Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal.
Indeed, we do a lot of big things happening here and around the world, so we'll update you on those protests. Pete Hegseth had some significant testimony in front of Congress yesterday. Moments did not go so well, so break all of that down for you. Also. Gavin Newsom, obviously seizing the moment to potentially further his presidential ambitions. Will break down the political aspect of that as well. All eyes on Israel and raw some very ominous signs that Israel may
be preparing to strike Iran. Martaza Hussein is going to join us to break down those indications and what we can say about that, and where those nuclear talks between Trump and the Iranians are as of today. So break all of that down for obviously extraordinarily consequential news there. Yesterday we received word from the Trump administration that they have a China deal we'll call it. It seems like
it's a framework at this point. We've got some of the loose details Scott Bessett and others answering questions, so we'll tell you what we know about that. We also have some sort of reproach mol with Elon and Trump, him posting yesterday at three or four am, which Emily and I mentioned in the show. We didn't have a chance like fully break it down. He regrets, Yeah, some those the things that he said went too far.
Soccer, Yes, that's right.
It appears to have been at high level broker talks between the White House and between Elon. So perhaps this is the you know, the beginning of the bromance again.
We'll see, you never know.
Twists and turns.
We can only hope. No, you never know.
And we have some big news in the New York City mayor race, first poll ever to come out that shows zoron Mom Donnie leading that race, beating Andrew Cuomo, former governor. We also have some clips from his appearance on the Breakfast Club which are pretty interesting as well. So we'll take a look at that and what that means more broadly for the Democratic Party in the country, all that good stuff before we get to any of that, Sager. Today is the last day the free month trial.
That's right.
Unfortunately, it is the very very last day, or perhaps fortunately for those of you who have been waiting and you've just been hovering there with your mouse, you can go ahead and sign up at Breakingpoints dot com BP free see what we're all about.
You can check out the trial for yourself.
You get the full show, of course, the AMA access, some of the Friday Show, exclusive content, and so much more. So go ahead and sign up at Breakingpoints dot com. The promo code is BP free. We deeply appreciate so many of the people who have signed up here. You're preventing Ryan from having to do what is it Hymn's ads or Jenny Parlay, the exclusive Saga DraftKings Parlay or Phantom.
Can you imagine that the prize picks or any of these other jokes sports books that are out there, so ag one and all of So if you don't want to hear that, you can go ahead and sign up at breakingpoints dot com, BP free hues that promo code.
All right, let's get to the protes All right, let's go ahead, get to the process best as I can tell. Protests around the country and including La pretty quiet last night. You know, the elt Mayor of La has instituted a curfew and that seems to have calm things down significantly. So let me show you a couple of clips here from Pete Hegsat's testimony for Congress yesterday. So he got asked whether the guard could be deployed in other cities.
He also got asked about the the usage of the National Guard on January sixth, versus with regards to what is going down in LA. Let's go ahead and take a listen to what he had to say.
Or which guard.
And I'm trying to figure out if you decided to do this collectively in Kansas or any other place would you need to specify a new sort of fact pattern or do you think this order applies to any guard anywhere, any service branch anywhere. It's just like, I get your justification, we disagree about the circumstances. I'm just trying to figure out, did you just potentially mobilize every guard everywhere and every service member everywhere? I mean, create the framework for that.
I understand you didn't. I'm saying, what does the document do in your opinion.
Senator, if you noticed the initial order of two thousand in California was followed by a follow on order for the additional two thousand with a recognition that the situation there required more resources in order to support law enforcement.
So part of it is getting ahead of.
A problem so that if in other places, if there are other riots and places where law enforcement officers are threatened, we would have the capability to surge National Guard there if necessary.
The National Guard was deployed here on January sixth, and that was a decision made by the Department of Defense. Do you support that decision? Do you believe that that was the right decision to deploy the National Guard to defend the capital in January sixth.
All I know is it's the right decision to be deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles to defend ice agents who deserve to be defended in the execution of their job.
But I think it's important to know whether you think it was also important to have the National Guard defending the United States Capital when there were violent protesters here on the president's behalf. To make sure that folks know that you care about protest, whether it's against the president or on behalf of the president.
Senator I was in the Washington, DC National Guard when that happened, and was initially ordered to go guard the inauguration of Joe Biden, but because of the politicization of the Biden administration, my orders were revoked and ultimately because of the politics that being played inside the Defense Department by the previous administration.
But do you support the decision made on January sixth to send the National Guard here?
I support the decision that President Trump made and requesting the National donors denied.
So you do not Trump, you do not support, you do not guarsion to send the National Guard here to defend the capital. I think that speaks to the worry that many Americans have that there is a double standard.
So obviously two significant things there. First of all, no limiting principle on the order that Trump signed. You know, hag Seth acknowledges effectively that yeah, we could deploy troops, we could federalize National Guard anywhere. And you know, really important in the context of there are planned protests this weekend on the day of Trump's big military slash birthday parade, Trump himself said that protesters, not not violent protesters, just
protesters in general would be met with force. So Pete Hugseth indicating yeah, this isn't just about LA. We have the option available, and I don't think anyone would be surprised if they federalized the National Guard in other places Blue states and cities in particular. The other piece here, actually good question from Senator Chris Murphy, because you know, the January sixth riots were significantly more consequential and violent
than what was going down in LA. And Pete Hegseth can't bring himself to say that it was the right decision in that instance to bring in the National Guard, but he is fully behind bringing it in in LA. So before I played the next one, what did you make of that soccer.
Yeah, I mean the Jan six element is one which always really comes back to bite them because you see a lot of the insurrectionist stuff that is being used right now.
I mean, here's the thing.
We weren't critical about National Guard deployment at the time, if you recall I was talking about it with Ryan. I mean, all of those images of people sleeping on the floor in parking garages and stuff that actually happened here. We were effectively occupied in Washington for three months, and it costs I don't even remember how many billions and billions of dollars.
It was useless. It was a completely unnecessary thing.
We have some five thousand US troops of some kind, either National guardsmen and or United States Marines that are being deployed in defense of this. The crazy thing about the Marines is that we were told that they were actually ready and had been trained and riot control and all this other stuff, but they actually not the case. They're not even in Los Angeles right now at the moment. So this is a colossal, you know, bit of expenditure
for what purpose exactly. I mean, the current estimate is, what's one hundred and thirty one million dollars for a single I mean it's not even been a full week of this, so extrapolate that out more. Also, anybody who remembers covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of like support personnel that you need to support anything.
Like this is astounding.
And so I think that the more that this, you know, continues, and especially if it goes national, it's really going to be I mean, a very easy talking point I think for your Democrats, and not only talk about January sixth.
But also just the cost.
I mean, the cost does matter here where It's like you guys are literally rolling around celebrating a five million dollar cut to Zimbabwe.
It's like you just blew ton.
There are times that over a weekend deployment to Los Angeles. So yeah, I think that I think we are trending. You know, if we talked about the politics and stuff like that here, and especially as violence has happened yesterday, we'll see you over the weekend whenever body's not at work or whatever. But especially if things begin to go down and you just see more militarized like images that come out of LA I do think things could turn against them.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to this next part, because he gets asked in addition, okay, so under what authority are the deployment of the Marines in particular, like, what constitutional authority is justifying this extraordinary action with regard to federalizing the National Guard and bringing in the Marines. Let's go ahead and take a listen to how we response to that.
Just specifically, mister secretary, what is the authority that the administration is using to deploy active duty Marines to California neighborhoods?
What authority the president has constitutional authority? In order to support.
Site cite the provision of the Constitution.
I'd have to I'd have to pull up the specific provisions.
But our Office of General Council, alongside our leadership, has.
Reviewed and ensured in the order that we.
Set out that it's completely constitutional for the President to use federal troops to.
Defend federal law enforcement administration.
I would are you prepared to authorize DHS to use drones and also to authorizing elite forces to detain our arrest American citizens?
Uh?
Senator, Every authorization we've provided the.
National Guard UH and the Marines in Los Angeles is under the authority the President of.
The United States is lawful and constitutional.
They are assisting in defending the law enforcement officers, the law facilities, the execution to their.
Job in the city of Los Angeles.
So won't rule out their use of drones and military forces. Obviously, the first clip where he's like, I don't really know what authority. I'm sure it's constitutional, but I can't really tell you how. Not a great look there at a
time when you know the authorization of this is legally contested. Yeah, Man Newsom has already stued there's actually supposed to be hearings today about whether or not this was a lawful deployment of both the Marines and the decision to federalize the National Guard over the objections of the governor of California and Sagara. I was reading yesterday, I actually didn't
realize this. Marines were used in nineteen ninety two in the context of suppressing the LA riots, and some of the local cops were like, this was really not great because they're not trained for domestic law enforcement situations. And one of the anecdotes that you know, became sort of notorious coming out of that is the LAPD we're like, all right, cover us to the Marines, cover us as we go into this house, as we approach this house. Well, for law enforcement, that means okay, watch make sure no
one's coming out. For the Marines, it meant light up the whole house. And people were like, what the hell are you doing. They're like, you told us to cover you to us. That's what that means. So just to give one example of how that's why you don't deploy active duty soldiers on American streets outside of truly extraordinary circumstances. Now, the La riots in nineteen ninety two, I mean it is hard to if you haven't watched anything or read the news about what went down there. I mean it
was insane. Over sixty people killed, billion dollars in damage, business is looted. I mean, this was just going on and on. It was a massive, uncontrolled conflagration. And you had the governor of California who said, yes, we need the help. Yes, let's federalize the National Guard. Yes, federal
garment please come in and assist us. Totally different situation here, and I think sober that is what you know is so disturbing to me is the attempt to normalize the use of military forces in a domestic law enforcement context, and to make it seemed normal to have our streets
completely militarized in this way. I think you and Ryan made a great point that part of what has conditioned us for this moment also is how all of the local law enforcement in every major city, you can't even tell them apart from National Guard.
It's funny.
I see these clips go viral all the time. They're like, look, national Guards, and I'm like, no, that's LAPD for what purpose. I actually I wrote a piece of years ago about Ferguson and about how that actually set the tone for a lot of what we saw.
I mean, look, we.
Could debate Ferguson and all that, but I don't think anybody's going to be sitting around defending Ferguson PD, even in a wright or left wing level.
And that's specifically because of this.
That's what a lot of the conversation unfortunately has actually gotten worse. And that is really I mean, look, I think it's dangerous in this regard. And again, you know, for the White House, they really do seem to believe that they're on their strongest footing in taking on and look, I mean we did not deny here the Mexican flag
stuff and all that is not good. I mean, look, there has been some property damage, but you know, we I think contextualizing the scale of this is actually genuinely important, specifically because of the reaction that they're coming here. But look, we can't deny this is something that the White House wants to pick this fight, and in some respects I'm
not I'm still a bit torn. I don't know yet how the country is going to react, because you know, I did underestimate how much of this, like left wing cities out of control stuff has become not only a meme but like a shibboleth literally across the entire country, like you don't live in the city, you live in the Upper Midwest and stuff.
These images are everywhere.
It's literally like, you know, calling people in San Francisco and be like, are you safe? You know, they really have no familiarity at all with that, and you can't blame them probably vice versa as well. I'm just I'm still kind of trying to tease out and see like how this goes. They clearly believe that things are going to be, you know, for them, but also it's probably about tone setting as well, you know, especially ahead of this military parade here in Washington and New York City,
Chicago dealt. There's been some other protests, but nothing has really risen to the level of la Yeah, perhaps that's part of it as well.
Yeah, all right, let's go ahead and get to this next piece where you know, the Trump administration has been threatening to arrest Gavin Newsom. Tom Homan first, you know, said this, and then Trump said, yeah, I think he should. And Trump got another question about this yesterday whether or not he thinks that Gavin Newsom could be charged and arrested.
By the way, the last time he got asked this of like, well, exactly what would be the pretext for arresting him, and he said for running for governor that was the reason. That was the reason he should be charged and arrested. So in any case he gets asked about this again, let's take a listen.
Are you gonna arrest Gavin Newsom?
Well, he's not doing a good job, you know, arrest What does that mean he's not doing a good job?
Jim, Well, in theory, you could.
I guess, you know, it's almost like a dissipation of duty. Nobody's ever seen anything like that.
In theory I could, so that is where that stands. Also soccer, this week, they charged this Congresswan mac Iver with you know, crimes that could lead to seventeen years in prison and the context of that, you know, situation that unfolded outside of a federal detention facility that Ice was using in Newark, New Jersey. So you know, you've got a lot of authoritarian pieces coming together here. You
have the charging this congressman. You have the threats of arrest of Gavin Newsom for existing and doing things that Trump didn't like. You have the federalizing of the National Guard over the ejections of the elected governor of California. You have the deployment of marines. You had that wild partisan speech to troops at Fort Bragg. By the way,
we learned more about that. First of all, they were hand selected to make sure they had the right politics, the ones that were behind Trump, and they sold the MAGA merchandise, which is like, I mean again, I know no one cares about the before times and what things used to be like, but these are things that would just be completely out of bounds. And then you have tanks being into DC for his big birthday parade, show
of force and strength, et cetera. So a lot of authoritarian elements just in your face, you know, flood the zone with them this week as we head into the weekend where there are planned significant protests they're called No King's protests that were planned across the country and.
Especially here in Washington. Yeah, I'm actually curious to see. We're going to get to that in a little bit as to how the protests and the parade itself might be disrupted because of weather.
But le's going to this parade. They asked them if the Republicans, and none of them.
Were like, I think it's the military.
I think what they're going to do is because remember the estensible purpose of the parade is the United States Army's two hundred and fiftieth birthday.
So this happens aside.
Whatever I will not be attending, mostly because of traffic reasons. This is impossible to get into the city. But what you have here in the Northern Virginia area, as you know, is like there's what half the United States military lives
around the Pentagon. They're either going to get orders or they're going to go and so with a lot of their families, and so I think the vast majority of the people who will be there in attendance of the Grand Parade, Schill, we remember what the inspiration for this was?
Is that all because five or six years ago Trump went to the Bastille Day parades in France and he was like, Hey, this is pretty cool, you know, watching tanks and all that roll down the champ dellyz And that's why he was like, Okay, we need to bring this to Washington. I'm actually surprised because it was supposed to be for America's two hundred and fiftieth birthday, which I believe is isn't that next year in.
Twenty twenty six?
Yeah, so seventeen sive six day it would have been next year, so July fourth, twenty twenty six. But I guess he just had to have one for the two hundred and fifty birthday of the US Army, something that definitely the.
US population knows quite a bit. I'm telling you, I didn't even know w with the two undred fty birthday.
Well, America's birthday doesn't fall on Trump's birthday, so that wasn't going to work.
Out soccer as.
It's billy you one more piece here. We can go ahead and is this a vo or a sad guys, you can let me know, pretty troubling in my opinion, given the context, true social post from Trump. Let's go and put this up on the Oh, it's a side, so goll Let's go out and play this and you can take a look at the text on the screen.
Let me go ahead and read this a little bit to you before we play it, because for those of you who are listening by a podcast, he says, I'm more confident than ever that in the days ahead and every generation to come, the US Army will keep glory upon glory. You will summonn inexhaustible courage, you'll protect every inch of US soil, and you will defend America to the ends of the earth in the days ahead. Okay, let's take a listen.
Just the job.
It's a calling and a sacred tradition passed down from father to son, brother to sister, and one generation to the next, that every hour of danger on noblest citizens have answered that call.
Time and again.
Our enemies have learned that if you dare to threaten the American people, American soldier will chase you down, thrush you, and cast you into Bob.
All right, So that was that. In addition, Sager who pulled this it literally may ran on his parade.
Yes, actually literal rain on the parade. You know, I'm an avid DC weather watcher. Here we have storm for the Capitol Weather gangret you yeah, shout out to the Capitol Weather Gang if you do live in the DMV area, they are absolutely the best threatened. The US Armises two and and fifty celebration in DC on Saturday. A slow moving Trump front may trigger late day showers and storms as the parade, concert and fireworks crowds are gathering. Morning
looks mostly dry, but heat and humidity are building. I'm gonna say this, I get how in the vacuum that that truth social post and all that looks troubling, But having covered the Pentagon, the absolute vast majority of like Pentagon agid prop and stuff that they put out is like this, I get where you're coming from.
Well, I do people to just know like this.
Type of this is standard fair for like Obama, for for for the first Trump administrative. Basically anytime they're like, oh, the war fighters, the killers the US armies, just so people know that is what a very average US army is.
Propaganda, that's the case.
And you know what any of these things, well not any of them, but some of these things individually, like the military parade. Yeah, this is a normal administration and they're doing this quirpasthma. All right, I mean it's a waste of money. Like what are we doing. We're destroying the streets in DC.
They really don't ate that or like shitty streets anyway, so maybe we can rebuild them properly.
As not great, but isn't the end of the world no coming in the context of everything else, That's where it becomes. You know, when you see the tanks being rolled into DC at the time when they're threatening the use of the National Guard, federalizing the National Guard in cities across the country, and they're deploying active duty marines against US citizens for like incredibly protectual reasons over the
objections of the elected governor of that state. And oh, by the way, they're threatening to arrest the elected governor of that state because he got elected. That's when I see things like that, and you know, they add to a picture that is to me deeply troubling. And the last thing I'm saying that then we can move on to Gavin some and how he is certainly enjoying his
moment in the sun with all of this. You know, there are some there has been a pattern in this administration where it's not just this moment, it's the attacks on the universities, it's the you know, trying to bring the media to heal, it's even the use of national emergency to justify this wild terror fsham. Like, the consistent pattern in this administration has been consolidation of power, and it feels very much like we're coming to a crescendo
with that. And also Soger. One other you know note of some of the contexts, which which you've gestured at before is the quote unquote Big Beautiful Bill is wildly unpopular. People see it as a giant giveaway to the rich, because that's what it is. And so they're also trying to use this moment of large scale anti ice protests to make to refashion and rebrand the Big Beautiful Bill
as being about immigration. And you see Stephen Miller doing this aggressively, going after Rand and the Libertarians who are opposed to it and saying basically, if you oppose this, and you oppose border security and oppose the present's agenda on immigration, So I think that is another one of the political goals, but they are trying to effectuate.
There's no question. I genuinely again, I don't know. I mean, we have polls. Yesterday we covered immigration. Trump is the strongest issue. I saw a quentnin peac poll. Roar recently showed him underwater.
It's a little bit hard to believe.
The numbers are a little bit too fantastical, but it wouldn't be surprised me if he's moving towards more fifty to fifty. But there's no question on the bill. I mean I flagged it from day one. I'm like, look, they're going to do it, and it's going to be massively unpopular. Yeah, there's just I mean, that's what the tax cuts and job Zac story part of it was
in the first term. We're basically riding up almost the exact same timeline with the passage of the so called Big Beautiful Bill, and tying these two things together does give them a lot of cover for eventually going home and telling people what it's all about but of course America. Look, Americans are smart at least in this regard. Anytime a piece of tax legislation passes, they're like, hey, so what's in this Exactly they're like, oh, okay, got it, you know,
not all much a surprise. And actually even yah, even right now, there's all these stupid fights right now, even in the Senate, to make sure that they at least strip like some of the decent parts out of the bills.
So honestly, it can be a lot worse.
They want to take out with like tax on tips stuff.
They want to take out tax on tips or at least you know, restricted, and then even the salt cap, you know, they want to make it to lower it even more, to anger some.
Of the Blue states.
It's just just stuff like that where it's just preposterous, you know. But can I say this, I actually was reading about the new salt thing.
It's a terrible thing. Basically, the income raise it so that people who.
Are like upper middle class earners in California and New York or at least like grandfather name to a more modest thing. So it applies to the millionaires but not to upper middle class people are like Okay, I think.
That's you know, relatively fun.
Yeah, that's not bad.
I just say that I just want people to know, like, the current way that the salt thing is structured, I actually think is quite fair. They income cap it at like four hundred thousand or something, basically making sure that high property tax people in New York and California don't get double screwed. Like, I think it's fine. At the same time, we're not all shed in tears for people making three or four hundred thousand a year. My point just being that the bill, the bill itself is deeply unpopular.
A lot of what is all happening with this is effectively like a gambit to distract. But you know what we will soon talk about looms over all of this is Iran, And actually that was where I would be the most worried. And this is my great hope, and I'll say it again, but you know, if there is some sort of outbreak of conflict, then I would hope that people really do take to the streets the way that they did with the war in Iraq. Don't forget millions of people took to the streets across the world
to protest that war. And that is also where we could see significant you know, and the weaponization of this great so called anti Semitism machine, you know, against people. And if those two things are conflated, saying that war with Iran is bad because it is anti Semitic, that's probably where I worry most, especially with conflict on the horizon right now.
Well, I do have some good news for you, which is that mister Salt himself, Josh gottheimer handed to him in the Democratic primary, came in fourth place with eleven percent of the vote, so you know, he thought he was really killing it.
Well, you know that's that is those are the richest people in New.
Jersey, I guess yeah, constituents showed up him, and I'm sure they'll give him more campaign funds in the future. Anyway, Okay, let's go ahead and move on to Gavin Newsom. You know, one of the interesting things here is Newsom really coming into the Trump administration kind of misread the moment with
regard to the Democratic base. We talked about this before he launched his podcast, seeing okay, it's a podcast moment, I'm gonna launch my podcast, And then he had on people from the right like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon and Gavin Newsom is actually very good debater. Like I'm not a big fan of Gavin Newsome, but you have to,
you know, acknowledge political TWL where it exists. He did a great job in that debate versus Ron DeSantis that was you know, very well received among the Democratic base, got a lot of attention, et cetera. So he has the chops to do it, and instead he invites on Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon and basically like lets them berate him, and he just sort of like takes it. And it's like, oh, I appreciate that. I appreciate that Democratic base. At that point, we're looking for people who
are willing to fight. So that's how Bernie ends up, you know, wildly popular at the base. AOC ends up wildly popular with the bass. Jasmine Crockett has her moment and becomes you know, this national figure, et cetera. So
he wildly misreads the moment. And obviously everyone knows this man has been dreaming of being president for probably his whole life, being the like sort of sociopathic individual that he is, so he misreads things at the beginning now, Trump has handed him this, you know, very large opportunity in the national spotlight to stand up to Trump in the way that a Democratic base and a lot of independent voters I think want to see and in a lot of ways, I do think he has met that moment.
At the same time, other Democrats are like, I mean that Democratic Party is just so utterly pathetic. This thing sagur about how they're not sure whether they should pick this fight with Trump, and they don't know if this is the police just did might just be distractions, Like, could you just have some principle that you're willing to stand for without taking a fucking focus group, poll tested
situation before you know what? Does? Like, it's so pathetic and disgusting me, and it serves Gavin Newsom because then he ends up being the only one out there in the spotlight. So, all of that being said, Harry Enton and CNN took a look at the Google search traffic and how this is all playing into Newsom's twenty twenty eight ambitions. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Yeah, let's just start off. If Gavin Newsom wanted to take on Donald Trump and loves the attention he has one hundred percent.
Gotte it.
Take a look here.
Google searches of Gavin Newsom with Donald Trump. Get this up nine thousand, seven hundred percent versus a week ago. More folks are googling Gavin Newsom's name with Donald Trump than ever before in Google searches dating all the way back since two thousand and four. Donald Trump was able to make a name for himself through The Apprentice, through all of his business adventures. He is now making a name for Gavin Newsom, who seems more than willing to
relish in this fight. Should Democrats oppose Donald Trump? More among Democrats? Look at this, eighty four percent. Eighty four percent of Democrats nationwide say they want Democrats to take on Donald Trump.
Moore.
This is not twenty seventeen anymore, where the majority of Democrats want to compromise with Donald Trump. No, they want a fighter with Donald Trump. Top chances to be the twenty twenty eight nominee. Look, it's a clown car at this particular point. All these candidates swish together. But you'll notice that one name is ahead of the rest, and that's Gavin Neussom at twelve percent.
You see a.
Kasu Cortes, ten Buddha Judge ten Shapiro six percent. But Gavin Newsom certainly is up there right now in terms of the candidates who are best impositioned to will get that twenty twenty eight nomination.
And this is concerning to me because I'm not a Gavin Newsom fan, you know, in terms of how he's governed in California. Basically, if there's a conflicts between core democratic based principles things like supporting labor unions or expanding healthcare and donors, he's going with the donor. So that's
kind of the way you should understand his governance. So the fact that I think he is doing himself a lot of favors with the Democratic base, and I have to say, like has been much more responsive on social media. He really does sort of understand sour the new media ecosystem a lot better.
I was talking down the prat with Ryan. I was like, look at this dude.
His first interviews I see Brian Tyler Cohen and MIAs type smart right Pod Save America were.
Smart for an interview by the way, Yeah he turned us down.
Yeah, we tried try.
You wanted to stay with the solidly liberal.
It's annoying because but yeah, and we wouldn't be annoying about it. I'm just I don't know.
Anyway, we'd ask them some real questions.
Yeah, I would ask him for sure.
Questions, whatever we can table that. You know, Actually, Gavin staff and I back in the day actually had a decent exchange, so they should know we've I have been fair to that.
He follows me on Twitter, so I thought maybe there was a right.
Well, Calnia, California is our largest audience, So California, many of you are constituents of Gavin Sotel gave to listen to the people.
I doubt he will.
That's not exactly how the things work over there. No, I do think he's actually handling himself quite well. I've always been a newsome admirer for his sheer political talent. I think he is clowned in very unfair ways. Like I mean, I remember, I just thought there was no way French laundry would ever happen, and like, don't. I was like, there's no way that he doesn't that he gets away with this. But he survived, not only survived the recall election. Since then, is in broadly like popular issu.
He understands new media, and I think one of the things I underestimated is, Look, California is a machine state. The machine produces a lot of horrible politicians. But in general, we shouldn't underestimate the governor of the large the most popular state in the entire Union.
That has been a mistake.
The largest economy in the world, literally one of.
The largest economies in the world.
I mean, people underestimated Richard Nixon for being from California. People underestimated Ronald Reagan from being from California. Like, California looms large over our politics, always has for a long time, and I think that with Gavin Newsom, that is where his sheer political talent, which was on display with that debate with Ron DeSantis.
Again you can debate like, oh.
Did he score a point here or there, like on the Merits, it's not really about that. It's really about his affectation. And the thing I've always said about Gavin is Gavin loves the game more than anything else in the world. He's got the black hole inside of him. That's what you need, you know, Why else are you
going on Shan Hannity's show. That's nuts? Like why are you texting Sean Hannity during his live broadcast, you know, like quibbling with some of the things that Sean says, Because you have to be obsessed with yourself and you have to need that affirmation more than anything else in the world, and that you can't teach that, like you
have to just be born with it. And so I really see that inside of him, and especially now, like with the way the stars are aligning, Gavin is learning you know that that Steve Mann and Charlie Kirk stuff that he was doing in the very beginning that's really not the most.
Politically effect the strategy.
And he will now really align himself as like a major resistance figure now. And he doesn't have the baggage that Karen Bassett. That's another critical thing. Karen is so horribly you know, just scarred by those fires. Yeah, Gavin is the real leader of the liberal resistance right now.
True.
Yeah, and he just has more whatever than she has too. Yeah, I mean he Here's the thing that I'm concerned about. The Democratic base. Actually, Democratic congressional leaders are underwater with the base that is very different from Trump one point. No, they have been radicalized in a lot of regards. They are disgusted with the Chuck Schumers and Keem Jeffries and
the like people who capitulated. And Gavin Newsom was very much putting himself in that camp with the way that he approached those interviews with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon. At first, when I saw his lineup for initial podcast guests, I thought it could really benefit him if he was going to go in and really spar with them. I mean, it doesn't have to be vicious, but if he was going to get into an exchange, have these viral moments
like that would have been really smart. What I'm concerned about with the Democratic base is well, they want a fighter and someone who's standing up to Trump. There is a kind of like ideological neutrality. It's not like there's they specifically want, like a particular policy agenda. They just
want people who get caught fighting. And that's where if you have someone like a Gavin Newsom or a peat Boot to judge for that matter, who are good at going into spaces on Fox News and tussling with them, and you know, good at doing like the performance of standing up to Trump, and I you know, and again I hand it to gather. I think he's doing a good job in this moment of you know, standing up for California and standing up for his values, not backing
down all those sorts of things. I think that, you know, that could be a you know, that could be something that a Democratic base would be interested in, even though on the merits in terms of what they offer policy wise, it's like just more of the same sort of status quo liberal type politicians. So in any case, he gave his big like sort of primetime us put this up
on the screen. The New York Times analyzed this as having a twenty twenty eight subtext, which I think you would have to you know, be pretty silly and naive not to see. They lead this off with when Gavin Newsom stepped in front of a camera Tuesday evening. He was a Californian governor addressing his constituents. But by the time mister Newsom was finished, it was clear the governor is speaking not only to his state, but to his
country and his beleaguered party. To Democrats looking for direction in leadership. Mister Newsom used one of the highest profile moments of his political career to lay out the threat that He argued President Trump posed the nation and how Americans should resist it, and he suggested he was the man to lead that fight. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. Mister Newsom said, the moment we have
feared has arrived. And as I said before, the fact that other Democrats are not so much stepping up to the plate to defend California in an aggressive way, and you know, are wary of picking this fight with Trump and whatever it really has allowed him to grab and
capitalize on the moment. And then to the point of the way he's using social media in a much more sort of direct way, tussling with with Steven Miller and other various Trump officials, even going back and forth with you know, sort of like influencer types on the right and asserting, you know, his position in all of these things in real time. He also posted this this star wars I guess not meme, but of reading the Emperor, reading one of Trump's stories of gundagalism.
Of this.
Once great American city, LUs Angeles has been invaded and occupied by illegal aliens and criminals. Now violent insurrectionist moves are swarming and attacking our federal agents to try and stop deportation operations.
Scacer thought it was kind of grant. I don't know. I thought I was gonna.
Political Star Wars is grant.
I had to listen to love Star Wars all right, like we were talking earlier, and ors awesome. Tony Gilroy's absolutely good status. But unfortunately when politicians try to invoke the Evil Empire or any of that stuff, it just it absolutely doesn't work for me. I will also acknowledge it's the most basic level of like memification on the Internet when talking about big stuffs, So I have to only assume it will largely go over well with a
lot of people. You can always assume that you know the worst in terms of in terms of his popularity, I do think I think broadly him at Pete Boodha Jedge are handling himself very well. It kills me to say, it kills me to say to watch these two people. But I didn't have enough of a chance to talk about Buddha Judge on Flagrant.
I mean, he did well, like it got millions of views.
There's a viral video of him where Andrew's like, so what do you want He's like, I want you to be able to get up in the morning and be able.
To go to it.
I mean, it was everywhere, and you know, it led to there's a New New York Times profile about some of the broadcasters or whatever. But if mentions that interview with Andrew Schultz specifically, we had Bernie Sanders that was more recently there as well, very.
You know what I mean. These these are the people who understand.
The meat the current media environment, and they also they want to play.
They're willing to take risks.
That's something we talked about yesterday on the theo Von segment. It's like, just take a risk, like yeah, you know, Schultz was making like hooker jokes at one point. Buddha Judge is clearly uncomfortable, but it's like as part of it, you know, and a lot of people just don't want to sit there and they don't want to take it. But you know, with risk comms reward, Trump showed us that's a very effective communication strategy and it's definitely one that should be cemented now at this time.
So well, yeah, I.
Don't know, both of them have that annoying ass Obama cadence, which to me should be just qualifying from the jump. Just on that on that alone. Let alone there, you know, status quo neoliberal politics. But I mean, I will, I will put that in there. Especially with Gavin, there is just something about him that reads used car salesman. Is he does read just like typical slimy politician. That's just the vibe you get from I've always thought he looks like a vampire from a movie. And so you know,
it's not a lock in. But he's certainly using this moment to the greatest effect that he possibly can to bolster his chances in twenty twenty eight.
Absolutely, we're very excited now to be joined by Mortaza Hussein. He is a national security and foreign affairs correspondent for Drop site News. Great friends of the show, it's good to see you man, Thank you for joining us.
Thank it seious.
All right, well you.
Join us at a very very consequential time, my friend, let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. We have major developments across the Middle East. CBS News and multiple other outlets reporting quote Israel is poised to
launch an operation on Iran so mas. What we know so far from inside the administration is that this is being sold allegedly as Israel is poised to strike Iran without US approval, But it appears, of course the US at least has some forewarning its own intelligence, perhaps even at diplomatic channels. Things are all over the place in
terms of what's actually happening. There has been widespread now evacuation or at least voluntarily evacuation of the departure of dependence in the in the US military bases across the region. President Donald Trump has reacted very ominously. I'm gonna play this and then we're gonna get your reaction. Let's take a listen.
Could you provide an update on Iran.
We're hearing reports that US personnel are being moved out of the region within striking distance.
Well, they are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens. But they are, We've given notice to move out, and we'll see what happens.
Is there anything that can be done to dial the temperature down in the region.
They can't have a nuclear weapon, very simple, they can't have a nuclear weapent.
We're not going to allow that.
Say it, wal are US competants of military personnel?
Bob used, That's the same thing you.
Some ominous stuff there. Mausei is basically like, yeah, it could be a dangerous place. So combined with the Israel reporting, what can you tell us?
Yeah, it's unfortunate because about a month and a half ago, it seemed like the situation is much more optimistic, and I think I would attribute the change to changing statements from Steve Wikoff and people in Congress as well too. At the start of the process, Wikoff was saying that the US would be okay with the Iranians having low level nuclear enriishment for civilian purposes, which will be monitored and so forth by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and
the Iranians are okay with that. They don't necessarily want a nuclear bomb per se. They could have pursued one some years ago, but they're a great costs associated with having a bomb. It will kiss off many of their neighbors separate from the US, would probably start an arms race in the Middle East as well too. It could trigger war at least for a short term with the US or other parties.
So they have said they.
Don't want a bomb, but they don't want to dismantle their entire nuclear energy program, which they spend many many years building it's an issue of national pride as well too. So Wickcoff now is taking a very very expressing or conveying a very very maximal's position, which is kind of like the Libya position. And people remember Libya agreed to dismantle his entire putative capacity for developing everything, which even could be a WND, and that didn't end very well
for Libya. It wasn't a very advisable path if you look at from the Libyan's perspective.
Getting sodomized on television. You know, I mean, that's honest about what happened here.
Yeah, Yeah, the Libyans agreed to dismantle and then they were attacked and their leadership was killed and driven to excel and many terrible things.
So the Iranians do not want to repeat that. So effectively, we have.
A situation where the US red line that's currently publicly express and the Iranian red line is in commensurate. The US is saying now that they can't have any enrichment at all, the Iranians saying, will never give up our richment. So in this case, it creates a situation where a conflict would become inevitable unless one side would a compromise,
it back down. And I think what we saw last couple of days our attempts to maybe do psychological operations saying that the Israeli is going to attack you if you don't compromise on the subject. But so what we seem so far the runnings do not seem to be backing down. Say, they escalated quite a bit, saying that they may withdraw from their nuclear treaties and take other steps in response to that.
As well too.
So I think unfortunately we've had a situation where a deal was very, very attainable, but now at least the last forty eight hours seemed a lot less.
So, and Ma's how do you assess the likelihood that Israel will strike Iran? Obviously you have the personnel being pulled from the region, that's one indication. You also have various people now going out and saying they're really close to, you know, achieving a nuclear weapon, which we always hear, you know, before the war drums start beating. So how likely do you think it is that we are on
the prespose of some sort of Israeli action? Also, given the fact that it appears Trump has several times a couple times during the course of this negotiation sort of pushed them off and said, no, you can't strike Iran at this point.
Yeah, you know, the Israeli modus operanda is usually to strike with people not expecting it, not to telegraph it's happening beforehand. So what you see in the last couple of days is a tremendous amount of signaling and telegraphing, which makes you think this is more at least for now, psychological. They're not necessarily preparing for an imminent attack. But you know, there are top schedules for this weekend between the US and Iran in Oman, and based on what happens in
those talks, situations could change. But I think if the Israelis do attack, or someone does attack, they won't be this lead up that's very very public where they're issuing statements publicly and evacuating people in a very very notable manner. I think they would have strike, try to use the element of surprise as much as possible.
But I think the thing is.
The Iranians, if they really do believe that the Israelis or even the US is going to attack them, They're gonna take preparations beforehand. They're going to try to move as much nuclear material out of the likely to be targeted sites beforehand. They may withdraw from certain treaties or expel inspectors so they can take their nuclear materials completely
into private. So actually, you know, even from the perspective, if you want to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon, attacking is kind of a really bad option because the Iranians it's a huge country. First of all, it's almost nine million people. It's a very very big land mass. It's not like Iraq. It's much much more challenging than Iraq to attack for foreign country. And if they withdraw from these treaties, there's not only much you can do. You can maybe attack them once, but then how do you
even have to keep attacking them forever? Really to figure out where the nuclear materials are. The knowledge won't be taken out of the country, You'll still be there. You may have to invade the country even to stop or to root out the new suspected nuclear sites. Attacking Iran will not be a one off affair. It wouldn't be a week long or a couple of days or even a month. It will probably take the entire Trump term
or even longer. Beyond that being involved militarily in the country, if you really want to stop the nuclear program, if they would draw from the treaties. So I think that the deal really dissatisfy everyone's needs. It satisfies their own need to maintain some civilian program. The Trump administration wants to pivot that China doesn't want to have more wars in the Middle East. I think the American public is very, very exhausted and disenchanted with this. So a deal really
is the path of least resistance. But because I think that maybe a poison pill has been imputed in this deal based on what we've seen with the Witcoff's evolutionary statements, it's moved from agreeing to civilian Richmond and nothing. I think the people in the US who do want a war, and they suggest they successfully put that change of position in,
but it's not really a good solution for anybody. It's bad for Iranian it's bad for Americans, bad for Israelis even to have the major war where they run for many, many years. But that's the path we're on right now. Barring some heroic diplomacy on Sunday, well.
We can talk about that. So at the very least.
There were initial comments that were made that there would be no more or not a sixth round of talks. Now, fortunately for US, we can put this up on the screen. The Omani foreign minister confirmed that talks will happen between Steve Witkoff and between Iran's foreign minister. However, mas At the same time, we do know that Israel's head of Mosad and their minister Ron Dermer will be meeting with Steve Witkoff, apparently ahead of said meeting again potentially for
su coordination of what exactly. We don't know, but this last round of talks seems very critical because of the position where US intelligence now saying that Israel is basically poised to strike Iran. There's a lot of pressure on the Iranians in the US there. I'm what is your assessment if this does not come to some decent conclusion in this round, is it even possible for us to have another round or are we going to see the
prelude to, like you said, withdrawing from agreements. I believe Iran just got rebuked this morning by the IAEA over nuclear materials. So things do seem to be trending, you know, in a very bad direction. Unless things go well during these talks.
It is a problem to that Masade officials and Ron Dhermer and bring around the talks from the beginning.
They've been in Rome, they've been wherever the talks are happening.
They're either briefing Wi Cough beforehand or just being in the area to let them know that their position is very, very important in these talks. So, you know, to be honest, I'm not particularly optimistic, unfortunately about the Sunday talks. So though the talks this weekend, it seems like a last ditch effort, and you know they're strong, there are strong motivations for both sides to come to some of the tent War is not good for the Iranians.
War is not good for the US.
Either the Trump administration or Space wants to see another war like this, but they're not box themselves the situation where it's almost you know, I wouldn't say inevitable, but it's become much more likely than it needs to be.
I think that these talks that may be the last efforts to.
See if any sort of compromise agreement can be found, and if not, you could see Israeli strikes in Iran. But the issue is, you know, if Israel does it alone, quote unquote, it will still have tremendous US intelligence, logistic, and other support. But also it's very very likely that the fortified nuclear positions that Iran has cannot be destroyed by Israeli aircraft or munitions. They need American B two's
and thirty thousand pound bombs to actually destroy these. So almost inevitably, the Israeli attacks most likely will do an insufficient damage to the Iranian sites, and the US would feel compelled to become involved. And if the Iranians retaliate, which they said they will, they would also create great pressure for the US to get involved in defend Israel as well too from those attacks. So I think, unfortunately, even though nobody wants it, everyone's still fed up of
wars in the Middle East. We're really headed towards the situation where not just a warning Middle East, but the biggest war we've ever had in the Middle East could be right on our doorstep, just you know, in a
few weeks. So I think that people in the administration or you know, support have communication with the administrations should sort of impress as much as they can that how close we are, how unnecessary it all is, and how important this diplomacy this weekend and beyond is to avoid what could be a very very disaster situation.
Last question that I have for you, Maz, the Trump administrations try to posture like, oh, Israel might strikeer On, we have nothing to do with it. Let's say they maintain that pasture Israel does striger On. Is anyone going to believe that we had nothing to do with it, that this was just Israel acting of their own accord?
I don't think so.
This very very obvious close coordination with the US and Israel. Also, the US arms Israel, that all the arms come from the US. If it's real purchase those arms would be be privatively expensive actually for them to carry out the operations they are and now so there is not really the great acceptance of that. But that said, of course, Iron would like to avoid the direct confrontation with the US itself. It said it would target American bases if
the US attacked it. But if there's some plausible deniability, it's kind of useful for both sides to say, well, it was between US and israelis technically but that said, I do think for the technical reasons I laid out, there's a very strong involvement, even if initially it's only the Israelis directly carrying out the strikes, that the Americans could become the US military could become involved in the conflict directly simply to the only the US military can
really destroy these sites or more as a greatest chance of doing so. And when, if and when the Iranians retaliate, the political pressure in the US to step in to defend Israel to attack more sites inside Iran with American military weaponry, it will be great. And you know, the Israeli Is, they do punch above their way for their size, but they are the most bigger country in Israel, and really to balance the scales, the Israelis need America to
be involved in the war. And I think the entire strategy in Natanyahu and Dermer and so forth is to force America into a conflict because they can't. They feel they can't do it alone. They can't achieve what they want to alone, and they really need America to be involved in war in the Middle East or at least another generation.
We already have the playbook, right they blew up an embassy, and then the Iranians struck back and guests who shot down ninety nine percent of the incoming projectiles, not them, right, Yeah, it's like this is this has already happened. In fact, that was you know, the groundwork for this right now.
And by the way, if it costs one billion dollars just to shoot down some silly drones and a couple of missiles, what do you think is going to happen if they actually hit nuclear centrifuges and we see real stuff start flying through the air. This is not a joke, as you said, and part of the reason why we see this widespread now evacuation of dependent military forces. I mean, the US embassy in Jerusalem is telling people don't leave
the country now for some time. They are taking this very very seriously, and they don't just do this for no reason.
Anyway, We really appreciate your analysis. I you know, I hope you're not right. I think you are.
You know, I think I think these weekends talks are genuine make or break and I guess we should all just start talking about how Trump is the greatest diplomatic figure and we should give him the Nobel Prize. Yes, I will fly to Stockholm, bring us back.
In the deal. He got us out of three ways.
Just get us, get us a deal, do something, because otherwise, you know we're headed for bad, bad waters.
Thank you so much for joining us, my friend. We appreciate it.
Thans Gus