll see. Did they take too long to do this? Do they really have the goods? I don't know.
They're gonna send cash pteal to Brazil in Connor right now. Well, Patel actually will be up for he basically they've got to cloture yesterday, so he'll be up for a vote tomorrow on Thursday.
The labor friendly Republican Yeah, he was up in a hearing today too.
That's right. Laurie Schavez de Riemer is sitting before the Senate Help Committee. So Labor Committee, and that'll be really really interesting because she's sort of, at one source tell me recently quote she's a leftist in moderates clothing, which is quite interesting because she's also seen as somebody who could potentially pick up the votes of on the committee, at least Bernie Sanders of someone like Tammy Baldwin. But Dog's becoming kind of a cultural litmus test for Democrats.
So we'll pay attention to that. But you'll see the hearing over the course of the day. That is foreshore. My colleague James Billow from Unheard interviewed Steve Bannon and ended up in New York Times headlines, was sort of everywhere yesterday. So James is going to be on the show to walk through his experience with Steve Bannon. Bannon told him that Elon Musk is a parasitic illegal immigrant, and so I guess it makes sense that ended up in headlines. But James is going to join the show
to walk through what that means. And we are then going to dig into the wild Eric Adams saga not over yet, not over yet, and I think maybe more interesting than some people are giving it credit for being. I mean, obviously the entire indictment is like fascinating from top to bottom, has been since it dropped. But the question of how the Trump DOJ came to try walking it all back is pretty interesting as well. Then Lena Khan got a win from Donald Trump's FTC.
Is that's right? Yes, yesterday, the FTC announced that it would be adopting Lena Khan's framework for evaluating mergers going forward. Lena Khan has taken a much much broader approach to antitrust, saying that the way that corporate power broadly is impacted, the way that workers are affected, the way the economy is affected, needs to be taken into account, not just the assertions of corporations about what the effects on prices
and quote unquote consumer welfare would be. The Wall Street Journal has argued that Lena Cohn's approach to this means basically the end of the free world as we know it. And here you have the Trump FTC chair coming in and ratifying it, saying they're going to use the exact same standard. It's the new bipartisan consensus. And so to talk about that, we're going to have Biden's former anti
trust chair at the Department of Justice Doha Mecki. She was the deputy Anti Trust chair for most of Biden's term, underneath Jonathan Canter. When he stepped down towards the end, she became acting chief for the last couple months of the Biden administration. She's close ally of Lena Khon, so she'll be on the program to talk about how it is that MAGA and the left anti trust movement are now actually making serious progress in Washington.
That's such a great guest. Let's get to the a block, which was Donald Trump and Elon Musk's much hyped interview with Sean Hannity on primetime Fox News Tuesday evening. Now, there are a lot of good clips that we're going to roll through, so bear with us. It was about
an hour long. My top line takeaway from it is that, you know, Hannity didn't get much out of them, which we should start by saying, is interesting given that some of Trump's most revelatory exchanges with the media have come in Handity interviews.
He's comfy, he just let it, lets it.
Go, And I'm curious what the audience thinks about this. As we roll through the clips, my sense is that they are both a little bit more guarded. In this interview, Hannity keeps trying to get Elon Musk to talk about his personal life and to talk about his background, his career and sort of flex and show people like there's context for Elon Musk coming into DOGE and reforming the federal government and all that. So let's roll a one from the interview.
The President will make these executive orders which are very sensible and good for the country, but then they don't get implemented.
You know.
So if you take, for example, the full the funding for the migrant hotels, the president issued executive order, Hey, we need to stop taking tax payer money and paying for luxury hotels for illegal immigrants, which makes no sense obviously if people do not want their tax dollars going to fund high end hotels for illegals. And yet they were still doing that even as late as last week, and so you know, we went in there and we're like, this is the violation of the presidential executive order. It
needs to stop. So so what we're doing here is one of the biggest functions of the Dog team is just making sure that the presidential executive orders are actually carried out.
And that's obviously the let's say central argument for Dog, which is that the federal bureaucracy has become so unaccountable that unless it's radically reformed, you and bio radically reformed, they mean sweeping, immediate, rapid trauma. As ross Bat would say to bureaucrats, you never actually will bring them to heal because the agencies are so sprawling, like it has to be what they did to USA. I D rinse
and repeat over and over again at these departments. Otherwise you never actually you still end up having let's say a anti let's say say a president who wants to crack down an illegal immigration being the head of an executive branch that is not doing that, or a president who does not want to crack down an illegal immigration overseeing an executive branch that does that.
Yeah, it is true that a president probably should be able to govern within within some reasonable limits, but should be able to govern, which is not exactly always our system. But we have a lot of clips to go through, so I'll try to refrain from popping off, and so we get through a bunch more of these.
Here's one more well, Trump was he did a big press conference yesterday as well, So that's our nice clip. Here's one more from the Hannity interview where Hannity kind of gets into conflicts of interest. Let's let's I'll let everyone judge. Let's take a look.
Your task now, and I pray to God this is successful.
I really do. I wish you god speed, you know, speed on Glenn.
It's going to be by the way, I really believe. But there are all the countries that are well beside this. This is cutting. We're only talking about cutting. We're also going to make a lot of money. We're going to we're taking in.
So what about his business?
What if if there is then we all contract?
He would otherwise I do it.
He's got a conflict. I mean, look, he's in certain areas. I mean I see this morning. I didn't know if I said do the right thing where they're cutting way back on the electric vehicle subsidies. They're cutting back, not only cutting back, don't you Yeah, now you know I won't tell you. Well, he's probably not that happy with it, but that would.
Have been one thing.
He would have come to me and say, listen, you got to do me your favorite This is crazy. But this was in the tax bill they're cutting back on the subsets.
I didn't.
I wasn't involved in it.
I said, do what's right and you get and they're coming up with a tax.
But it's just preliminary.
But I mean, if he were involved, wudn't you think he'd probably do that. Now, maybe he does better if you cut back on the subsidies. Who knows, because he figures he does think differently. He thinks he has a better product, and as long as he has a level playing field, he doesn't care what you do, which he's told me that.
Yeah.
I mean, I haven't asked the president for anything ever.
And if it comes up, how will you handle it?
Well, he won't be involved. Yeah, I'll accuse myself if it is.
If there's a conflict, he won't be involved. I mean I wouldn't want that and he won't want it right.
And also I'm getting a sort of a daily proctology exam here. You know, it's like I'll be getting away from something in the dead of night.
Welcome to DC.
If you want a friend and get a dog.
I mean, if you are the most powerful man in the world who's suddenly working in government, you definitely deserve that daily exam there's no question about it. And actually, on that note, what Trump just said about the subsidies is a great example because Elon Musk as early as last July he posts it on next take all the subsidies away, it will help Tesla. So yeah, he's against them, right,
he's now against Tesla. He's probably right that they would help Tesla to take those to catch up, right, and so on that note, just to the reason we say is to point out that people in Congress right now who are coming up with the tax bill and looking at what decisions to make already know that Elon Musk doesn't care about the subsidies. He's well, if anything, he encourages removing the subsidies because he said as much.
So it's not really what he needs is tariffs on China to keep the better, cheaper Chinese evs out of the US.
Well, that's even complicated with his relationship with China. I can't even believe we have to talk about that in the context of a quote special government employee.
But here we say agent as calls him.
Yeah, so let's go to Donald Trump's press conference. We're going to come back to the interview. But on this point. He was asked by Jonathan Swan of The New York Times to talk about Doge and SpaceX yesterday. Trump put together a press conference yesterday late in the afternoon. I don't know if he was like intentionally trying to tease the interview. He kind of did the Fox interview. But let's let's rule this one.
And given your concerns about corruption, you said that if there were any conflicts of interest with Elon Musk, you wouldn't let him anywhere near it. That's right, Jose and SpaceX employees are now working directly at the Federal Aviation Administration and the Defense Department, agencies that have billions of dollars in contracts with Musks companies or that directly regulate his companies.
How is that not a conflict of issue?
Well, I mean, I'm just hearing about it. And if there is, and he told me before, I told him, but obviously I will not let there be any conflict of interest. He's done an amazing job, they've revealed. In fact, he's going to be on tonight at a big show called Sean Hannity at nine o'clock and he's on, and I'm on and we talk about a lot of different things, and any conflicts. I told Elon, any conflicts, you can't
have anything to do with that. So anything to do with possibly even space, we won't let Elon partake in that.
So to the extent they talked about it, it was Handy saying what about conflicts of interest and then Trump saying we won't let him do it.
John Swan saying, given your concern about corruption, wait a minute, gonna need some evidence. I need some receipts for this alleged concern about corruption. I wish he would have said it was nine eighth Central. That would have been even funnier.
Oh yeah, I know that would have been funny. But I mean, obviously he talks a lot about corruption, which is why Bannon and others we'll talk about this later in the show, are so irked by his relationship with Elon Musk. I almost just said Donald Musk. But let's pivot back to the Hannity interview. That was a great interlude with the Jonathan Swan question just hours earlier. But here's what they talked about in relation inflation with Hannity.
Yeah, and inflation is back. I'm only here for two and a half weeks. That was genflation there back now think of it. Inflation's back, and they said, oh, Trump and fact I had nothing to do with it. These people have run the country. They spent money like nobody has ever spent.
If you were listening to this and not just watching it, you missed the great USAID ticker. It looked like a when you're watching TV at three in the morning and they're selling CDs for Elvis's Greatest hits. They were just scrolling through crazy USAID spending when they talked about inflation there. Now we have another clip from the press conference getting to exactly the point Ryan just raised about corruption. Trump's take on corruption. Let's roll this from the press conference again.
This was just hours before the Fox interview.
We have a very corrupt country, very corrupt country, and it's a sad thing to say, but we're figuring it
out now. The good thing about social security, and what I read is if you take all of those numbers off because they're obviously fraudulent or incompetent, but if you take all of those millions of people off social Security, all of a sudden, we have a very powerful social security with people that are eighty and seventy and ninety, but not two hundred years old, you know, So that's a very positive thing.
So finally, go ahead, Yeah, no, I wish that was true. And hey, if this lets Republicans get it away with not cutting it, okay, go ahead, lie to yourself that there's like huge savings to be made from dead people getting solid security. It's just not true, but okay.
In the Fox News interview he said that's a red line. He said, Elon's not going to be touching Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. And actually Frank Omerchetti has a good essay out in Jacobin that as somebody on the right I think captures the dynamics of DOJE and the right better than anything I've been in a long time. I recommend it for everyone because he goes through russ Boat's arc. Oh yes, and talks about how austerity used to be seen by many on the right as their flavor of populism in
the Obama era. And yes, there's been some substantive shifts by some people away from that American compass those people. So on the one hand, there's really been sincere movement by a lot of people to put like policy meat on the bones of Trump's anti elite sentiments and pro worker sentiments. On the other hand, they're still lurking very much an appetite among the people who are around Trump. Elon Musk's libertarian you know, I guess urges will certainly egg them on.
And votes in the key position to implement this revolution.
Right. And obviously, obviously Donald Trump is more powerful than russ vote. He's more powerful than anyone in the cabinet, and he's if he doesn't want them to touch the security, Medicare Medicaid, which he clearly doesn't. He knows that that would be legacy tarnishing, then he'll probably get his way on that. But if there's a crack in the foundation,
you could see significant changes. So let's roll this last clip of Stephen Miller going on CNN yesterday afternoon and getting some questions about a White House filing that actually clarified Elon Musk is not the administrator of DOGE. This was they said, he is an employee of the White House Office. And everyone's sort of looking around being like, what does that mean. We've talked a little bit about
his special government employee designation. It's basically impossible for him to be in compliance with that, it's up to the to the DJ to enforce.
It's fortunate for him.
Yeah. So all that is to say, though, he goes on and gets Steven Miller, goes on Brownie Keeler's show on CNN, and this is how he answers questions about what Basically, who if Elon Musk is not the head of DOGE, who is leading DOGE. Let's roll this, So who is in charge of DOGE?
The President of the United States, He's the administrator of DOGE.
No, the DOGE is the what was formerly US Digital Services. It's an agency of the federal government that reports into the Office of the Executive Office of the President, which reports to the President of the United States. Okay, the way that Article two works as a president wins an election and then he appoints staff, including myself, including Mike Waltz, including Susie Wilds, including Elon Musk, and those staff.
Report to him.
Okay, well aware.
So Elon Musk a week ago answered a question about transparency a DOGE. This is how we spoke about DOGE.
Well, we actually are trying to be as transparent as possible. In fact, our actions repost our actions to the DOGE handle on x and to the doge website. So all of our actions are maximally transparent.
But you hear him there we post our actions. All of our actions are maximally transparent. Does Elon Musk know he's not in charge of DOGE.
Again?
The president runs the government. Then the president appoints advisors, including Elon, I'm including myself, including all the other staff here at the White House. And then those staff in turn execute the president's commands and directions to all the agencies of the federal government. This is how democracy works, something that we treasure in America. The whole American people
go to the ballot box, they elect the president. The president appoint staff, the staff that administer his orders and directives across the whole US government.
Stephen Miller's CNN interviews are actually always pretty entertaining.
They're always funny. He's talking about this is how we've always done it. People should realize, though, the reason we have a civil service is from a specific problem that our government had, which was it was too efficient. You would elect a president, and you'd elect a Congress, and then they would very efficiently give themselves all the money.
For instance, if they wanted to build transcontinental railroad, the railroads would give free stock to the members of Congress and to the White House, and then instead of going through an administrative process where they had to bid competitively and there would be oversight and igs and inspections, they would just bribe members of Congress and the administration and
they would get the railroad contract. And then they would basically be you know, meme coins that would bubble up and then pop and sent the country into multiple depressions in the nineteenth century. And at that point, the people are like, you know what, we don't trust you politicians and you oligarchs to do this efficiently because you're just scratching each other's back and ripping us off. So we want a civil service that is transparent and is accountable.
And so they built one. And it is annoying sometimes to have to bid for contracts and to have people ask for paperwork to prove that you're actually like laid down railroad tracks. And so now we're going to back to the efficient process, and we'll see how that works out.
Well. The efficient process, well, the post efficient process was still sort of a victory for the oligarchs too, because they ended up being able to game the system pretty well. It's not that they didn't lose.
If you look at the oligarchs in the late nineteenth century versus from the progressive era through the seventies nineteen seventies, the oligarchs heyday is now and way back then twentieth century, they were on their heels.
They were able to carve out. All I'm saying is the system still They were able to carve it up because they have more resources and happened. Saying it's not argument against the Yeah, yeah, not an argument against the
system existing at all. Although that is where Elon Musk and some folks in Trump's orbit will say this has been Actually they made this argument about DEEI in particularly like this has been a boon to these different like equity consultants, And there's probably some truth to the it's a.
Little industry built top around that.
Yeah, it's not going to be enough probably to mollify every voter.
Your doge dividend isn't going to be very big off the backs of gutting the I.
No, not, but the Elon Musk actually yesterday tweeted that he was he would think about the Doge diffidend, which just quite interesting. But that exchange is also noteworthy because Doge is the USDs, as Stephen Miller noted, like that was not something people expected. They took over an existing agency.
It wasn't just this like outside advisory group created Doge and is now appears to be a series of employees at different spread across different agencies, as opposed to sort of a central Doge hub, sort of like Doge vibes, like just hiring people have Doge vibes.
Yeah, yes, it's a little uh, it's a sell. Yes, yes, it is infiltrating all over the place.
Well, both Trump and Elon Musk are quite good at selling. So it makes sense that we know the brand. We know that, Yeah, when we know the organization. All right, Ryan, let's pivot to this block on the hostage returns.
So phase one of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas may be coming to completion earlier than expected. We
could put this axios element up on the screen. Hamas proposed to Israel, and it appears that Israel's close to accepting an agreement by which all of the remaining living prisoners held by held by Hamas, who are scheduled to be released in Phase one, will be released all at once this coming weekend, rather than stretching it out over the next two weeks, which means there would be six released. You put this second second element up on the screen.
As we move to phase two of the negotiations, Hamas is signaling, and we can talk about this more, quite quite strongly, that they are willing to do what Israel has demanding that they do, lay down their arms and surrender basically and handover governance either to the Palestinian Authority or to some other national unity project. Now, whether they whether Hamas would agree to the Palestini authorities an open question. What exactly that would look like is an open question.
But if you notice there the key stumbling bock, there isn't actually Hamas, it's Israel, which has said absolutely, under no circumstances would it allow the Palestinian authority to oversee Gaza in a in a post in a post war scenario, which is very i think confusing to people who are
following this from a FARX. We're like, wait a minute, isn't the Palistini authority, the legally recognized representatives of the Palatinian people and effectively a subcontractor of Israel carrying out the occupation in the West Bank and literally doing battle with resistance fighters in the West Bank. And and and
even they are not good enough for Yahoo. Now, what Nenya, who has been saying, is that Trump has opened the door to possibilities that Israel did not even consider previously, which is the complete ethnic cleansing and depopulation of Gaza. Uh Nenya is now saying this will be done voluntarily. They will create mechanisms for the people of Gaza to
leave voluntarily, and that they will all leave. It's a fantasy, but it appears that Nena was unwilling to move forward as long as there's at least a possibility that this could happen. I guess it's who knows what it is. Part of this agreement. There's supposed to be thousands of mobile homes and new aid that Israel is allowing in hamas is in order to I think, get three hundred mobile homes brought into Gaza. That's that's another thing. That's
that's re upping this hostage exchange. Now two of these hostages. I don't know if you followed this story are deeply mentally ill people who stumbled into Gaza in twenty fourteen and twenty fifteen. You follow this, So these folks have nothing to do with October seventh, and to Hamas's discredit, they should have released these these men years and years and years ago. So what happened in twenty fourteen and a Jewish Ethiopian guy, he's from Ethiopia, he came to
is really deeply mentally ill. He had wandered, i think into the West Bank many times, he was a known figure there. One day he just wanders into Gaza and he gets captured like immediately and amas, what on earth is going on here? And they realized in pretty short order that it's a crazy person. And they had just done the eled Shalite deal, which they exchanged the soldier for thousands of Palestinians, and so there's still thousands of
Palestinians held. So you can see it from Hamases perpectively, like, oh, well, now we have an Israeli hostage, let's exchange him for they on thousands more. And so they tried that for several years. And then another a Bedouin man who was also deeply mentally a wanders into Gaza in twenty fifteen and they capture him too. But it quickly became clear that Israel's like this Ethiopian guy and this Bedouin, we're
not training you anything for them. And so you could say that's you can say that's two Israel's discredit that they were not treating those citizens with equal dignity. But at that point, if you're Hamas, it's like let the guys go. You're not getting anything for them. So they've held these poor guys for ten years at this point, so now they're finally getting let out.
Now.
The big controversy over the last couple of weeks has been over the Bebas family. This one you followed, yes, right, and we have some news on this from drop site from Jeremy Skhill. So this is Sheery Ariel Kiff Beabas, a mother and her two children. So there was some false hope in Israel that they would be released last
week as part of this exchange. However, as Jeremy reports here and notes, back in November of twenty twenty three, Hamas announced that they had all been killed in Israeli airstrike. The Muja had Dean brigades put out their own statement and they said it was one of their factions that because you know, October seventh wasn't just Hamas once once the fence was broken, a bunch of other groups disconnected
from Hamas broke through. There were a lot of rumors that this that there was the Mujahideen Brigades that had taken the Bibas family. We now can confirm, you know that that that is what happened. Uh. They are an offshoot of FATA, which is the kind of rival of Hamas, so that you know, there's some collaboration between between all factions,
but they're essentially a rival group. And so their spokesperson says uh, within the framework of the first phase of the prisoner exchange agreement with the Resistance, the bodies of the Biba's family who were captured by a group of arm muja Hadeen will be handed over tomorrow Thursday. They were they were preserved and treated well according to the teachings of the True Islam, before they were bombed by the Zionist occupation missiles and were killed along with the
captor group. The brigades preserved the family's bodies throughout the stages of the war until the date of handover unquote. So if you remember in November there was this week long ceasefire where all children and many women were exchanged. They were supposed to be part of that, but they were killed before that, before that exchange. We talked last
week about this nine to seven to two report. I don't know if you saw this that was of course you saw your here that talked about how Israel had discovered that if they used these bunker buster bombs, they sucked all of the oxygen out of tunnels as well. So even if they didn't know precisely where somebody they were targeting was, as long as they got it within several hundred meters, they could suffocate anybody in that area.
And after October seventh there was a high value placed on revenge against anybody that they believed was involved with October seventh. That's understandable. However, if you were a militant involved in October seventh, the chance that you are now with a hostage, it's pretty high they have. Israel has since changed its rules of engagement over how they try to assess whether or not there is a risk of killing a hostage in a strike.
According to the New York Times.
According to New York Times in October and November, there was effectively no concern for that. If there was a high value target and you didn't have affirmative evidence that there were definitely hostages around this high value target, you were able to green light the attack. It is in that context that we know that Israel killed these these three hostages and also the all the people you know
who were their captors around them. You've seen from some commentators on this the killing of these children and their mother to be evidence of Hamas' is like depravity, and so I just think it's important people have all of the context here.
The kidnapped them.
Well, Hamas didn't. It was a mujahidingbergrade, you're saying, But also you should there is no excuse to take children, period. So even if Israel killed them, there's there is absolutely no excuse under any circumstance.
Now that's barbarism and depravity in and of itself.
And Hamas should have found some way to pressure the muja Hitden brigades to release them before Israel was able to kill them, but it happened within weeks.
And then the Hamas distinction to the point you just made is important because political negotiations. Hamas is saying October seventh, our operation, this was not us, right. And when Jeremy references media reports about the Israeli Israeli strike and the mom and children, is that is that to say like this has been like Israeli media has said, we have definitive evidence that this was bunker busting.
Like that it was, so they don't Israeli media doesn't know because Israel at the time was carpet bombing, you know, ministry, major parts of the area, and and it you know, it seems like they had identified probably through some type of signals intelligence like following people's phones. The captors I see say like, okay, we followed these phones because you can you know, look, you know you can just go
on your phone. You know, Apple now can follow your location, so they could follow Okay, this crew, these Muja hitting brigades, they went into Israel on October seventh, they are now here in this area. That that is the most likely scenario that that they identified these are some terrorists who went into Israel on October seventh, and there's some and then they and then they bombed them without thinking like what did they Okay, we saw they went to a kabutz,
we saw they went back. Who did they take Israeli hostages back with them? And if so, let's actually not bomb them as much as we would love, as satisfying as would be to us to kill them, the like the high likelihood that you're going to kill hostages with them, and so that it is, it is known for certain that you know, a significant number of hostages were killed under those circumstances, and that has been deeply damaging to
Danahu and to the entire Israeli society. But it it took it took a very long time for them to reassess that. But that policy, and then.
Thing is, I don't have an answerive seems that I remember a little bit that FATA reportedly coordinated a bit on October seventh with Hamas, and Hamas has said basically became a frenzy that there was like a precise operation planned, but then it kind of started snowballing into something different. But there is reporting that FATA was coordinating with Hamas.
There there was, Yeah, there's some indication that there were that they knew that something was going to happen, but they were formally part right, because they were because the Casamber Gades, which led the the operation, for obvious reasons, wanted utmost secrecy. Yeah, oh yeah, and they don't trust Fatah because FATA's well not only are they their rivals,
you know they got links to the PA. PA's got links to Israel, to Israel, so you don't know who like, so there was there was, but you know, they wanted back up. So they wanted it known there's going to be something happening, but they didn't want to let them know precisely. I mean, what did happen?
And even more stunning intelligence failure on Israel's behalf. But the last thing I want to say is I think Jeremy's tweet to the House was House Foreign Affairs Committee is just.
Important, That's right. Which one was that it was.
One of the early Yeah, there it is. They're saying Hamas executed a mother and her two children in cold blood and reference to these specific family and it's.
A good and actually that next line is really important. So if you're just listening along the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republicans say, quote, this is barbarism, and then this is the key point. Israel has every right to finish the job and eradicate these terrorists from the face of the earth. So it is known at this point, this was yesterday. It is known at this point that Hamas did not execute a mother and her two children cold blood, this
particular family. Yeah, Yet the House Republicans here are using that claim to say, now we need to eradicate and that's being done in the context of Trump's push to ethnically cleanse the entire area.
So, and the reason, I just think what Jeremy said is important, even though to some people they may say, well, October seventh was barbarism and prouty, Well it was, and that's sort.
Of The pets took civilians, absolutely, killed hundreds.
Absolutely, And that's sort of the point here is that the House for Affairs Republicans, maybe some social media staffer posted this, but you don't have to go along with misinformation here. You don't have to. And I think there's so much I mean, we've talked at length about how the Sharin Abubakola case personally just was an interesting, I guess gateway to a lot of different things on my end. But you don't have to rely on misinformation. You don't have to build so much of this on the house
of cards. That is misinformation. You don't have to build your case on that. And repeatedly it is built on misinformation. That's just sort of I don't want to use the phrase too good to check, but too convenient.
I know what you mean.
Yeah, it's too convenient for the narrative to check.
Yeah, and there's no price to pay domestically in the US, like, there's no there's going to be no consequence for the House Foreign Affairs, Republicans or anything.
They didn't even delete it up.
Yeah, because anybody who come fact checks it like we're doing then gets accused of, yes, you know, being apologists for like kidnapping them.
It's incredibly sensitive to do it without looking callous because otherwise you just look like a fact check bro, like you're swooping in to say, well.
But actually brutal, but they didn't do that.
Yeah, yeah, so yes, I mean, but that's how the cycle perpetuates itself.
Yeah, speaking of barbarism, quickly, before we move to this incredible story out of Miami and put up this last Jeremy post. In Israel, five five Israeli military reservists have been indicted for the torture of a Palestinian who had
been held at stay time in prison. This was a case that made international headlines because there was video of it, and because it then was debated in the Kanessets, with people in the Kannesset arguing that there should not be any prosecution for this, that it is within the Israeli reservists right to do whatever it is that they believe
they want to do to Palestinian detainees. And the counter argument in the Kannesset, and by the way, this led to those infamous right to rape protests, the counter argument in the Kannesisset was not this is wrong and it should be prosecuted because it's wrong. Counter argument was, according to the International Criminal Court, they only have jurisdiction if there is no accountability mechanism within the state itself, and
that's Congo, Kenya, Israel. It doesn't matter. The ICC does not have jurisdiction if there are prosecutors on the case in a particular state. And so there were people in the Canessa that said, we have to prosecute some people for something, or we're all going down. So let's prosecute
these guys. They're caught raping a detainee on video. Let's just you know, basically, just throw them under the bus so that we can show the ICC that we're doing something, and then our lawyers of the ICC can show them this indictment say, look, you don't have jurisdiction here because when people commit crimes here, we prosecute them. But the indictment,
which people can find online is just extraordinary. Quote. For fifteen minutes, the accused kicked the detainee, stomped on him, stole on his body, hit him, and pushed him all over his body, including with clubs, dragged his body along the ground, and used a taser gun on him, including on his head. During the assault, the blindfold came off the detaining and moments later one of the soldiers stabbed the detaining in his buttock with a sharp object, which
caused an internal tear in his rectal wall. They then used a t shirt to try to cover up the bleeding, but after a while the bleeding became so intense that he was taken to taken to the hospital. He had the result of the suffering, according to the indictment, which is based on medical records, includes seven broken ribs, of punctured lung terar in his rectum and injuries all over his body. So they have been indicted, so that is good, incredible. It would be better if he was indicted because they
believed that this was wrong, and some absolutely do. But the most persuasive argument being made for why they should be indicted is so that other people don't get dragged before the ICC.
I mean, I guess that's the idea, and the post World War two reforms to have some of these international bodies is to create incentives for better behavior.
So in that case, okay, there we go, there you go.
That's the glass half full, all right, Yeah, it doesn't matter why.
There was a report released last week about that prison thirty Pagde human rights report that barely made a ripple, and you read through it, you're like, one of the things they say, that gravel that they mentioned there, they make people sit on the sharp gravel for sixteen straight hours without being able to move. If you and I had to sit in these chairs for sixteen hours, you can't do it for sixteen seconds and then they're nice cushion like, these are comfy chairs, but don't want to
move around. Would still be torturous, Yeah, on sharp gravel like anyway. So this is the things that were described in that indictment are happening as you and I speak, two people right now, and will be happening the rest of today and tomorrow and the day after, the end of the day after that. Let's move to Miami. This this incredible story.
Incredible there.
So over the weekend we can put this guardian element up on the screen. This first one, Mordecai Braffman, twenty seven year old Jewish man, is driving down the highway in Miami and sees what he thinks are two Palestinians, gets out, stops them.
For even just stopping there. That's weird.
Yeah, look what are you doing? Keep driving? Yes, he gets out, stops them and opens fire with a semi automatic handgun. If this wasn't if there wasn't some video evidence of this, plus the direct testimony of Braffman himself, I'd be like, there's no way any of this is true. Agree, So Braffman, so that he fails to kill these two people who.
Are seventeen shots, He gets off seventeen shots in Miami Beach.
They turned out to be Israeli tourists, is Rahi Jews in Miami. We're going to talk about that. Talk about that. More so, he was mistaken about their religious identity. They run, they and we have a video of them trying to get into this conrad to get some help. One shot in the shoulder, the other was only grazed in the arms. That's how they were able to live. Police come to the scene and they capture Brafman and they arrest him. They bring him in, they interrogate him and he confesses.
He said, I saw two Palestinian men and I killed them both.
I killed two Palestinians.
That's what he tells them. Turns out he learns later his two mistakes he made. He didn't actually kill them, and they were not Palestinian.
When you mow people down from a car, it's interesting.
To say they're not Palestinian from Palestine. And we'll talk about that in a moment. After they are shot at one of them posts on social media. We can put this up on the screen. They tried to murder us in the heart of Miami, but the creator of the world is with us, so he didn't go. He said, my father and I went through a murder attempt against anti Semitic background, so he blames anti Semitism for it. So I want to say thank you to everyone for their support. And it is not taken for granted with
Israel Live Israel, Death to the Arabs. So this is the guy who has a bullet in his shoulder because the Miami guy thought he was a Palestinian, but he kind of is Arab. So this is a weird thing that that's what's so complicated about this whole question. Yes, and he's they are considered to be you know, Arab by a lot of Israelis even though they are Jewish Israelis.
I mean, put put up this vo here, so here here, here, these here, these guys are giving an interview describing, you know, what happened, and you can see, like you can see why if you're a Miami guy who doesn't live in Israel, you were like, oh, those these are Palestinian guys. Although I'm not sure why he didn't think, like this is Miami could have it could have been Colombian Mexican like Puerto Rican urban possibil are endless. How you picked them out as Palestinian.
That you were just driving through Miami Beach and you see two dudes that you think might be Palestinian and start it's.
Not in Miami either.
Insane. It's insane that none of it really makes sense.
The same guy, by the way, Mordecai Local News interviewed him months ago because there was some vandalism of a Jewish flag at a coffee shop, and he did one of those men on the Street interviews where he says, I wish we could all just get along. Why does there have to be so much strife and conflict? And so they replayed that interview with him, and then months later he pulls over and just opens fire on two guys because he thinks extremely weird with Arab So, I
don't know if you guys follow alone with Rahi. He's a Israeli as his last name on Twitter says is Rahi Jew from Israeli from Israel. He has actually since left Israel recently. He now lives in the United States. He's so driven, so insane by what was going on in Israel, so he wrote on Twitter large following here he says what most people don't get about the incident in Miami where a Jewish man alone is Jewish, where a Jewish man shot to other Israelis whom he thought
were Palestinians. Is the inter Jewish racism. The shooter is an Ashkenazi, a white European Jew. His victims are Arab Jews. To him, brown Jews look like Arabs, but that's only because they are. If there ever was a more perfect demonstration of the facan made up the idea of a Jewish ethnicity or nation, I never heard about it. His victims, by the way, would rather he shot them again that
admit their Arabs. And I think, I think alone is almost fair in saying that, because after they got shot, Yeah, death to the Arabs. And his point here is that these guys are Arabs, that they have lived in Arabia forever, for thousands of years. Zionist brainwashing is the strongest propaganda material invented by mankind, he says. And so Arab Jews would rather die than face their arabness, and white Jews would rather kill Arab Jews that acknowledge the humanity of Arabs.
This is from an Arab, an Arab Jew, So you're like, you can imagine what his experience was like as an Israeli citizen that drove him to say this and then to also leave and move to the United States.
I can't wrap my head around the story being true. It's completely wild, and the lack of media coverage over it is also absolutely insane. I do think it's true that had this been a case of like.
If the shooter was Arab, it's crazy, it would be wall to wall cover.
We'd be hearing a lot more about it. But I don't know if media is just as confused about what to do with the story. It seems enormously significant to me that somebody fires seventeen shots at people they drove by on Miamph. I mean, it's just an insane story, but there's so little coverage of it. I mean, I don't know if it's just because people are confused with how to handle it doesn't fit into any narrative very conveniently, but it's insane.
Yeah, And you know, people often make the argument that the Israeli occupation is obviously you know, the primary victims of the Israeli occupation are those who are occupied. But Israelis themselves are victimized in the sense that the necessity of carrying out or the action of carrying out a brutal occupation of another produces in your society the kind of thing that alone is describing there a stratification of racism, hatred that then drives a wedge between even Jewish Israeli
citizens based on color and ethnic origin. And like you said, it's like the whole idea of Israel is to create this national identity where all at least all Jews inside Israel or equal. And what he's saying is that this is another another example of how that's just not the case.
Jews inside of Israel in theory equal, not based on skin color, but based on Jewishness. And that's incredibly complicated for a society to accomplish when it's there are distinctions like literal tribal distinctions.
Yeah, yeah, and there's some and there's some color involved, a little whiter, a little less white.
Right, crazy story, crazy story not getting nearly enough of.
New York Times, which is something like live blog the campus protests and had like fifteen different editors, you know, working on the story and where was it in the Netherlands, the soccer each other Like that was like an all hands on deck moment for the New York Times. But Miami they can't. They don't have anybody in Miami, seventeen shots five. I think New York Times might have some readers in Miami.
Probably, yeah, probably, well increasingly probably last But all right, let's move on to Steve Bannon. We're joined now by my colleague get unheard, James Billow, who had the great pleasure of interviewing Steve Bannon actually in the war Room studio and made headlines all over the place, ended up in the New York Times Politico because Steve Bannon told James that Elon Musk was quote a parasitic illegal immigrant
and actually much more so. James, First of all, thank you so much for joining us today.
Thank you a pleasure to be all.
Tell us about your meeting with Bannon. What is the war room studio like? What was it like being there talking to him in the flash after the guilty plea? I think you talked to him just a couple of days after that all happened. How are his spirits?
He was in a great mood and actually a pretty garrulous chap. I'm I'm sure that'll come as no surprise whatsoever, but that it was too deftly he pled guilty to the board of wolfsm But more importantly in his eyes, there was nominational confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy, which he was in a very good mood about. I think the thing with Bannon is that although he's red lines with the Keys and he's very positive about the likes of Tulsi and Robert Fie joining the movement, he's very big
on the MAHA stuff. In his words, he's like, I'm so glad we got the red pilled moms and the anti vaxers that were all coming to join forces. It wasn't actually really sure how big this constituents. I asked him, how many people do you ac think the Tulsi's Kennedy's the world bringing over? And he seemed to think it was somewhere between five and ten million, all thanks to the radicalization of COVID, which is maybe possible, maybe a bit of a stretch. But as for his studio, it
was a complete mess. There was memberbilius over the place. There was religious be a lot of reminders and signs to fight, fight Fight. I'm sure that pretty familiar to everyone. But you know, he's very diligent about what he does. He has markings all over these little newspapers, wall Street Journal ft and then has MSNBC on the background because he comaga better than anyone else on the right desk.
So yeah, he's a very interesting chat and it was good to good to speak with him and spend so long with him.
One of the things you picked up on was his ambivalent relationship or with Elon Musk at this point, where on the one hand he says Elon Musk is a parasitic illegal immigrant and the tech frows need to be driven out of this coalition. On the other hand, he says, right now, I trust Trump because Trump is using Musk as blunt, blunt force instrument to go after the administrative state. Now,
Bannon is not one for austerity. Now, he'll talk about how the deficit and the debt are out of control and the country needs to do something about that, but he does not want to go after Medicaid, social security, Medicare. He does not want tax cuts for the rich. He's fine with the tax cuts, no tax on tips, that sort of thing that he hates. The administrative state. Musk and his Musk and and russ vote, you know, seem much more to be driving towards real austerity, like genuine
austerity what's what's what's Bannon's relationship to vote though? You know, Trump's o MB director because like Bannon's antiosterity credit is undermind if he's too close to vote. So how should we think about where Bannon is on this? On this question?
I agree because his his MAGA well view co hit is in a lot of respect. There's these kind of populist measures that he is in favor of enforcing, you know, the as you mentioned, no taxes on over time and no tax on tips and that kind of thing, while at the same time reduced spending in the defense industry
of the Pentagon. The weird thing is he's actually got a very good relationship with russ even though he is this kind of arch Austerian, as you mentioned in the Wall Street Journal piece that or so before mine, when they're doing a tour around his studio, he got a call from russ vote basically outlining you're the one in charge, not go and do your job. A bit further than that, he was quite keen to show off.
He broke uple. He broke up a little bit there. What was the what was the call? What was the relationship there?
Oh?
Sorry, So he got a call from russ Vote basically asking for his advice, and it was the effect of balance response that you're in charge here, you can decide. And I asked him a bit more about this in our meeting and he said he has a very good relationship with Russfo.
And he says, look, you're the one in charge.
Now do push you around doges one that has been elected or appointed.
You are the one in charge.
Now.
What I found strangers, as you mentioned RUSSFO is this kind of ultra Austerian tax libertarian type. And I said, we why have you got such a close relationship with this guy? And he's like he's been a part of the alliance for eight plus years. I trust him. Always seems to come down to this trust. And again with Trump, you employing all these measures like you're going to redo the twenty seventeen jobs and tax cuts, even though that's
going to increase the deficits. You know, I just backed Trump to do the rep to make the right decision. I just backed Trump to keep muscle and the other wrangled. So does seem to be this weird paradox aradiction and worldview that I can't head around. But yeah, he's a big fan of russbo He's a big fan of Project twenty twenty five.
He said he loved the document.
The only thing he didn't like were these two entitlements and stuff like that, which again because that there's a big part of what RUSS vote is about.
Well, Emily, can you help us with that, Like how do we disentangle this? Because if Bannon does trust russ Vote, then I'm out of here, Like come on, like what's going on here?
Bannon's no longer ye, I'm off the the hero that well, so RUSS vote being trusted by Bannon is a really interesting point, James, because Bannon does sort of see things you quote him in the story talking about how the enemy of his enemy is his friend. But also he very much has this trench warfare bunder mentality that people who have been around the conservative movement and have been
around the Trump movement you just sort of have. Like Russ was a populist in the late aughts and early twenty tens, when populism on the right looked like austerity. It looked like a lot of people here in DC said this is the time to deal with security and titlement programs. They said the Tea Party was something to be interpreted as like a referendum on fiscal conservatism as opposed to maybe this sort of like primal cultural shout
that I think we understand it to be now. And Russ was around, it was at like Republican Study Committee around like Jeb Henzerling and Mike Pence actually at the time in those days. So Bannon sort of looks at vote and says, this man has always had populist instincts. He's always been a part of the so called movement, and if you're around the conservative movement, people really do have this instinctive trust. And it sounds like James, that's
what you picked up on. I'm also curious if you could just tell us a little bit more if on the flip side of that, some of this is Bannon seeing Elon Musk. He's referred to him as somebody who's a convert, so he should be sitting in the back pew before. Was it sort of like volcanic visceral when you were talking to him about Elon Musk. I know we've used the parasitic illegal immigrant quote that made headline, but he told you some more about Musk as well.
Yeah, and I just just about russ vote.
I think the left is often criticized for these ideological purity tests, and it's almost like the right far the other way.
They'll basically let anyone in the movement because grow, even though.
It's quite becomes quite difficult to paper over these quite noticeable contradictions between various groups. As for Musk, he was definitely at his most animated him. I don't know if you guys remember this interview ban I don't know if you remember this, but Bannon did an interview with an Italian newspaper just before Another day where he was asked about Elok and that's when he is a truly evil guy and everything in my power to run him out of office before inauguration.
He obviously failed in that. And I brought this up and I said, well, what do you plan to do now?
And again it's this weird paradox because he said, well, I think that the last two two weeks, two three weeks of administration has confirmed that Musk is indeed evil. The Doge cuts being completely performative. They haven't a Oh and by the way, he's an agent of Chinese influence. Well, why the hell are you laying office. Why aren't you pushing to get him out? And he says, I just trust Trump. Trump is going to keep an eye on him.
He has served a purpose. He's, as you mentioned, Ryan, here's this armor piercing shell taking on this administrative shape. Because let's not forget that was one of the three totems of his twenty seventeen platform. And he still is absolutely desperate to take on this what he calls praetorian guard and if that means wrangling the tech rows in the world's richest man, then he's absolutely going to.
Be doing it.
James Billow of Unheard, thank you so much for your time this morning. I know you're probably inundated with people being like, damn, tell me more about that conversation, So thank you.
Thanks well.
Drama continues in New York over Eric Adams, the agreement Eric Adams made with the Trump administration over migrant deportations. Now. Tom Holman, who is Donald Trump's Borders Are, was asked about some pushback from Alexandria Cosioquortez on Fox News and gave quiet an answer. Let's roll this clip.
Heard you talking about AOC over the weekend. Do you believe she is breaking the law.
Hull leing that up to doj When I find this servance that any member of Congress wants to educate people how they bade law enforcement, you can claim you're educating those constitutions rights. Okay, you can keep that claim. What's what she in facts doing? Tell people don't open your door,
hiding at home, don't talk to Ice. We're talking about people are in the country legally committed a crime their public safety thread, They've been convicted of serious crime, and they've in order to be moved by federal judge so it's able to see. And others don't want Ice to enforce the laws that they enacted. She's a member of Congress. Let us enforce the laws you enacted. That's what we're supposed to do.
You can't go after her.
Do you think others should?
No?
I think I've asked you, Jade, where where is that line of impediment of interference? Now someone standing in your way for Benu from wrestling, somebody put your hands on and that's impediment. But what what line is telling people to hide from myce not open the door? Want where do you cross that line on a Department of Justice give us that line. You have talked to him about this, That's what you're saying, absolutely.
And so that's not an off the cuff response. He he had said that multiple times previously. And I think Fox there is seeing if he's going to clean that up or if he's actually if this is where he stands. So and so what Homan is saying is that AOC, by giving clinics in her district or by talking openly on Instagram Live or whatever and saying, look, they're called know your Rights trainings like here, here are the rights that you have. You know, right to remain silent, blah
blah blah. You know the basic rights that we have country, which there's nothing in the constitution that says our rights are restricted to citizens. If you are in this country, you have these, You have these rights in general. So AOC responded by going after JD. Vance and saying, you lied to the world in Munich. If this administration believed in free speech as you claimed, its leaders wouldn't be threatening members of Congress with criminal investigations for educating the
public of their constitutional rights. And so the other element here that I think is interesting is that AOC has gotten a lot of mockery for previous suggestions that the Trump administration was going to come after her criminally, Like, don't be ridiculous, you know this is you're being hysterical. It's February, like they haven't been in office a month and a court and Holman is talking to the Department of Justice asking them whether or not she has broken the law.
He's asking for the line between helping criminals evade prosecution or deportation. That's what he said. He's trying to figure out.
There is a crime called impeding, which if you are getting in the way of immigration officials, you can be charged with that. In fact, I covered this utterly insane case that was run by a Democratic Attorney General or democratic US attorney under the Obama administration named Carmen Ortiz, who, for nakedly political purposes, went after this bureaucrat who who's cleaning lady or nanny like, came to her and said, I think, like I don't have papers, Like what should
I do? And the woman said something like, well, don't leave the country because if you do, you're not gonna be able to come back back in and you should apply for a green card. And here's how you can do that, which like very standard, normal, like non non criminal behavior. She charged that person with impeding and got
a conviction out of it. It became a controversial case and she was criticized for it, but she got that that was However, a direct conversation with one individual about a specific case, AOC talking to a community group full of people were talking on Twitter in general about your constitutional rights, to me, is crazy. If you want to talk about criminal behavior, we should talk about the Home and Eric Adams deals, which is still the saga of which is still ongoing.
And let's go to a one. We can put that up on the screens. To New York Times headline from Monday, which reads, four top New York City officials this's the first paragraph, said they would resign after the Justice Department moved to dismiss Mayor Eric Adams corruption case in exchange for his help with President Trump's deportation agenda. The four officials oversee much of New York City government, and their departure is poised to blow a devastating hole in the
already wounded administration of Mayor Eric Adams. Brian, this is actually starting to wound the administration of Governor Kathy Hochel as she faces increasing calls to get rid of Eric Adams, which is within her power. Yes, I mean Democrats are now increasingly calling on Kathy Hokle to get this guy out of there. She has to be careful, obviously, because Eric Adams's previous immigration policies were wildly unpopular, not just in the city of New York, but around the entire state.
So she doesn't want to look like she's you know, this is retribution for Eric Adams cracking down on a legal immigration and assisting the Trump administration on one of its most popular policies. On the other hand, he's a huge albatrosh Yeah, And.
The argument for moving him from office is that he ran and claimed that he would be carrying out his duties and the best interests of the voters who put him in office, but instead, in order to stay out of prison, he struck a deal with the Trump administration to be their lackey. The evidence for that claim comes from Tom Holman Adams and who said it. Let's let's put d two up this Fox and Friends admission. I mean, he doesn't come through towhere.
If he doesn't come true, I'll be back in New York City and we won't be sitting on the couch up in his office up up his same word, a hell is an agreement we came to So I wanted.
We're going to deliver before the safety of the people of this city.
And then he but you see Eric Adams there, He's like, we're going to deliver for this city, the people of New York City. As if we didn't just see him say out loud, we we have an agreement and if you break it, yeah, I'm gonna be up your butt.
Yep. Which anyway, well, we can put D three on the screen, Eric Adams. This is another New York Times headline. It's now up to the judge whether to drop charges in the Adams case, so that can is kicked into or listen, the ball keep giving the metaphors. Here goes into the court of the judge because Emil Bove, the acting Deputy Attorney General, made that issue last Monday. So
now it goes to the courts. Or by the way, Kathy Hokeel could get rid of Eric Adams and a lot of this, but obviously it's still going to the Trump administration. Well still yeah, the Trump administration still has to still be litigated by the Trump administration, or will be the backlash of the Trump administration's decision will still be litigated. Now, Eric Adams is going to be in court today. That's news we learned yesterday talking about all of this.
Now, as viewers of this program know, there is this Stephen Donziger alternative go on. So when Donziger as an O. If you guys followed our program, you've seen Donziger interviewed. He's the Chevron attorney who was prosecuted as part of his successful Ecuadorian civil case against Chevron. Chevron then came after him criminally back here in the United States. The US attorneys saw the evidence that Chevron had compiled and
declined to go forward with prosecution. Chevron went to the judge anyway, and the judge decided to hire a private prosecutor who had links to Chevron also and enable that prosecutor, this private one, to prosecute on behalf of the government, a case that the government itself had said that they didn't want to bring. Donziger refused to turn over his documents and his phones, and that such was found in contempt and did more than like a year plus or
so in prison. So of course like that's that is a standard that is held for environmental attorneys who win victories against Chevron, not for in general mayors. But it is a precedent that exists that this judge, if they felt like it could appoint, could go to a law firm and say, look, I think I've looked at this indictment and it's rock solid. Get a private prosecutor. That would be funny. What would what would the just Department do? Then?
Both is on a firing rampage recently, just yesterday asked for what's a prosecuting chang I for heard the first.
Is D six. Yeah, if we put DEI six up on the screen. This is another senior US prosecutor resigned citing a demand a probe Biden era conduct. This is Denise Chung, the supervised criminal cases at the US Attorney's Office in Washington, and Gorden Reuter said she had been ordered to open a probe into a contract that she did not identify and that she believed request was not supported by evidence.
This was about the EPA thing where the e p A on the way out. Yes, that's set up. This arrangement where nonprofits were going to be executing the Inflation Reduction Acts mandates, and so they moved they moved the money out. There was a Project Veritas video that came out where some Biden person was saying, we're throwing the gold bars off the Titanic, as were.
Which was thinking, it appears that they actually really were.
Yes, However, lawfully, it's like Congress's Congress appropriated the money and directed it to be spent, and their fear was that if they didn't spend it, then the next administration would block it from being spent, which would undermine Congress is you know, uh, lawfully executed appropriations. And so they moved them out quickly, and so Chang said, I don't think that you have enough to open a grand jury here, and then both said, well, then I want your Uh No,
it wasn't both. It was Martin who said at Martin is that I want your resignation. So she tendered it. So it did seem like she was willing to work with the FBI to try to go to the banks to get the money back.
It's not impossible to me that there was potentially misconduct. There should be. Stuff looked into when you know, people talking like gold bars off the Titanic. But I think actually this brings us to the point that I wanted to make, which is this is in a D five. Some of this, I think people on the right are correct to assume is lit miss tests for loyalists. They're
sort of looking to push for self deportations. In the earliest days of Trump's two point zero doj and byron Yorke and The Washington Examiner had a pretty good piece walking through what substance of argument there may have been for dropping the case against Eric Adams, comparing it to the overzealous prosecution of Bob McDonald, even Chris Christie. Some of this has been bipartisan, by the way, just cases
that end up going nowhere against politicians. And I think this is interesting because Jason Willock in the Washington Post wrote on the quote underwhelming charges against Eric Adams, but said this was a hugely botched operation by the Trump administration, which was making this sort of thin case about election interference, that you're not allowed to investigate politicians when the voters have the potential to cast ballots about this politician, or
that this was just about the illegal immigration deal, you know, it's more valuable. This is what Emil Bob said in a letter that was very widely circulated back and forth with Sassoon, who resigned. We covered this last week with Crystal, that it was more valuable to get adams cooperation on migrant deportations than it was to prosecute him for this crime. So a lot of people are right, I think correctly, see the DOJ as a place where a lot of
career politicians are very hostile to Donald Trump. They're hostile to people who are loyalists to Donald Trump, and they want to purge the dj of those people. And some of these measures are going to be ways that force people to kind of self deport and they have no problem with that whatsoever. On the other hand, there's probably a legitimate case to be made that this is part of a decade plus long pattern of prosecutors at the Justice Department putting politicians in the crosshair, and some of
these cases end up falling apart. The bottom Donald case is a really good example. Eric Adams is clearly corrupt. There's absolutely no question that Eric Adams is corrupt. There isn't like some Russia Gate thing that's going to be unraveled here.
So was McDonald right, Yeah.
I mean is taking yes, but the cases suck, And I think that's a legitimate point that then got I think unfortunately because of the Trump administration. Doesn't mean the media coverage was great, but because of the Trump administration lost because it was clearly a partisan move. It was clearly about Eric Adams supporting the partisan ends of Donald Trump. So you end up in the death spiral once again.
If you're trying to clean up this Banana Republic death spiral in the Justice Department with partisan maneuvers, it doesn't end up working, right.
And what I think is going on here is just more gangland stuff where the Trump Justice Department is trying to figure out who's going to be unquestionably loyal to Trump, and so they came up with a completely unethical and absurd thing for them to do so that which is to drop the charges against this guy in exchange for him doing your policy bidding, which to somebody who works at the Justice Department has gone through all the legal brainwashing about their ethics and brain and brainwashing in a
good way, I think literal washing like get clean with this stuff, like that's you don't do that. Daniel Sisson's letter is well said on this, but it's obvious, like that's not how that's not how the Department Justice sees itself.
So to order the Department Justice to explicitly do that is to root out, weed out all of the people who have a conscience, and to have left only the ones who are like, yeah, I'll do it just in the same way that there's a gang initiation to you have to go out and you know, shooting innocent civilian.
I'm sure some people inside the DOJ are frustrated with these prosecutions falling apart and appeal and all of that. So maybe there are some people, maybe there's some good attorneys internally, so Soon actually may have been one of them, someone who's stuck around initially who were sort of frustrated by these processes and are open to changing them. But yeah, like it took what I think is a pretty good opportunity to make the case about bipartisan over zealous prosecutions.
I mean, this goes back to what goes back a long time. But you can look at Comy and Martha Stewart, like there are just all kinds of examples of this stuff going on at the DJ for the FBI too for a really long time. So it just this was a very very poor partisan way to make the argument, and that just isn't encouraging in terms of the Trump administration's ability to clean up the DOJ in a way
that makes it neutral, responsive to the president. But like justice should be blind, this just ended up landing in a very different way, even though I think one thing that's being missed the conversation is that there have been and this does appear to be a somewhat over zealous prosecution and underwhelming case on the very narrow specific legal question. The broader question is he correct. Clearly he is corrupt.
There's plenty of evidence in the indictment that is plain this day on that and in related news, the Trump administration just announced that they do not plan to follow the Rhode Island federal judges.
Order that they restart USAID in foreigns service funding. Their argument is that you go f off, you know, basically, the way that they're couching it in their reply is we are going to continue to evaluate on a case by case basis. So now it's kind of up to that judge who's going to say, okay, well, I made my order. How am I going to enforce it? We'll see.
Let's move on to Lena Khan and other news about justice and Trump two point zero. We have a great guest, and we're excited to talk about the big win for Lena Khan.
Yesterday, all right, stick around for that. Yesterday, Trump's FTC chair put out a major new announcement that he was going to keep in place the merger guidelines that had controversially been put into place originally by Biden's FTC chair Lina Khan. You put this first element up on the screen. This is This is Andrew Ferguson saying, look, today I'm inforido the FTC staff that the twenty three merger guidlands are in effect and will serve as the framework for
agency's merger review analysis. These guidelines build on previous guidelines and many decades of case law that stability is important for enforcement. Agencies in the business community can roll the rest of that so people can read it, pause and
read it if they're watching. But I wanted to get reaction from Doha Mecki, who served as the Biden administration's chief in the Anti Trust Division, towards the end, and as the deputy chief and the Anti Trust Division through I guess most of his tenure and have no you know, you've been working with Lenacon for a long time, towards towards this day, towards this idea that there would be a new bipartisan consensus around anti trust and how the
government ought to approach mergers. So, first of all, were you surprised that Ferguson said, Okay, you know what, we're sticking with what Lenikon outlined and then tell us, tell us why it matters.
Sure, So this was not hugely surprising for those of us who have worked in and around the anti trust agencies.
Once Ferguson became chair, it was a signal that I think.
It was a great So let me just back up and say, you know, I worked in the Anti Trust Division of the DOJ on or Barack Obama as a career public servant, and I actually worked for Donald Trump's first head of the Anti Trust Division, a guy named Macan del Raheim, and then had a great honor to serve as principal deputy to Jonathan Canter and then ultimately lead the Anti Trust Division myself at the end of the Biden administration, and so I have seen for a
very long time this bipartisan role towards an anti trust consensus that really prizes going back to first principles. And I think that Donald Trump has made a really important down payment in designating Andrew Ferguson chair of the FTC and nominating a woman named gil Slater to lead the Anti Trust Division of the DOJ. And what I know of both of them is that they are fiercely conservative.
They have a deep fidelity to law, and that means going back to statutes, right the text of statutes, going back to Supreme Court and appellate procesity, and that's good
news for the American people. When we drafted the Merger Guidelines, which is a process that started in twenty twenty two, we undertook a deep review of all of the Supreme Court and appellate cases that had ever been decided on merger antitrust challenges and attempted to write out a document that gave transparency to the business community about how it
was that we were going to undertake merger analysis. And for the first time ever, ever since nineteen sixty eight, those guidelines actually cited case law and so on that telling, it's not surprised, like vibes.
Just vibes basically from the Northity Chicago or something.
There was no citation take case law.
Even though other guidance documents such as that now withdrawn two thousand Competitor Collaboration Guidelines cited law, the merger guidelines never did. And so this is a deeply conservative principle. There's no anti trust exception to statutory interpretation or judicial precedent in antitrust. And so again this is not hugely surprising, and I won't necessarily agree with every decision that the new administration makes, but I think this is a really important one and a good one.
Well, even the Federal Society. People associated with Federal Society just this week we're looking at the con merger guidelines and saying these are pretty reasonable. So maybe if you could tell us just a little bit about some context, what were these merger guidelines? What did they do? And the second tag along part of that question I have is does this send a real chill to the consumer
welfare standard people on the right. And I'm sure you're friends with many of the other people in legal circles who have for years been using consumer welfare standard. It's fallen out of fashion in the last decade ish, But now when you have a Republican president's FTC look at things this way, it seems like a pretty big shift.
Well, let me go give you some history about merger guidelines. So the first merger guidelines were promulgated in nineteen sixty eight. A guy named Don Turner, who led the Anti Trust Division then under LBJ, you know, gave a guidance document that attempted to distill how it was that the anti trust agencies review mergers. You know, for your listeners, there's a certain number of mergers, the biggest mergers, highest dollar value, that have to be notified to the anti trust agencies
every year. And so there's a long tradition of providing transparency to the public about how it is that the agencies decide the legality of mergers. And they've been updated continually.
Nearly every president has updated the merger guidelines at least at one point in their administration, and that was true of the Reagan administration, the Clinton administration, you know, even the first Trump administer stration updated something called vertical Merger Guidelines that have since been superseded.
Yes, and that meant layout for people what that meant because that it is important.
Yeah, it's very very important. So, you know, making clear that when a merger combines to companies and reduces the number of available options for consumers or employers, for workers, or any number of ways, that mergers can really threaten competition. You know, the guidance documents help the public and the business community in particular, can gauge for themselves how it is that the agencies are likely to look at that merger.
And so insofar as the business community was using guidance documents as a sort of you know, litmus test for what kinds of mergers would be permissible, I think this is likely of your very important development for the business community. I remember in twenty twenty three when they were released, there were the sort of usuals who heavily criticized the document and attempted to frame them as radical, which is unusual considering that it was very clear what kind of case law the agencies.
How did they change? So like for decades, it seems like the merger guideline was including from Obama was cool?
Do it?
We don't care, I'm sure those folks would dispute them.
But they were there though. I mean, what was it like to try to flag a merger back then?
You know, there are ways in which there has been a creep and an increased permissiveness about the kinds of mergers that are lawful. And what we saw when we came in was that, you know, there were routinely mergers bound up by something called consent decrees right settlements that ultimately offered no real protection to the public.
So it will allow this merger if you agree to do this thing correct, and then they wouldn't do.
The thing correct, and facially you would have illegal mergers being notified to the agencies. And you know, it raised real questions about why these mergers were being proposed in the first place. But in these Merger guidelines, we tried our best to be very clear, again always summoning the law and going back to first principles about when a merger might harm workers, when a merger that was new to care about workers, you know, you know.
Rather than consumers.
They were contemplated in the prior version of the Merger Guidelines, But these made it very very clear, right, there was no ambiguity about the twenty twenty three merger guidelines. There are also problems in digital markets, right big tech mergers something called killer acquisitions, you know, platform m mergers.
That's where a tech company or something goes out and buys a competitor and.
Then shelves it or mothballs it or folds it into their existing offerings and kills maybe something that they had and development. So there's there's all kinds of ways that you can have problematic mergers and digital markets, and there was really no framework for thinking about those kinds, or no clear framework rather for thinking about how those kinds of mergers can harm real people communicators like Facebook.
It's not exactly the same thing as a monopoly with a hard product.
Exactly, And that that I think was the absurdity of these really old paradigms that haven't existed for a long time. I mean, if you're thinking about every merger as you know, a widget manufacturer acquiring something or bridging with another widget manufacturer, I mean, it's it's it's reallyiculous to think that every merger is horizontal or vertical, which are these again technocratic terms that just don't mean anything in the modern economy.
And so I think that these guidelines, again rooted in law which should make everybody happy, really attempted to take on market realities in the modern market. Right, the way ordinary people participate in our market economy was really reflected in these merger guidelines.
And so when you were chief of the Anti Trust Division, you put out a number of orders and blocks of mergers that pissed off a lot of powerful people. And one of the reactions to that, we talked about this on money. We can put this next element up the screen when to get your take on it was this really wild Brightbart article Biden Anti Trust holdover at Doha. Meki continued, woke agenda instead of taking on big tech.
You know, people can go back and look at our Monday piece where we dissect the evidence laid out in this bright part piece. So without getting too much into it, to go over it again, curious, where do you think this came from?
Like?
Like what how do like what's going on here?
You know, it's hard to speculate where these kinds of things come from, but I'll say that, you know, when I was at the Any Trust Division, we took on powerful interests and made clear that they too had to obey the law. And it's not at all surprising for anyone who's been in our line of work that sometimes it can get vitriolic, that sometimes companies can take it personally. And so, you know, I'll leave others to speculate about
the exact origins. I'll just say that this sort of thing is not surprising, right, because big, entrenched, powerful interests often you know, says that aren't true, attack you personally.
And we always took the view when we were running the Anti Trust Division that it was our job to absorb that kind of blowback, unpleasant as it might be, because we were insulating a career staff prosecutors, economists, statisticians, paralegals who were doing the really difficult work of holding lawbreakers accountable.
Well, and what's interesting about this, Bright, Well, there are many things interesting about the Bridebarn article. But what I find interesting is the point I think Ryan was alluding to. It sounds like some commshop for a really powerful business interest pitched this to Breitbart because you dissect the story as a journalist, you're looking at this, they're like, this is very thin. It's not a well substantiated story. It says at one point quote. None of Macki's actions have
anything to do with countering big tech. And it singles one decision that you made a lot lawsuit just before Trump took office. But it looks like a really thin piece of opo that was pitched to Breitbart, which sort of a lot of conservative media outlets, speaking of somebody who's been in conservative media for a long time, have that sort of reflex to publish that opo from certain
com shops that represent business interests. And I guess I'm curious if you think that this wedge the business community continues to try and drive between like Andrew Ferguson camp and your camp. Is it getting more powerful now that Elon Musk and other massive CEOs have so much sway in the Trump administration and the Republican Party more broadly, Or is what Ferguson did just yesterday, just this week
early signs about anti trust when the Trump administration? Is that a really positive indication actually that this new ideological commitment to rethinking por prior standards is real and here to stay on the right.
You know, I think there's I've heard sometimes that there's a realignment of a kind happening in antitrust and I feel like I've really had a front row seat to some of that because again, I was counseled to Donald Trump's first head of the Anty Trust Division and principal deputy to Biden's head of the Anty Trust Division before leading the institution myself. And this is not at all surprising,
but it's hugely interesting. I think both parties have a sort of factionalism that is playing out, and so many people have observed, myself included that when Donald Trump ran for president in twenty sixteen, there was an element of populism that was real, right, it was very interesting.
And did you see it evolving in the first Trump administration?
Absolutely absolutely, as somebody who was working in that, yeah, absolutely, the Google exactly my past. I saw really bold actions that really started to take hold at the end of Obama and really started to manifest as departures from traditional
kind of libertarian orthodoxy. And so that's the Visa Plaid merger challenge, the AT and T time Warner merger challenge, the filing of the Google Search lawsuit, which is the most significant, you know, section two monopolization tech lawsuit since Microsoft in nineteen ninety eight, and so you know, even in the Democratic Party, there are these forces where you you know, it's not really like center left, you know,
liberal progressive. I mean, there are interests that really prize big powerful corporations and folks who really want to return power to the people. And I see elements of that on the right as well. I was listening to a podcast Ross doubt Hat and Steve Bannon on his podcast. You know, certainly that was not on my bingo card. You know, he called himself and neo Randeisian. But I mean, really, I think even that doesn't do enough to really surface
how interesting his commentary was about the techno feudalists. And again, I sort of I see this potential factionalism in their own party. I see it in conservative organizations. I see it in the conservative legal movement.
And so I think that I think it remains to be seen how that will play out. But I know that there are certain good appointments and decisions that we are likely to see, even if they are in contradiction with other decisions that the new administration makes.
And Lena Khan herself comments that on this also. She said the twenty twenty three merger guidelines emphasize fidelity to law reflect modern market realities, and are increasingly being adopted by courts. Good to see bipartisan commitment to rigorous analysis for policing mergers, and bipartisan commitment, I think is a key term there. When we talked about this on Monday with Sager, one of the points he made it is like, look, if you think that the right is going to get
credit the left here, then you're being naive here. It's not going to happen. On the other hand, you do have people like Hawley, Ted Cruz, even to some extent
jd Vance saying nice things about Lena Kahan. So I'm curious and how much you can tell us about this, how much Cross, how much bipartisan work is being done to forge a coalition, because for forty years or so, there was a bipartisan consensus whereby no matter which party one, whether it was Reagan or Clinton or whoever Bush Obama, the approach to anti trust and labor to some degree
was going to be roughly the same. You'd have three Democrats on the panel and two on two Republicans they'd switch. You'd have three Republicans and two Democrats. But the decisions that would come through the various commissions a FTC and others would be basically the same. And I know that there's been some effort to make that the case, but in reverse, yeah, that there would be a bipartisan consensus that actually, know, the populist approach is the one we're
going to do. Then, whether it's Hawley or Warren or Sanders or so, how much actual coordination is there? Are you guys do you agree and you kind of are moving in your separate lanes forward or are you guys talking?
You know, when I was at the Anti Trust Division, I made it a point to go into explicitly conservative spaces to talk about why ant high trust matters for people of all stripes. And I always felt like I had a warm welcome in those places. You know, whether folks on the right will ultimately credit you know, Democrats, liberals others for you know, intellectual contributions to that movement, I just think that misses the point, right, It's not
really about credit. Right, The American people are suffering. I saw that firsthand. And when I went out and talked to farmers right or invited in ranchers from South Dakota, I wasn't thinking about, oh, well, this is a red state. I was thinking about, these are my fellow Americans, and they're being screwed over by powerful corporate interests, by you know, the oligarchs of whatever industry, right, including agriculture, and so that really means something to people, and I think that's
the important thing, right, working towards a new consensus. Again, I think it remains to be seen whether we ultimately get there, but I think we're seeing movement and progress and this is a really exciting thing to watch.
Well, do thanks for joining us, you seriously thank you do an impressive job covering up your wok agenda. Yes, I couldn't even tell you the sumhere.
Hartbert said that you quoted Dubois and this is your woke agendas. You were approvingly quoting one of the pre eminent black intellectuals.
Yeah, they described him as black.
Ye, black Marxist thinker, I think is what It's all Very absurd, very absurd. We appreciate thank you all.
Right, up next, speaking of Welke this, we've got a little Dave Chappelle segment. Stick around for that.
Well, Dave Chappelle is putting Saturday Night live on Blast actually during the big fiftieth anniversary celebration week of all times, we can go ahead and put this element up on the screen. He alleged in a recent comedy set, according to a journalist who was there, that SNL producers told him he could not talk about Gaza and he could not talk about transgenderism when he hosted the show. I think it was last fall, somewhere around the election, and
Dave Chappelle. This is described in the Deadline article that's up on the screen as sort of a quote shocking instance of potential censorship. I believe he ended up and I think Deadline notes this talking about Palestine in that show and went fairly viral for it. But the idea is that he wasn't supposed to, like wait, into those controversial topics. It is a pretty interesting allegation against Saturday Night Live. Ryan Chappelle has obviously become really popular on
the right. I mean he's always been popular with actually everyone, probably more popular with the left than the right in the past, but he's always been popular with everyone likes this to know, he's a man. But he's gotten a lot of traction on the right because he's been willing over the last half decade plus to from a position of the left say some things about like trans ideology, whether it's like locker rooms bathrooms that the right really
approves of. No, he's saying SNL didn't want to talk want him to talk about Gaza from the left or trans issues from the right. Sort of interesting.
It's funny. You remember we used to have a deal that if I made you talk about an Israel block, yes, then you would make me talk about a trans block because that was you know, several years ago, whenever we launched this program, Like those were the two like most most difficult issues for each of us to talk about. Navigator right to navigate in a way that it's sensitive. Yeah, So he and he talks about he said, he's speaking directly to Trump and he's like, look, you know you
need to take this seriously. You know, the whole world's counting on you. You know, even the people that hate you counting on you. And he said, whether whether it's the people in the Palisades or the people in Palestine, you know you got to treat them with dignity, and also clearly making a reference to Trump's musing about ethnically cleansing the higher region, saying, come on, man, like, what are you doing? Like ridiculous?
Well, when he said that wasn't it? It was before Trump rolled out the Gaza plan, I thought it was what was it? I thought it was back around the fall.
Oh, that's right, that's right. Yeah, yeah, that's right.
Either way, that's that's right, that's right. Sort always bet on the table. But yes, so did you catch by the way you have Saturday Night Lives fiftieth anniversary.
Not much they did watch.
I did watch. Some of it was pretty good. They did a great, shockingly good uh. In memoriam for all of their politically incorrect sketches over the years, they had to blur out. One of the jokes is they had to blur out every time someone in SNL did like a version of blackface.
Rolled the like pretty often Tommy fallon there or it was his somewhere else. I thought Jimmy Kimmel was Jimmy Kimmel.
Jimmy Kimmel is the Yeah, I don't want to.
I don't want to libel anybody on slandering you just.
Did was offensive to the Irish, even though you are Irish.
Yeah, that's right. I can say it, but.
Anyway, it's I think the I guess from Saturday Night Live's perspective. If I'm Saturday Night Live and I bring Dave Chappelle on the show, the benefit of Dave Chappelle is just letting Dave Chapelle do Dave Chappelle.
If you if you invite Dave Chapelle, just let him, let him rip.
Literally, don't edit anything. Just give him a microphone on the stake, say your prayers and.
Let it go. Yeah, and he's just and he's gonna nark you out anyway.
Which appears to be exactly what happened. So I mean, listen, it's it's interesting that to me, it's interesting that Chappelle's SNL appearance I think at this point was a couple of months ago, because to me, it just seems like the culture has shifted so much in the last couple of months, like the last month in particular, that like vibe shift that people sensed when Trump I think, especially after Donald Trump was almost assassinated and you started to
see different figures in pop culture come out and say they were pro Trump, and you started to see his campaign doing really well, it looked like there was something under the surface where culture was about to just kind of accept Trump and a lot of people were going to be just more open to him. Joe Rogan comes on, endorses him, Dana White starts campainting with him, and all
of that. It's just interesting to see how SNL was thinking of it, even just not that long ago, because I'm not sure I don't know how different that would be if he were to come back in host like next week.
But yeah, you're right, that was that was a previous bit that I was thinking of.
It's a good but a very good Yeah, this must have been January, Yeah, because it was Yeah, I think he hosted right in the new year, and he was yes.
And because he's from Ohio, you know, and hangs out around there, he's always seemed to have his finger on the pulse a little bit more than you know, probably a lot of the other people over at Sunday Live.
Yeah, this is he was referring to his when he hosted the show in January. So yeah, he he really said, well, this is how he ended the San Francisco set, by the way, he said, give the Jews a break free Palestine before literally dropping the mic. According to the reporter at San Francisco Gate who was actually there, and this is where he said to Trump and the monologue back in January, well, please do better next time. Do not forget your humanity, and please have empathy for displaced people,
whether they're in Palisades or in Palestine. He also said, I'm tired of being controversial. I'm trying to turn over a new leaf. It was way too soon to try to joke about a catastrophe like that. This one hits close to home. So it was a I mean, it was a really good monologue. But he's now accusing us and ill of censoring it, literally, of censoring it.
Although it's live. He could do whatever he wants. What are they gonna do?
He probably wants to get paid.
Do you get paid for that?
I'm sure?
What do you think one of those things you just do because it's like an promotion?
Yeah, who knows?
The super Bowl? Do you get paid for the Super Bowl halftime show?
No idea, I'm sure you it's something other than publicity.
They got to pay your dancers at least.
Yeah, we should be entertainment lawyers next career anyway. Interesting tibet from Dave Chappelle that. You know, we talked earlier about how little covers there was of this wild Miami beach shooting. It's just there. I'm just wondering, Ryan, with the democratization of media like drop site for example, drop Site's doing so well, how much longer Meati gets away with sort of being able to own the narrative on these topics because Dave Chapelle is going to put you
on blast. He feels comfortable, he feels like there's a permission structure culturally now where he lived. Yeah, he's okay, he made it.
Have a T shirt.
Yeah. Well, anyway, on that note, thank you so much for tuning in to today's edition of Counterpoints. Reminder, go to breakingpoints dot com to subscribe for a premium membership of the show. You get the whole thing, write your inbox every day without any commercial breaks ad breaks on YouTube or podcast platforms. So we appreciate everybody for tuning in. Appreciate you for subscribing, Thanks for tuning in.
See you guys soon.