Behind the Bastards - It Could Happen Here Weekly 225

Starting point is 00:00:00 This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than No Grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend, the recent uptick in F1 romance novels,

Starting point is 00:00:22 and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip. on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. If you're trying to keep up with everything happening on and off the court, we've got you covered on the podcast, Plagrant and Funny. You want to start with the first special for the Big Ten Coach of the year? Oh, whatever.

Starting point is 00:00:44 Would you like to? So you're a Spartan, is that what I'm getting? Exactly. So whether your bracket is busted or you just want the real talk on what's happening during the tournament, open your free IHeart Radio app, search Plagrant and Funny with Carrie Champion and Jamel Hill. And listen now. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHart Women's Sports. I became a millionaire overnight and lost everything that actually mattered.

Starting point is 00:01:08 Hold on, Sophia. Did you just say they lost everything after becoming a millionaire? That's right. And it gets worse. It's inheriting too much drama week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This person writes, I just inherited a fortune after losing my mom, and now my girlfriend's entire family is coming out of nowhere with her hands out. And my girlfriend is already giving my money away. So the girl he wants to marry is already sending money out the door. Find out how it ends. Listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. 10, 10 shots fired in City Hall building.

Starting point is 00:01:42 How could this have happened in City Hall? Somebody tell me that. A shocking public murder. This is one of the most dramatic events that really ever happened in New York City politics. I scream, get down, get down. Those are shots. a tragedy that's now forgotten and a mystery that may or may not have been political that may have been about sex listen to rorschach murder at city hall on the iheart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts also media hey everybody robert evans here and i wanted to let you know this is a compilation episode so every episode of the week that just happened is here in one convenient and with somewhat less ads package for you to listen to

Starting point is 00:02:29 to in a long stretch if you want. If you've been listening to the episodes every day this week, there's going to be nothing new here for you, but you can make your own decisions. This is It Could Happen here, a show about things falling apart. I'm Garrison Davis. I'm joined by Robert Evans

Starting point is 00:02:48 to discuss the Prairie Land Trial. Yay! This month, the Trump administration got their first conviction in an Antifa terrorism case. On Friday, March, 13th, eight people were convicted by a federal jury on charges of riot, conspiracy to use, and carry an explosive, and providing material support to terrorists.

Starting point is 00:03:14 One of the defendants was convicted of attempted murder of a police officer, and another person was convicted on two counts of concealing documents, bringing the total number of federal defendants to nine. Originally, this federal case had way more defendants, but last year, seven of them, pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists, four of whom were later called to testify for the prosecution during the trial. Have they gotten sentenced yet, the folks who pled out? No, they are going to be sentenced later this summer, along with all the defendants that were convicted. Gotcha. Though their sentence will be a maximum of 15 years, which is shorter than

Starting point is 00:03:57 the defendants who were convicted. Yeah, yeah. The Prairie Land Defendants Support Committee did ask me to read their names. The defendants are Ains Soto, Liz Soto, Savana Batten, Megan Morris, Autumn Hill, Mari Rueda, Benjamin Song, or Bea Song, Zachary Evitz, and Des Estrada. The prosecution tried to argue that this was a coordinated attack on a nice facility in Prairieland, Texas. While the defense argued, this was a noise demonstration protest outside of this detention facility last summer on the night of July 4th. After protesters threw fireworks and vandalized property, DHS personnel called local police for assistance. One officer arrived, drew his handgun and yelled stop at a person in all black

Starting point is 00:04:45 clothes who was running away. One of the defendants, B. Song, then yelled, get to the rifles before firing toward the officer with an AR-15 hitting him in the neck. Song fired 11 times. The officer returned fire three times. then fled the scene. Most of the defendants were arrested in the days after the attacks, some that night near the facility, though Song camped out hiding in the woods overnight and evaded capture for 11 days with the help of others. Many of those who assisted Song evade capture after the shooting pled guilty to providing material support to terrorists. On the first day of this trial, the judge declared a mistrial because one of the defense attorneys were

Starting point is 00:05:31 a shirt featuring civil rights leaders. A week into the trial, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman ruled that defense attorneys could not argue that the defendants, including the accused shooter, were acting in self-defense or the defense of others against unlawful force just because the officer had already drawn his handgun before song fired. The prosecutors compared this to Waco. Judge Pittman ruled that the officer drawing and pointing his handgun at a fleeing suspect does not qualify as, quote, excessive as a matter of law because the officer did not actually use deadly force or shoot first. Yeah, that makes sense.

Starting point is 00:06:13 Like, if this were a civilian on civilian situation, the fact that he had drawn his gun, especially in Texas, would have been enough to at least argue self-defense. But police officers have the right to pull guns on whoever they want, whenever they want pretty much. So yeah. Yep. Cool. In court, the government argued that based on the situation at the protest,

Starting point is 00:06:39 that it was reasonable for the officer to decide to draw his handgun because there was crimes being committed at property damage, the fireworks, even if he did not witness fireworks as he pulled up to the scene. Now, headlines have framed this story as protesters being convicted of terrorism. for wearing black clothes or possessing radical political writing, also known as zines. There is like a kernel of truth to these statements, but they're designed to serve primarily as clickbait rather than useful information. So let's take a closer look at these claims. Sure.

Starting point is 00:07:19 Let's start by getting into the action planning. This action was originally planned on the encrypted messaging app signal, primarily in a group chat called. 4th of July party. Okay. The plan was also discussed during an in-person meeting the day before the action referred to during the trial

Starting point is 00:07:39 as a gear check. Purchasants in the planning chat agreed to wear black block and bring armor and rifles. Song advertised the action in a larger group chat of dozens of quote-unquote trusted individuals.

Starting point is 00:07:52 The event was characterized in this chat as a low-risk noise demonstration involving fireworks. A flyer was sent to the larger chat reading, share with trusted folks only do not post, mask up, be loud, unquote. According to cooperating witness Susan Kent, in the Fourth of July party signal chat, when asked about bringing guns, song stated, I'm not going back to prison, I'm not going to jail, I'm bringing guns, unquote. Okay, that's a terrible thing to have in writing. Boy,

Starting point is 00:08:25 okay, great. This sentiment was also expressed at the gear, meeting on July 3rd where defendants discussed bringing guns and Song repeatedly stated that they would be bringing guns because he would not be quote unquote going to jail. They talked about guns as a deterrent. They talked about how in previous instances, the presence of guns deterred police from engaging with protesters. And this is how the presence of guns at the protest was largely framed in these meetings and chats. It does not look good in writing in a court case, though. Yeah. All right. This is what the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club had done like sweep defenses and stuff where they'd

Starting point is 00:09:09 shown up armed. That incident was brought up. Yeah. That was specifically referenced. It had in fact worked that way more or less. I mean, there's a number of things to drill into here, but one of the issues is just while that's a thing people have used firearms for and have done so in a way that, like, worked in the past, obviously, which is what they were referencing. The problem is that you can't ever lose sight of the fact that, like, a gun is a gun. And if you're bringing a gun into a situation...

Starting point is 00:09:37 There's potential for that gun to be used. There's a potential for that gun to be used. And if you're bringing that gun into a situation around a police station, the odds that you will use that gun in a way that is not going to cause a life-ruining legal nightmare for you and everyone else are... are a lot lower. That's a real issue. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:09:57 Also at this gear check on the third, Song proposed to free detainees using quote unquote suppressive fire. Oh my God. This idea was shut down by other attendees, according to Susan Kent, who testified after entering a guilty plea.

Starting point is 00:10:14 Kent testified that after looking over photos of the facility, Song said, quote, this is as easy as it's going to get. We can take the place and free the people inside. unquote, using quote unquote suppressive fire.

Starting point is 00:10:28 This idea was meant with quote unquote general disagreement, according to Kent. Yeah, of course. Also saying that it was not seriously planned for or discussed. The support committee writes that Kent also testified that the group, quote, disgust stealing U-halls to move

Starting point is 00:10:44 free detainees, but this did not have popular support. Defendant Autumn Hill asked, do we bring our guns? Song replied, yes, I'm not getting arrested, unquote. Yeah, just a lot of really horrible things to have read out in a courtroom. It's just, yep, cool. Okay.

Starting point is 00:11:06 On Signal, song shared a YouTube short about suppressive fire. Another defendant, Rueira wrote that she didn't want a quote unquote Fed post. Yeah. Someone else wrote that rifles at the action may increase risk. Defendant Evitz sent a timeline for the actions that day, writing things heat up after sunset. Roya wrote, quote, if people inside get rowdy,

Starting point is 00:11:31 people in this chat would be charged for conspiracy, question mark. And then after the 4th of July shooting, someone messaged, quote, please delete signal chats, chats still on phone, even if removed from groups, unquote. Yeah. According to support committee notes, some signal messages were recovered from phones using Apple's internal notification system.

Starting point is 00:11:54 So even though signal had been removed, incoming messages were preserved in the internal memory on the phone. Outgoing messages were not preserved because there's no notification system for outgoing messages. You can set your settings on signal to not display the message in notifications,

Starting point is 00:12:10 and it seems like that was not the case for these messages that were taken from defendant's phones. Yeah, and this is a known, I mean, just the fact that having notifications, on with signal as a privacy issue has been known for a while. But yeah.

Starting point is 00:12:26 Two defendants, Liz Sojo and Savannah Baton, were neither in planning chats nor attended the gear check. Uh-huh. But all the defendants who attended the protest did carpool together in two vehicles and brought a total of 11 firearms, body armor, individual for state kits, and all these were presented as government exhibits. Mm-hmm. I'm going to quote the Department of Just.

Starting point is 00:12:51 right up about this case. Quote, evidence at trial revealed most of the Antifa cell involved in the Prairie Land attack looked to Song as a leader. Song acquired firearms that were distributed to co-defendants and recruited members at gun ranges and combat sessions they conducted, unquote. Yep. I just as a general rule, like, because the potential consequences of having firearms in a protest are so high, if you are, showing up at a protest or organizing one and people are talking about bringing them, it behooves you to pay close attention to how they talk about them. And if someone is talking about, for example, suppress a fire, that's not something that is really relevant to a defensive

Starting point is 00:13:40 shooting in a legal situation. That's like a combat thing. Like, very rarely do self-defense shootings involve suppressing fire. I just, you have to be very, very careful. Yeah. And this is like a judgment thing. Like if you hear people talking about guns who are going to be bringing firearms to a protest or another event, and they are talking in a way that sounds as if they are like planning or eager to shoot it out with the police or right wing counter with anyone, that's a thing to be very wary of. That's a real warning sign. Yeah, that's a real red flag.

Starting point is 00:14:17 Yeah. That's a real red flag. The defense argued that when song shot at the officer, Song was using suppressive fire, claiming that song aimed for the ground, and the officer was perhaps struck by a ricochet. We don't know if that is true. No.

Starting point is 00:14:35 And there really is no legal precedent for arguing suppressive fire in this way. In a self-defense shooting, no. If you're shooting the direction of someone, they absolutely can start shooting back, even if the- is intended as being quote unquote suppressive, right? Like there's there's really no legal precedent for for arguing in this way. And from a legal standpoint, if you were saying I had to

Starting point is 00:14:59 shoot at someone in immediate self-defense and then you said, but I wasn't actually aiming at them. I was just trying to suppress them. That immediately like, I mean, I don't think they were ever going to be able to argue self-defense because this was a cop. But if this had not been, if this had been like, you know, a right-wing counter-protester or something, the fact that you're saying that you were like shooting to try not to hit them is something that can get you in trouble. That's an extremely dangerous thing from a legal standpoint to talk about. Especially if you're the one like initiating the use of deadly force. Yes.

Starting point is 00:15:31 If you have, now if they, if a group of people start shooting at you and you are firing and you're just trying to keep it, whatever, that you're going to say because they've started shooting at you. But like this person started shooting, like just from a legal standpoint, this is a nightmare for the defense. Yeah. From the jump. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:15:48 Some of the defendants attended a daytime protest outside of this facility earlier on July 4th, and after which they then reported back to fellow defendants' details regarding the facility's security prior to this nighttime action. I think it's time for a quick break, and then we'll return to discuss the Antifa terrorism cell aspect of this case. Great. Well, I hate all of this so far, Garrison. Here's some ads.

Starting point is 00:16:15 I guess we're back. So let's talk about quote-unquote Antifa. Yeah, let's talk about quote-unquote Antifa. The government argued that the defendants were members of a quote-unquote, North Texas Antifa cell. The indictment describes Antifa as a, quote, militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribing to a revolutionary anarchist or autonomous Marxist ideology,

Starting point is 00:16:51 which explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States government, law enforcement authorities and the system of law, unquote. So basically they view Antifa as left-wing anti-authoritarians, right? That's how we can kind of collapse the use of this term down into like a single sentence. It's left-wing anti-authoritarianism. Though the defendants never actually organized altogether under the Antifa name, the prosecution argued that they were linked through a triple Venn diagram of the Socialist Rifle Association, the John Brown

Starting point is 00:17:25 Gun Club, and the Emma Goldman Book Club. And this all converged on quote-unquote direct militant action. I'm assuming people are familiar with the SRA or the John Brown Gun Club in some way. The Emma Goldman Book Club was

Starting point is 00:17:40 a local zine distributor and publisher that also put on community events from a radical anti-capitalist, usually anarchist-friendly perspective. a gold one, obviously being an anarchist. Yep. And like the fact that obviously these three organizations aren't actually tied

Starting point is 00:18:00 together in any sort of like, like they're trying to frame it as like, you know, an Al-Qaeda and an Al-Qaeda affiliate type deal, right? Which is not accurate to how these organizations work or to what's going on here. But I'm not surprised they went with this line of argument. I mean, yeah, the defendants had connections to these groups, right? Sure. Yeah. And because these groups have an ideal. theological underpinning that can be seen as being quite similar in some ways. Yeah. They're viewing that as part of the connection.

Starting point is 00:18:30 That connects the individuals who were involved in these sorts of like organizations or community events. Yeah. And I'm not surprised that's how they tried to argue it. Sure. A sticky notepad found at the Soto Residence contained passwords for the Emma Goldman Book Club Twitter account and an Antifa Dallas Fort Worth Twitter account. which prosecution used as evidence

Starting point is 00:18:53 linking defendants to quote unquote Antifa. The government also called on David Kyle Schidler as an expert witness to testify about Antifa. Schidler is a member of the Center for Security Policy

Starting point is 00:19:08 in SPLC designated hate group. He also helped draft the definition of Antifa given in this case and used that definition while testifying in front of the Senate last year. The defense missed a deadline

Starting point is 00:19:21 to challenge the prosecution's Antifa expert qualifications, which would have needed to be filed as a pretrial motion, as opposed to an objection during the trial. Prosecutors also cited Trump's Antifa executive order, despite this order being signed months after the Prairieland incident. And the prosecutors also claimed that the International Antifa Defense Fund contributed over $5,000 to the Prairie Land Disp. defendants give send go crowdfunding page. So much of this case was spent arguing over whether the defendants were in fact Antifa and what that even means, like what does it mean to be Antifa and if that's actually

Starting point is 00:20:08 relevant to the charges that they were facing. And by the end of the trial, it became more clear that the defendants weren't exactly being prosecuted for being members of Antifa. rather the government asserted that their proximity to this idea of Antifa provided evidence to their motive and preferred tactics. Quoting the Support Committee courtroom notes, quote, the government's strategy was to display zines, stickers, pamphlets, flags, and other political materials, anarchist, anti-fascist, anti-ice, animal liberation,

Starting point is 00:20:41 and argued that this shared ideology proves conspiracy and motive. FBI case agent Casey Bennett testified that the materials, quote, show a group of people sharing an ideology and that this, quote, might lead us to intent behind the attack and shows a conspiracy, unquote. Towards the end of the trial, Judge Pittman asked the prosecution, quote, is it necessary to prove this stuff about Antifa? The support committee, courtroom notes say that, The prosecution responded by saying that Antifa ideology, particularly Black Block, was how the group operated.

Starting point is 00:21:24 The judge pressed, quote, whether it's Antifa or the Methodist Women's Auxiliary, why does it matter? Yep. The prosecution argued that they took, quote, unquote, direct action against the ICE facility and argued Black Block and Antifa ideology were central to how the alleged attack was carried out, unquote. Well, that's, yeah, that's positive at least. guess. The government described Blackblock for the purposes of this case as, quote, dark clothing with head and face coverings that concealed their identities, designed to hide each individual's identity, but also to aid and abet those members engaged in illegal acts by making members indistinguishable

Starting point is 00:22:00 from one another to law enforcement, unquote. The jury was shown clothing from all the defendants as evidence, as well as body armor and a quote-unquote resist fascism flag. Now, all this does raise a question about whether this prosecution is against the defendant's political ideology or the specific criminal acts of throwing fireworks or shooting out a police officer. Rather than being convicted of being members of Antifa the terrorist group, something that still doesn't really have legal precedent, the prosecutors argued that the Antifa ideology, left-wing anti-authoritarianism, played a role in inspiring the defendants, formed the basis of political affinity that brought this collection of individuals together

Starting point is 00:22:40 and relate to a collection of security practices, subcultural practices, and associated tactics which were employed before, during, and after the criminal acts related to the noise demo. Quote, quote-unquote, op-sec practices like, you know, Black Block are using signal, were used as evidence.

Starting point is 00:22:58 Yeah. That there was some sort of conspiracy at foot. Sure. Yeah. I mean, yeah, that makes sense from a prosecutorial standpoint, right? these people are talking about, like, just the fact that there are zines talking about the purpose of black block and people are having a planning meeting ahead of time where they're like checking their gear and talking about how they're going to come in a block. Like, yeah, that's unfortunate.

Starting point is 00:23:23 Yeah, I can see why the prosecution went with that line of argument. But how does this relate to like terrorism, right? Because conspiracy and terrorism are different things. Yes. So to get an idea of the government's own preferred language regarding antifat terrorism. I'll quote from the guilty plea drafted by the government for a former defendant turned government witness. Quote, the terrorism was calculated to influence and affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion. Co-conspirators adhered to an antifa, anarchist ideology, and organized cells or affinity groups. Co-conspirators began planning direct action at Prairieland. Co-conspirators agreed to address in black block to provide cover for

Starting point is 00:24:07 each other to commit crimes, including concealing the escape of those who committed destruction of government property, unquote. So this is how it relates to like the actual legal definition of terrorism, right, which is certain criminal acts intending to change or influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, right? That's how the government uses the term terrorism. Yeah. And this, this section of the plea written by the government shows how the government is self-asserting the terrorism that happened at Prairieland. Right. There's been a lot of headlines talking about the role of zines at this trial.

Starting point is 00:24:44 And zines did play a two-part role. Prosecution did argue that the presence of insurrectionary zines is indicative of some alignment with Antifa, even if the possession of these zines itself is not a crime. The government's Antifa expert testified that owning political text does not necessarily indicate group membership or personal allegiance to an ideology. Quote, just because I own a copy of Mn-Kompf, does that make me a Nazi? If I own DOS Capital, does that make me a Marxist? Unquote. Sure. Stunning, stunning first example given here. Yeah. Interesting call. But also like a valid argument, yeah. But this is true, right? Yes.

Starting point is 00:25:29 And this is, I've seen people framing the verdict as having zines or whatever, like, it's an act of terrorism. And that's not what was decided here. No, what's happening here is a bit more complicated and harder to explain. Yes. The other relevancy of zines to this case relate to the concealing documents charges against Des Estrada, and his wife, Mari Ruda, based on transporting a box of political zines from his wife's house to a friend's house in Denton, Texas. The government claims that Royida called Des from jail on July 6th, instructing him to conceal evidence. Now, we don't have access to a full transcript of this call. The full call was given to the jury,

Starting point is 00:26:14 but sections of it were read or listened to in court. The most detailed account of the call segments played in court come from notes taken by the Prairieland Defense Support Committee. The actual evidence exhibit is not yet available to be purchased on Pacer. Not sure if it will be or if that'll just be after sentencing, but I tried to actually get the transcript of the call, and it was not available. Des told his wife that he already talked with her mom, who she had previously called the day before. Rida talked about feds confiscating property.

Starting point is 00:26:50 FBI special agent Whitworth said, in his opinion, Rada was concerned about the evidence. Rueida then voiced concern for her car parked at the 2,400 block of 56th Street, which had her phone stored inside. This was the staging site before she went to the action. She then instructed Dez to quote unquote, tow it. My phone is in the back. Do what you got to do. Just tow it, unquote. The support committee wrote that, quote, prosecution replayed this section, characterizing it as RADA trying to get rid of evidence.

Starting point is 00:27:26 Rida says to, quote unquote, retrieve her items from the vehicle, does not refer to her items using the word evidence, and does not say, hide, destroy, or conceal. Des never actually got to this car or the phone. He explained that the vehicle would be repoed. But Raya also said in this call, quote, move whatever you need to move in the house. The support committee wrote that, quote,

Starting point is 00:27:50 prosecution argued this meant moving evidence. Defense noted she was talking about pets at the time, unquote. On the call, Des mentioned that he had already been at the house and replied, quote unquote, were good in reference to moving stuff from the house. The defense questioned how they could have conspired out of order, right? Because the government claims there was a conspiracy to conceal documents. But Des here said that he moved things before he actually got on this phone call with his wife. The FBI answered that Dez just had already acquired the necessary

Starting point is 00:28:26 information to act, just not directly from his wife. Now, Des was found guilty of, quote, corruptly concealing a document or record by transporting a box containing numerous Antifa materials such as insurrection planning, anti-law enforcement, anti-government, and anti-immigration enforcement documents and propaganda, intending to conceal the box as contents and impair its availability for use in a federal grand jury and federal criminal proceedings, unquote. That's from the DOJ. He and his wife, Rada, were found guilty of conspiracy to conceal documents and other objects that would implicate Rada in the riot and shooting at the Prairieland facility, also

Starting point is 00:29:09 according to the Department of Justice. So basically, this was an evidence tampering charge, a concealing evidence charge. The actual presence of the zines was not the crime. but the government argued that the zines themselves were evidence or that Desz suspected they could be evidence, and that's why he moved them from his wife's house to this other location. We're going to go in one more break and then return to discuss two more charges. Okay, we're back. Nine of the counts, count one, two, four, and five through ten cited Pinkerton versus United States at 1946.

Starting point is 00:29:58 Hmm. Okay. The judge explained this to the jury by saying that a defendant can be criminally liable for the offenses committed by another co-conspirator if the offense was, quote, reasonably foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. With the judge writing in jury instructions, quote, a defendant can be found guilty and held criminally liable for an offense under Pinkerton co-conspirator liability, even if the defendant was not charged with conspiracy. It is not required that the conspiracy agrees to commit or facilitate each and every part of a substantive offense that is in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant must merely reach an agreement with the specific intent that the underlying criminal objective be achieved by the conspiracy, unquote. Early in the trial, prosecution argued that song firing on the officers was quote unquote reasonably foreseeable based on the planning of the action and previous statement. made by Song, but this Pickerton liability also applied to the other charges, including riot, material support to terrorism, and the explosive charge. The jury found all defendants

Starting point is 00:31:08 that were charged, guilty of counts one, two, three, and four. That's riot, material support, and two explosives charges, but did not find the other defendants, besides Song, guilty of attempted murder or discharging a firearm using the Pinkerton co-conspirators. liability. The prosecution wanted the other individuals at the protest to be found guilty of the charges of attempted murder using the liability, and the jury did not do that. Let's talk about two of the charges that now carry some worrying potential to be used against protesters in the future based on the precedent that this case sets. First, the conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and using and carrying an explosive during a riot.

Starting point is 00:31:59 The only quote-unquote explosives at this noise demonstration protest were fireworks. And the judge even confirmed that it was established that the fireworks caused no damage to the ice facility. Right. Yet, Stephen Brennaman, an ATS explosives, special agent, testified that fireworks meet the statutory definition of explosives under 18 U.S.C. Section 844IJ. because the fireworks contain gunpowder as defined in the statute. This could have some pretty wide-reaching implications. A lot of protests use fireworks. This was a protest on 4th of July, a day full of the use of fireworks.

Starting point is 00:32:43 Robert and I have been to a protest, covered a protest in 2020, outside of a federal government building that also had a lot of fireworks and fireworks shot towards the building. Yep. If that happened now, it's possible that people at this protest could be charged with this conspiracy to use and carry an explosive. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, they've clearly been arguing for this ever since 2020, right? Like fire, because it wasn't just Portland was in the only place where people were using fireworks. Generally, people were using fireworks as kind of a response to the police using flashbacks, right? Like it was a force equalizer. both were used quite often.

Starting point is 00:33:26 But, you know, like, I had so many of those fucking things blow up in my face and they never did. Like, these are not bombs. These are not pipe bombs. Like, it's not fun to have them blow up right next to you. But it's, these are not, like, deadly explosives. Yes, agreed. And even the agents investigating this case mailed materials from these fireworks for testing using regular FedEx, not labeling them as possibly dangerous or explosive.

Starting point is 00:33:52 and the government argued that it was because the amount in the FedEx package was just so small that they didn't need to label it as being dangerous. Yeah. Now, lastly, I need to discuss count two. It's providing

Starting point is 00:34:08 material support to terrorists. This is 18 USC 2339. This is the charge that a lot of people are talking about when they're mentioning someone has been convicted of terrorism for XYZ, for using signal, for wearing black, black, for possessing zines, they're referring to this charge. Now, this statute has two sections. Section B refers to knowingly attempting to,

Starting point is 00:34:35 conspiring to, or actually providing material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization. This is not how the government used this statute, right? They're not considering Antifa a foreign terrorist organization for the purposes of this case. That's not how you're using this. The defendants were charged with Section A, alleging that they provided and attempted to provide material support and resources and did conceal and disguise the nature of their material support and resources, including property, services, training, communications, equipment, weapons, explosives, personnel, including themselves, and transportation, knowing and intending

Starting point is 00:35:13 that they were to be used in preparation for and in carrying out an offense identified as a federal crime of terrorism or carrying out the concealment of an escape from an offense identified as a federal crime of terrorism. That's a lot. Yeah. That's a long sentence.

Starting point is 00:35:32 This is certainly a very confusing charge. Yeah. Now, this statute lists at least 28 possible terrorism offenses. Now, relevant to this case are three. 18 U.S.C. 844F, which is maliciously attempting to damage government property by means of

Starting point is 00:35:49 fire or an explosive. For the purposes of this case, that is throwing fireworks at a building. 18 U.S.C. 1361. That's willful depredation against any property of the United States, exceeding $1,000. For the purposes of this case, this would be damaging government property in other ways, like slashing tires, graffiti, that sort of thing. Right. And finally, 18 U.S.C. 114, killing or attempting to kill an officer or employee of the United States. That's pretty self-explanatory. Yeah. So the government accused the defendants of providing material support in furtherance of committing these three crimes of terrorism, even if each individual defendant themselves did not actually commit one of these three crimes. To quote the jury instructions, quote, the government does not have to prove all of these to you for you to return a guilty verdict on this charge.

Starting point is 00:36:44 Proof beyond a reasonable doubt on one is enough. Yeah. Unquote. So the jury does not need to find proof that all of these three terrorism offenses were committed, that the explosives charge, the destruction of government property charge, or the attempted killing charge. They just need to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that material support was provided for one of these. Part of what makes this charge kind of dangerous is that we don't know which terroristic crime or crimes the jury found sufficient. evidence for, or if they used different offenses for different defendants, nor do we explicitly know what the jury thought qualified as material support. It could have been driving people to an action, mere presence at an action, wearing black clothes, providing money to buy fireworks, all those could be considered material support. But because of how the jury just writes guilty on this charge, we don't actually know what the specific justification they used to find this to be true. Right. Because the discharge is so broad and can contain a lot of things that qualify as

Starting point is 00:37:52 material support, including just being merely present at an action, like personnel, can be material support in furtherance of a federal crime of terrorism. Right. So wearing black block at an action where no crime happens would not constitute terrorism, but wearing black clothes at a protest where someone does an ideologically motivated crime of terrorism could be seen as material. supporting that crime or concealing the escape of the person who committed that crime. I want to quote from the judge's instructions to the jury regarding the First Amendment, quote, constitutionally protected speech can be properly used as evidence to prove a defendant's motive, intent, and knowledge to commit the offense or further the unlawful purpose of

Starting point is 00:38:41 any jointly undertaken criminal activity. Stated another way, if a defendant's defendants' speech, expression, or associations were made with the intent to knowingly provide material support or resources to be used to prepare for or carry out a violation of federal law or to carry out the concealment of an escape from such a violation, then the First Amendment would not provide a defense to that conduct, unquote. So it is possible, now using this case as precedent, if you're present at a protest before someone commits a serious crime, and you have a tangential link to that person, you could also face similar charges.

Starting point is 00:39:21 If you're in a group chat with someone and then they commit a crime, you could face similar charges. This is not the first time the government has tried to use this sort of conspiracy against a large group of protesters. Notably, they tried to do this in Atlanta

Starting point is 00:39:34 unsuccessfully, but I think it's worth noting they were only unsuccessful on their recode charges because of procedural error, not because of actual evidence argued in court. It's that the prosecutor, that case did not actually have justification or the legal justification to bring this charge.

Starting point is 00:39:51 So we never actually saw this get argued out in front of a jury and find the jury's verdict. But this is a part of an ongoing strategy the prosecution has done against protesters the past few years and in this case successfully. Yeah, it's also like as bleak as this is, and this is very bleak. This is not the final say on how any case like this will be adjudicated everywhere. This is a case in Texas, right? Like this is not. Yes.

Starting point is 00:40:16 This isn't the fucking U.S. Supreme Court. It's not even the Texas Supreme Court, right? Yeah. Not to minimize how fucking awful this is. But this does not mean this is how cases like this will be adjudicated every time they come to court everywhere in the U.S. Yes. And the vagueness of the material support charge is like a double-edged sword, right?

Starting point is 00:40:37 One, it can be used in cases like this. And we don't actually know how they were exactly able to successfully argue that. Because we don't know which specific. federal offense of terrorism the jury found material support was provided for, or if it was multiple offenses, nor do we know exactly which things the jury found constituted material support. But because we don't know these things, that means when prosecutors try to argue this charge again in the future, they kind of have to start from the ground floor all over again. It's harder to apply this exact precedent because the specific things.

Starting point is 00:41:16 that constituted material support and the specific crime that material support was provided for are sort of ambiguous. But the vagueness of this charge certainly leads to a lot of confusion. And you can now look at this case

Starting point is 00:41:30 and see that, you know, legal possession of firearms, firearms training, and possession of political paraphernalia could bolster ideological links between UN defendants, which could be used as evidence for a charge like this, right?

Starting point is 00:41:44 Yep. For conspiracy charges, and that obviously is worrying. Now, a song faces a minimum penalty of 20 years, a maximum of life in prison. Other defendants at Prairie Land face sentences ranging from a minimum of 10 years to up to 60. The husband, convicted of concealing documents,

Starting point is 00:42:00 faces up to 40 years in prison, and those who pled guilty faces sentences of up to 15 years in federal prison, though their cooperation may lower that. Another man faces charges for evidence tampering because he allegedly removed Prairieland defendants from Discord chats last year, but this is a state charge which will be going to trial later in April. Yeah, that'll be interesting to watch, I guess.

Starting point is 00:42:28 Yeah. This is bleak. This is extremely worrying. That's part of the point is to scare people, to make people feel like they can't trust other activists, to make people scared to organize, to make them scared to be in group chats. and yeah, there's very real reason to be concerned as a result of this.

Starting point is 00:42:47 However, none of this should be seen as like the final word on all of this stuff. And this certainly is not as simple as just having a zine or wearing black is terrorism now. That's not what was adjudicated here. No, these things do all relate to or they're trying to be connected to, you know, actual crimes which did occur. And that's certainly the goal, by the way, that the right has, but that's not what they've achieved quite yet. I mean, it's definitely a way to try to scare people out of organizing in the sense that, you know,

Starting point is 00:43:17 you cannot be found a terrorist just by calling yourself like Antifa, just by being Antifa, alone by yourself. Yeah. You're not going to be a terrorist. The same way, you can't be put in jail just for being a Nazi, right? Right. But if you are part of a Nazi group chat where you're planning an action and then a Nazi does something at the action like shooting a power substation, then that Nazi and the other Nazi

Starting point is 00:43:41 that he's organizing with, you know, could face terrorism charges. That is how those sorts of, like, cases work. And a very similar thing is being done here. It's not the actual, like, political ideology necessarily at trial, but organized with other people in furtherance of a political ideology is what the government is trying to suppress. Yep. Cool.

Starting point is 00:44:05 Well, I don't have anything else to add at this point, you know? No, we'll certainly cover this one's, sentencing happens later this year in June. Be careful. And if you're in a group chat with somebody who keeps writing shit that you're like, wow, that would be a terrible thing to hear read back in court. Really reconsider staying in a group chat with that person. Just be wary about what you say and what other people say to you online.

Starting point is 00:44:33 Not just because of court stuff, because if somebody is being incredibly reckless with the things that they are putting down in writing. They're probably being reckless in other areas. Just be careful. You know, folks, be careful. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast.

Starting point is 00:45:10 I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. If you're trying to keep up with everything happening on and off the court,

Starting point is 00:45:33 we've got you covered on the podcast, flagrant and funny. You look at the top four number one seeds. What do you think UCLA is going to do? Break down that for me, my friend. Obviously, Yukon is the overwhelming favorite in this tournament. But I'll be honest, I think people are kind of sleeping on Texas. Experts are suggesting that UCLA is the number one challenger to Yukon and that right after that would be Texas.

Starting point is 00:45:59 S&C is so deep and so thick and just about everything. It really is annoying. So it's UCLA, Texas, South Carolina, LSU. Only ones that could possibly upset Yukon. On Flagrant and Funny, we're giving our unfiltered takes on the biggest moments the conversations everyone's having. So whether your bracket is busted or you just want the latest on the tournament, we got you.

Starting point is 00:46:19 Listen to Flakron and Funny with Kerry Champion and Jamel Hill on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHart Women's Sports. I became a millionaire overnight, but lost everything that actually mattered. Wait a minute, Sophia, did you just say he lost everything? That's right. It's inheriting too much drama week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This person writes, I just inherited a fortune after losing my mom, and now my girlfriend's entire family is coming out of nowhere with their hands out.

Starting point is 00:46:48 One sibling wants me to fund their whole lifestyle. Another vanished for four years and suddenly reappeared, and my girlfriend is already giving my money away. Hold on, Sophia. So the girl he wants to marry is already sending money out the door. And that's just the beginning. He makes a plan, sets up a trust, and finally thinks he has everything under control. Okay, so things work out then? Let's just say the people he trusted the most are the ones who ended up shocking him the most.

Starting point is 00:47:12 So does the money end up being worth going through all that? To find out, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Lori Siegel, a long-time tech journalist. And consider my new podcast, mostly human, your bridge to the future. Anyone can now be an entrepreneur. Anyone can build an app. And it's very empowering. Each week, I'll speak to the people building that future.

Starting point is 00:47:35 And we're going to break down what all of this innovation actually means for you. What I come to realize is that when people think that they're dating these AI companion, they're actually dating the companies that create this. We're experiencing one of the greatest tech accelerators. in human history. And let's be honest, that can be messy. There's no playbook for what to do when an AI model hallucinates a story about you.

Starting point is 00:48:01 But it's my belief that we should all benefit from this moment. Mostly Human will show you how. My goal is to give you the playbook, so you can benefit. The reason I say agency is because if we can give power back to people, then I think that's probably the best thing

Starting point is 00:48:17 we can do for your mental health. Listen to Mostly Human on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. I'm Michael Phillips, an historian, and the author of a book about racism in Dallas called White Metropolis, and the co-author with longtime journalist Betsy Freeoff of the history of eugenics in Texas called The Purifying Knife. I'm Stephen Monticelli. I'm a journalist who specializes in covering political extremism and far-right Internet culture for the Texas Observer, the Barb wire, and other publications. Today we'll be talking about the Fifth Circuit. And we'll start with a man named James Ho, who on what might have been the biggest day of his judicial career so far couldn't have picked a creepier setting. The 52-year-old's legal career has rocketed forward at light speed.

Starting point is 00:49:11 Born in Taiwan and a graduate of Stanford, he signed up as an attorney for the White Shoe law firm Gibson Dunn in California. In 2000, at age 27, he joined a high-powered legal. team that forever shaped the history of the United States. From NBC News in Washington, this is Meet the Press with Tim Russert. Our issues this Sunday, 36 days after the election, Al Gore ends his campaign. For the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. George W. Bush will be the 43rd president of the United States. States. I'm thankful to the American people for the great privilege of being able to serve as your next

Starting point is 00:50:00 president. Young and almost entirely unknown outside of legal circles, James Ho joined some of the most famous conservative lawyers in the country in the year 2000 to convince the United States Supreme Court to stop the hotly contested presidential vote count in Florida. That move elevated President George W. Bush to the White House. In this effort, James Ho rubbed shoulders with right-wing luminaries like the man who in five years would be the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. Ho rocketed to judicial superstardom. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for a couple of years.

Starting point is 00:50:38 Then from 2008 to 2010, he succeeded Ted Cruz as Solicitor General of Texas. There, he handled appeals filed by the state in cases heard by the state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 4th, 2018, Ho's celebrated his next rapid climb up the judicial ladder when he is sworn as the newest judge on the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees federal cases that originating Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Ho's swearing-in ceremony took place at the mansion of Dallas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow. You've probably heard that name before because Crow has made news with the revelation that he lavished hundreds of thousands of, of dollars and gifts and favors on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, including cruises to Indonesian islands on the businessman's 162-foot super yacht, and a $119,000 Bible that once belonged to leading abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Crow flew Thomas to Dallas on his private jet so the

Starting point is 00:51:41 justice could swear in his former clerk. The surroundings included Crow's unnerving souvenirs once described on the program Inside Edition. Questions are being raised. today about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's friendship with a billionaire who collects Nazi memorabilia. Published reports say Dallas Tycoon Harlan Crow's controversial collection includes Hitler's notorious autobiography Mind Kampf, signed by Hitler, oil paintings by Hitler, and linen napkins embroidered with the Nazi swastika. The collection is housed at Crow's Mansion in Dallas. I can't get over the collection of Nazi memorabilia, said one guest who saw the Nazi treasure trove. You sort of just gasp when you walk into the room.

Starting point is 00:52:24 The estate also includes what Crowe is called the Garden of Evil, a collection of imposing statues of past authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Nikolai Chochescu, the eccentric Romanian tyrant violently deposed in 1989, as well as a bust of Gavarillo Princep, the Bosnian-Serb nationalist who triggered World War I with his assassinations, of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Proclaims that his collection is somehow a statement of his hatred for both communism and fascism.

Starting point is 00:53:00 The creepy artwork perhaps foreshadowed Ho's ominous career in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On that bench, he has become infamous for weirdly written and extreme opinions in which he has suggested that the children of migrants might not be eligible for birthright citizenship because the country is being, quote, invaded and that abortion actually somehow injures doctors because they are denied the intense pleasure of delivering babies. Those antics might lead him to one day occupy a seat on the United States Supreme Court, potentially succeeding Thomas or Samuel Alito, the two oldest justices on the nation's highest bench. In this episode, we'll look at the career of Judge James Ho, his alarming right-wing judicial activism, and the strange history of the Fifth

Starting point is 00:53:43 Circuit Court of Appeals, which since the Reagan administration has transformed for one of the most liberal judicial bodies in the country to perhaps the scariest court in America. Given its current reactionary reputation, it's a bit ironic the Fifth Circuit Court convenes in a New Orleans courthouse named after John Minor Wisdom, a New Orleans native who formed a critical part of a quartet of liberal judges known simply as the Four, who in the 1950s and 1960s issued a series of revolutionary rulings that advanced the civil rights movement. President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Wisdom to the bench in 1957. He quickly formed an alliance with three other liberal judges on the Fifth Circuit,

Starting point is 00:54:25 Albert P. Tuttle of Georgia, John R. Brown of Texas, and Richard T. Rivis of Alabama. Rivis was the only Democrat on the squad that came to be known as the Fifth Four. These liberals typically prevailed over the conservatives serving on the Fifth Circuit, and at that point, the Fifth Circuit heard cases from states that spread across the core of the one-time Confederacy, including Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia. This placed the fifth bore on the front lines of the civil rights struggle. In 1958, the Fifth Circuit began chipping away at Jim Crow. The court heard the case of Joe Dorsey, Jr., of New Orleans, challenging Louisiana law

Starting point is 00:55:05 that outlawed matches between black and white boxers. Wisdom wrote the majority opinion, which declared such legislation, made a mockery of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. That opinion, like many wisdom wrote, would be upheld the following year by the Supreme Court that was presided over by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Louisiana integrated boxing matches, but for years outside the ring, the arenas divided into black and white seating. In the coming years, the Fifth Circuit forced St. Helen Parish in Louisiana to reopen their schools after that school board voted to close all campuses to prevent integration.

Starting point is 00:55:47 The Fifth Circuit Court ordered the University of Mississippi to admit an African-American student, James Meredith. In his opinion, Wisdom wrote that Ole Miss, as it's known, had engaged in a carefully calculated campaign of delay, harassment, and masterly inactivity. Riots broke out as federal troops had to enforce the order. James H. Meredith is formally enrolled at the University of Mississippi. Ending one chapter in the federal government's efforts to desegregate the university. The town of Oxford is an armed camp following riots that accompanied the registration of the first Negro in the university's 118-year history. Much of this film record was destroyed when our cameraman Gordon Yoder was attacked,

Starting point is 00:56:35 but he did salvage pictures of Governor Ross Barnett at the scene. The governor fought the court order long and bitterly before modifying his stand, saying Mississippi was overpowered by the federal government. President Kennedy appealed to the students and to the people of the state to comply peacefully with the law and bring the crisis to an end. Even as he talked, riots were breaking out in Oxford. Americans are free and sure to disagree with the law, but not to disobey it. For any government of laws and not of men, no man, however prominent or powerful, and no mob, however unruly or boisterous, is entitled to defy a court of law.

Starting point is 00:57:23 In 1963, the Fifth Circuit ordered the desegregation of community centers, cultural centers, playgrounds, and public parks. The next year, the court ruled that jury selection system in Orleans, Paris, where, as wisdom noted, no black had ever said on a grand jury or trial jury panel violated the Constitution. Two years after that, the Fifth Circuit overturned Louisiana's voter registration. literacy tests, which required a citizen to pass in the judgment of white officials, a written test on the Constitution. Such laws had long disenfranchised impoverished African Americans and whites. Perhaps wisdom's most significant opinion came with the 1968 United States v. Jefferson case, which blocked states from avoiding compliance with the Brown v. Board of Education decision

Starting point is 00:58:11 by setting up so-called, quote, school choice plans, in which parents allegedly freely chose to send their children to segregated schools. Wisdom wrote, The Constitution is both colorblind and color conscious. To avoid conflict with the Equal Protection Clause, a classification that denies a benefit, causes harm, or imposes a burden must not be based on race. In that sense, the Constitution is colorblind,

Starting point is 00:58:43 but the Constitution is color conscious to prevent discrimination from being perpetuated and to undo the effects of past discrimination. Quining a phrase that would later ignite fierce white backlash against civil rights north and south, Wisdom said school systems needed to move beyond ostensibly not discriminating and to take, quote, affirmative action to bring about a unitary non-racial system. That phrase would provide a legal foundation for school busing as a means of genuinely integrating schools and also introduced the concept of affirmative action, hiring practices, and other stubborn aspects of racial exclusion. The Fifth Circuit's record of judicial progressivism continued

Starting point is 00:59:28 through the 1970s. A 1976 decision by the Fifth Circuit, for instance, required public colleges and universities in Texas to recognize gay student organizations. Meanwhile, moderate Republicans tried to persuade Richard Nixon to nominate wisdom for the United States Supreme Court. However, Attorney General John Mitchell, who later went to prison for his role in the Watergate scandal, squashed the idea. He complained that the judge was a damn left-winger, who would supposedly be as bad as a famously liberal Chief Justice Warren. President Clinton would give Wisdom the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1993. Wisdom died six years later. If he miraculously returned, Wisdom would not recognize the appeals court that he spent so much of his life serving.

Starting point is 01:00:12 We'll talk about the transformation of the Fifth Circuit of appeals, the extreme and disturbing decisions that has made since the start of the Trump era, and the career of one of that court's most infamous judges when we come back from our hopefully less infamous sponsors. In 1981, the federal judiciary was reorganized. The Fifth Circuit Court now heard appeals only from Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. A new 11th Circuit Court now hears cases from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. We should provide a hopefully brief. civics lesson here. The fifth court consists of 17 active judges and nine senior judges. When a side loses a case in a federal district court, they can appeal to a circuit court where the case is heard by a three-judge panel. In some cases, if one side disagrees with the judgment of the panel, they may

Starting point is 01:01:09 appeal the decision to the full judicial court. Among the active judges, those appointed by Republican presidents outnumber those appointed by Democrats by a margin of 12 to 5. Donald Trump appointed more than a third of these judges, six and all. Each, of course, could serve on the court for the rest of their life. The Fifth Circuit also has eight senior judges who are semi-retired, but preside over a limited number of cases. Six of them were also appointed by Republican presidents stretching back to Ronald Reagan. Even in that hyper-conservative company, James Ho has stood out. Mike Davis, the president of the pro-Trump Article III project, a group dedicated to put federal courts further right has said, quote, on every crucial but controversial legal issue,

Starting point is 01:01:58 Jim Ho is constantly the tip of the spear. It has been a cliche among the American right wingers that liberal judges from the time of Franklin Roosevelt had become judicial activists for abusing their positions on the bench to advance their political agendas rather than impartially ruling on the law, calling balls and strikes. Ho's open political advocacy, however, has raised no alarms for those saying presume advocates for judicial neutrality. While he served as Texas's Solicitor General, Ho did pro bono work for the first Liberty Institute, a Christian right organization headquartered in Plano, Texas, just north of Dallas, that won a case for a Washington State high school football coach who was

Starting point is 01:02:44 fired because he violated school policy by leading his team in prayer after each game. The group has also represented bakers who refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. As a judge, Ho led a boycott of legal clerks who graduated from Yale Law School to punish that institution for its supposed leftist cancel culture and intolerance of conservative views. During a speech to the Far Right Heritage Foundation, the authors of Project 2025, Ho ridiculed lawyers with, quote, fancy credentials, fancy law schools, fancy clerkships, fancy law firms and government jobs. He claimed that issued liberal opinions for no other purpose

Starting point is 01:03:25 than winning popularity. He urged young conservatives to assert themselves against the supposed popularity of political correctness. In addition to serving on the bench, Ho could be considered an activist, particularly on culture war issues like abortion. He's condemned abortion as the, quote, immoral, tragic, and violent taking of innocent human life. In 2018, he upheld a Texas law that required the cremation or burial of fetal remains, a potentially costly burden for women receiving medical treatment. And the state of Texas argued that any potential financial burdens to women or clinics were irrelevant since the Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops made a pledge to bury the remains for low cost or even for free. Such a promise, of course, was not legally binding.

Starting point is 01:04:10 A district court overturned the law, but Ho and the Fifth Circuit reinstated it, arguing that coerced burial protected religious freedom of the capital. Catholic bishops. Quote, the First Amendment expressly guarantees the free exercise of

Starting point is 01:04:25 religion, including the right of bishops to express their profound objection to the moral tragedy of abortion,

Starting point is 01:04:31 Ho wrote. Texas still requires that fetal remains receive burial or cremation. As we'll explain later,

Starting point is 01:04:39 it's not only on the issue of abortion that Ho has staked out in extreme position. In Mans v. Sessions,

Starting point is 01:04:46 the Fifth Circuit Court by an 8-to-7 vote narrowly avoided overturning a federal gun law that prohibited interstate gun sales. Ho offered a bitter dissent, quoting his mentor, Clarence Thomas, and complaining that in spite of the wide open access to firearms in this country, the Second Amendment had become, quote, a second-class right. In his opinion, Ho ridiculed advocates of gun control of suffering from

Starting point is 01:05:11 hoplophobia, the irrational fear of guns. Ho and the entire Fifth Circuit achieved national infamy. after the Supreme Court erased almost half a century of abortion rights when it overturned the Roe v. Wade decision in the Dobbs v. Women's Health Organization case on June 24, 2022. A little more than a year after that landmark case, on August 16, 2023, the Fifth Circuit upheld tightened access for women to Mithapristone, the so-called abortion pill, which accounts for more than half of all terminated pregnancies in the United States. Originally approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, but only for prescription by hospitals and other medical facilities, the FDA expanded access to the medication in 2016 and gave doctors

Starting point is 01:05:54 the right to directly prescribe Miffipristone. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, starting in 2021, women could receive it through the mail. In 2024, an anti-abortion organization, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, intentionally incorporated in 2022 in Amarillo, which placed it in the jurisdiction of the famously anti-abortion federal district judge, Matthew J. Casmeric. Like Judge Ho, Casmeric belonged to the First Liberty Institute. While being considered for the federal bench, he unsuccessfully tried to conceal his authorship of legal articles on gay rights he thought might jeopardize approval of his domination by the U.S. Senate. Casmeric has described gay and trans people as mentally disordered. The Alliance for Hippocratic

Starting point is 01:06:41 medicine filed suit in Casmaric's court, seeking to overturn the FDA's approval of Mitha Pristown, even though decades of research had demonstrated its safety and its effectiveness for treating Cushing syndrome a severe endocrine disorder. None of the doctors in the Alliance had ever been involved in a medical case in which the use of Miffa Prestown had been considered. In his opinion, Casimir showed his disdain for medical personnel providing women reproductive care, referring to them as, quote, abortionists and called terminating pregnancy through medication, quote, starving the unborn human until death. courts require that parties have what judges call standing in order to file a lawsuit. That means, for instance, that one party has been in some way directly injured by the other party.

Starting point is 01:07:26 President Joe Biden's Food and Drug Administration questioned how the doctors in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine had in any way been directly harmed because women have access to abortion medications. Casmeric found a fanciful way to grant the alliance a right to sue. He claimed that treating the rare complications from Mithapristone overwhelmed hospitals and placed, quote, enormous pressure and stress on the doctors during emergencies and complications. After granting the alliance standing, Casmeric issued a preliminary injunction suspending the FDA's approval of the drug. The decision would go into effect in seven days in order to give the federal government a chance to file an appeal. In his decision, Casmeric cited two studies that claimed the drug was harmful, but both had been retracted by. biomedical journal. In effect, Casmeric had banned Mitha Pristone

Starting point is 01:08:16 nationwide. The United States Justice Department and Danco Laboratories, Mitha Pistone's manufacturer, appealed and the case went to the Fifth Circuit. Judicial chaos surrounding the status of Mitha Pryston reigned within hours as ABC

Starting point is 01:08:31 7 in Los Angeles reported. A judicial bombshell involving abortion that could have an impact in all 50 states. A Texas federal judge revoking FD. approval of an abortion pill that's been used for more than 20 years. But another federal judge in Washington state then issuing a contradictory ruling, setting up another major battle over a woman's right to choose.

Starting point is 01:08:54 I witness news reporter Amy Powell joining us live in studio with more tonight. Amy. And Michelle, this is causing a lot of concern. The reversal of Roe versus Wade by the Supreme Court was supposed to mean that abortion laws would be left up to individual states. But today, a Texas federal judge issued a ruling that could end access to an abortion pill in all 50 states. Shortly after the Texas judge issued his decision, a judge in Washington state issued a ruling ordering the FDA to make no changes to the availability

Starting point is 01:09:24 of Miffa Pristone. Those conflicting orders mean this case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. The Miffa Pristone case went to the Fifth Circuit where Judge Ho would write an opinion critics characterized as disturbing, baffling, and bizarre. We'll talk about what happened in the the Mifipristone case and how Judge Ho, an immigrant himself, has suggested that the children of migrants might not be eligible for birthright citizenship because the United States is, in his words, being invaded. But first, we'll hear some hopefully not too bizarre messages from our sponsors. When the Fifth Circuit heard the appeal of Casimir's ruling, Ho didn't recuse himself in the case, even though his wife, Allison, a lawyer, has repeatedly appeared at events sponsored by the Alliance

Starting point is 01:10:18 defending freedom, one of the litigants, and even received some of the litigants, and even received speaking fees from the organization. Ho brushed off this obvious conflict of interest. On August 16, 2023, that court didn't completely uphold Kismarik's ruling, but it did impose numerous restrictions on the abortion pill called Miffipristown, claiming that the FDA didn't fully consider its potential health risks. If the Supreme Court had upheld the Fifth Circuit's opinion, women would not have been allowed to receive a prescription through the mail after online medical appointments.

Starting point is 01:10:48 They would have been able to receive the prescription only after a direct visit with a doctor and after three in-person follow-up appointments. The window in which women would have been allowed to take Mithepristone would have been cut from 70 days of pregnancy to about 49. Ho wanted to go much further than the Fifth Circuit's majority. He wanted to rescind the FDA's approval of Mephtoprestone, which would have removed the drug from the market entirely. When judges agree with a majority on a panel, they can write a concurring opinion that gives them a chance to grandstand about a case. This is what Ho did in his concurrence when he bitterly complained that some believe that, quote, no one should ever question the FDA. Ho then asked the public to pity the obstetricians he claimed suffer because of women's abortion rights.

Starting point is 01:11:38 Ho drew on environmental case law, which acknowledges that a member of the public might believe that they've suffered a loss when, for instance, Park is destroyed because it is the location of a new mining operation and that they can sue on that basis. Ho argued that doctors could suffer the same sort of damages when a pregnancy is medically ended. In his concurrence on Mithrapristone, Ho wrote the following. Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them. Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child, and doctors delight in working with their unborn patients

Starting point is 01:12:22 and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted. Leo Yu is an assistant professor of law at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth who specializes in civil rights law. You actually received law degrees in two countries, his native China and in the United States. at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. While he lived in Texas, he lived under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit and saw close hand the legal chaos the Fifth Circuit is created in the states of Texas, Louisiana,

Starting point is 01:12:55 Mississippi. In 2021, he created the podcast, Plead the Fifth. Professor Yu believes that when Ho writes extreme opinion, such as in the Methaphrastone case, he's desperately trying to get one man's attention. he is auditioning all the time to the Supreme Court, and he went so far to create something that is quite honestly just not even sensible. It's like, you know, people want to see cute little ultrasounds of babies, and that makes important, you know, them having the standing to challenge abortion pills because they wouldn't be able to see those cute little ultrasounds anymore. And

Starting point is 01:13:34 it just, that part of rationale is quite, just insane. I think that part, I don't know if that is something that he truly believed. And I would say that it's hard to imagine for anybody who truly believe that sort of analysis. So I put that part of analysis as another way from Justice Holt trying to audition for the Supreme Court. Like, hey, you think you found a conservative judge somewhere in D.C. Look at me. I'm even more. And that's what it is. No one would accuse the United States Supreme Court under John Roberts of being moderate, but repeatedly Roberts and the other justices have taken the Fifth Circuit to task for going to extremes in its ruling.

Starting point is 01:14:17 As Texas Tribune writer Eleanor Klybinoff put it, quote, if the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was a boxer, you'd bet on the other guy. Writing a Supreme Court's reaction of Fifth Circuit rulings in July 2024, Klybinoff noted that only three of the tribunal's decisions had been upheld, while aid had been overturned, a one-lost record that ranked amongst the worst among circuit courts in the country. In the Mepha Pristone case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, hardly a Bolshevik, expressed dismay that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine had been granted standing. Kavanaugh wrote this, quote,

Starting point is 01:14:56 For a plaintiff to get in the federal courthouse door and obtain a judicial determination of what the governing law is, the plaintiff cannot be a mere bystander, but instead must have a personal stake in the dispute. If the standard set by Judge Ho and his peers in New Orleans remained in place, Kavanaugh warned, quote, virtually every citizen would have standing to challenge virtually every government action that they do not like. Governing, he suggested, would become impossible. It wasn't just on the issue of legal standing that the Supreme Court found the Fifth Circuit court's judgment lacking. In the case of Rahimi v. the United States, the Fifth Circuit overturned a federal law that prohibited domestic abusers from buying firearms. The highest court on June 21, 2024, overturned that decision by an 8-to-1 margin.

Starting point is 01:15:47 Chief Justice John Roberts, who generally supports a very broad view of gun rights, said that history, quote, confirms what, common sense suggest when an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed. Roberts also suggested that the Fifth Circuit misunderstood the Supreme Court's view of the Second Amendment. Professor, you told us that as conservative as Supreme Court majority might be, outside of Clarence Thomas, they have found the Fifth Circuit's rulings to be an embarrassment and conservative judicial philosophy. On that, again, I think that was an A to one opinion, and Clarence Thomas was the only person who would agree with the Fifth Circuit. So in general, I think the Supreme Court is definitely conservative, but the Supreme Court appreciate a certain type of conservativeness that they can chute on.

Starting point is 01:16:41 And it's something that it can lace with some academic legitimacy and not just some sort of attention-seeking paragraphs that would make people. feel some sort of feelings. On the last day of its 2024 session, the Supreme Court sent back to the Fifth Circuit a case involving a 2021 Texas law that limited the ability of social media companies to suspend user accounts for extremist or violence inciting content.

Starting point is 01:17:09 The law was inspired by the decision of what was then called Twitter, and now X, as well as other social media companies, to de-platform Donald Trump, after the president encouraged his supporters to ransack the capital and stop the counting of election. electoral college votes on January 6, 2021. The Fifth Circuit previously upheld the law, claiming that it rejected, quote, the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what

Starting point is 01:17:34 people say. Ho and his allies on the Fifth Circuit, however, are fine with censoring free expression by members of the LGBT community. In March 2020, 43, Walter Wendler, the president of West Texas A&M University, a public institution, canceled a drag show schedule at Legacy. Hall, a campus building. Organizers plan to use proceeds from the performance to raise money for the Trevor Project, a nonprofit group that seeks to prevent suicides in the LGBTQ Plus community. In a statement canceling the show, Wendler explicitly said that his private religious beliefs guided his decision. West Texas A&M University will not host a drag show on campus. I believe every human being is created in the image of God, and therefore a person of dignity. Does a drag show preserve a single

Starting point is 01:18:30 thread of human dignity? I think not. As a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood, sexuality, femininity, gender, drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood. Drag shows are derisive, divisive, and demoralizing misogyny, no matter what the stated intent. Such conduct runs counter to the purpose of West Texas A&M. A person or group should not attempt to elevate itself or a cause by mocking another person or group. As a university president, I would not support blackface performances on our campus. Even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended as humor, it is wrong.

Starting point is 01:19:31 Spectrum WT, a pro-LGBQ student organization, filed a suit challenging the ban and requested an injunction blocking Wendler's action. But Judge Kazmirik, the same jurist who initially blocked access to Miffipristone, sided with West Texas A&M and issued a preliminary ruling preventing the drag show from taking place pending a trial. He said the performance supposed sexual content lacked free speech protections. Quote, the First Amendment does not prevent school officials from restricting vulgar and lewd conduct that would undermine the school's basic educational mission, particularly in settings where children are physically present, Kazm Eric wrote in his September 22, 2023 opinion. Spectrum WT appealed. The case went to the Fifth Circuit where a three-judge panel heard arguments on whether the fundraiser could proceed.

Starting point is 01:20:20 on August 18, 2025 by a two-to-one vote, the panel reversed Casmeric's ruling. Judge Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, and a Bill Clinton appointed U.S. Circuit Judge James Dennis, ruled that West Texas A&M had violated the gay student organizations' expressive rights. Predictably, Ho dissented. He simply echoed the arguments used by the university president, insisting that banning drag shows somehow advanced inclusivity. University officials have determined that drag shows are sexist for the same reason that blackface performances are racist. And Supreme Court precedent demands that we respect university officials when it comes to regulating student activities to ensure an inclusive educational environment for all. Spectrum WT's victory proved temporary. The panel's decision would not go into effect until the case was heard by the entire Fifth Circuit Court. Meanwhile, a full trial unfolded in Casimir's court in January.

Starting point is 01:21:24 Not surprisingly, he ruled in favor of West Texas A&M. He said that the student group had not proven that the show was meant to convey a message that might be protected by the First Amendment and that by their nature, drag shows have sexualized content and the university had the right to regulate on-campus grounds. The hearing before the full Fifth Circuit was canceled, although Spectrum's legal team at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression plans a different appeal. On February 25th, a panel of the Fifth Circuit also upheld a new state ban on certain types of drag performances. Judge Kurt Englehart, appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Donald Trump, expressed doubt that such shows were protected by the Constitution, especially said, quote, in the presence of minors. While the Fifth Circuit chipped away at free speech rights for the LGBTQ plus community,

Starting point is 01:22:13 it advanced the rights of states to impose speech on public school teachers. The full court by a 12 to 6 margin lifted a district court's hold on a Louisiana state law requiring teachers display posterized copies of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. In spite of the First Amendment's prohibition on establishing a state religion or requiring religious practice and the efforts of the founders of the American Republic like Thomas Jefferson to erect a wall of separation between church and state, James Ho celebrated the decision. The Louisiana law was not only constitutional host said, it, quote, affirms our nation's highest and most noble traditions. That claim left Professor Yu baffled. The question is, is he a historian? When he said that the founding members of this country would like that,

Starting point is 01:23:05 what historical record is he relying on? But isn't that even anti-common knowledge that our founders would really resent that to push our newly established republic to a situation where we push our citizens to believe in certain things religiously. That is exactly the reason why they left Europe. The Fifth Circuit has presented a threat not only to the separation of church and state, free speech, and LGBTQ plus rights, but it has also placed the rights of workers in its crosshairs. On August 19th, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction requested by attorneys for Elon Musk, Space X Corporation, ruling that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board is unconstitutional

Starting point is 01:23:50 and prohibiting it from acting against that company and two other corporations, the NLRB charged with labor law violations. As has often happened, the Fifth Circuit Court ruling conflicts with that of another Circuit Court, the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the power granted by the NLRB. This split almost certainly guarantees the case will end up in front of a Supreme Court that has been no friend of American workers. On rare occasions, the Fifth Circuit might still acknowledge that society is tilted against the poor and people of color. A panel made up of Fifth Circuit judges ruled that Labine Conan could proceed with our lawsuit against the United States Post Office, a landlord who owns two properties in Ulyss, a suburb between Dallas and Fort Worth,

Starting point is 01:24:36 Conan claimed that beginning in 2020, two local postal employees are abruptly stopped delivering mail first to her and then to her tenants because she said they didn't like the idea that a black person owned the properties. The post office is mostly shielded from lawsuits by a legal doctrine called sovereign immunity, under which, as legal analyst Ellie Mistal, explains, quote, the government cannot be held liable for monetary damages arising out of actions taken by the government. What was unique about the United States Postal Service v. Kahn case, however, was that in this circumstance the government was causing intentional damage to a private citizen. This time, the Fifth Circuit ruled in the favor of a marginalized citizen and ruled the suit could go forward.

Starting point is 01:25:20 This rare progressive ruling was for not, however. The Supreme Court overturned the Fifth Circuit once again. Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the five-four majority, essentially ruling as Mistal summarized the case, quote, that the post office is immune from liability, even when its workers intentionally refrauded, to do their jobs. Mistal suggested that this decision carries ominous implications for the upcoming election, should the U.S. Postal Service, for instance, refuse to deliver mail-in ballots. In spite of James Ho's status as an immigrant, his most alarming opinion might be regarding

Starting point is 01:25:57 birthright citizenship. Ratified in 1868, just three years after the end of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution declares in its opening sentence that, quote, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. For 128 years, Supreme Court has rejected claims that citizenship can be denied to persons born or naturalized here based on their race or the immigration status of their parents. In the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim R case, the Supreme Court upheld the citizenship of a man

Starting point is 01:26:35 born in the United States to Chinese parents. The government tried to block Arc from returning to the United States after he visited China based on the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which barred the Chinese from immigrating here. The court ruled 62 that Arc's birth in the United States established his American citizenship and his right to reside here. James Ho has not always attacked the concept of birthright citizenship, and in fact, he used to defend it. Quote, birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, no less for the children of undocumented persons than for the descendants of passengers of the Mayflower, Ho said, in a 2007 opinion piece for

Starting point is 01:27:16 the Des Moines Register. However, as the political wind shifted strongly against immigrants, particularly in a Trump era, Ho is also tilted in a dramatically different direction. In a 2024 interview, Ho claimed that the United States was being invaded by the foreign born, and that denying citizenship to the children of the undocumented was necessary to defend national sovereignty. Ho said, Birthright citizenship obviously doesn't apply in case of war or invasion. No one, to my knowledge, has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can't imagine what the legal argument for that would be.

Starting point is 01:28:01 It's like the debate over unlawful combatants after 9-11. Everyone agrees that birthright citizenship doesn't apply to the children of lawful combatants, and it's hard to see anyone arguing that unlawful combatants should be treated more favorably than lawful combatants. The question of birthright citizenship might now be out of the hands of Ho and the rest of the Fifth Circuit. On December 5th, the Supreme Court agreed to hear. a case on the constitutionality of Donald Trump's executive order that would deny citizenship to those born in the United States if their parents were in the country temporarily or lacked legal status. Dr. Yu thinks that the Supreme Court is likely to accommodate those restrictions,

Starting point is 01:28:46 even as they reject James Howe's more extreme theories. I think the Supreme Court would roll back some portion of the 14th Amendment protection over people who are born in this country, but I don't think they are going to what Justice Ho is going after, that is the invasion theory. That doesn't mean that James Ho may not one day bring his extreme views on immigration to the nation's highest court. The two most far-right judges on the United States Supreme Court are James Ho's mentor, Clarence Thomas, who turned 78 on June 23rd, and Samuel Alito, who celebrates his 76th birthday on April 1st. Court watchers are speculating that Alito might step down as early as October. His wife, Martha Ann, has expressed eager anticipation that the couple might soon be able to openly express their political views as though the Alito's opinions have ever been a mystery. It's still an uphill battle, but the odds of Democrats retaking the Senate after the off-year elections have improved significantly in recent weeks.

Starting point is 01:29:54 Alito may want to retire while a Republican-controlled Senate would still be able to rubber-stamp Trump's choice for his successor. Alito also has a book coming out on October 6th the day after the Supreme Court starts its fall term. Continuing to serve on the court would interfere with any book promotion tour. Such an opening might lead to James Ho getting a promotion. But Professor Yu said that the fifth court judge shouldn't pack his bags just yet. Trump has largely outsourced the job of picking new federal judges or promoting them, to the far-right federal society, and you think that Hoh might lack the polish

Starting point is 01:30:29 that a powerful lobbying group would see. I think, you know, it's not a secret that he's trying to get there, but I honestly think it's not going to be him. He doesn't really fit into the profile of a person who would get there. I think the FESOC, you know, the Federalist Society is basically the handler of that situation.

Starting point is 01:30:49 They would be able to, you know, screen named and, you know, make short list to the, White House. And so what kind of people they're looking for? I think that they're definitely looking for a conservative if Alito is going away, right? They're looking for a conservative, but I don't think Justice Hull is in their favor because I think they're trying to find another person who is more sophisticated than Justice Hull, if I may say that. They wanted to find a person who is definitely conservative, but being able to rewrap the message with academic legitimacy and to force a meaningful majority at the court to push through their agenda.

Starting point is 01:31:37 Recently, Trump said he was considering Ted Cruz of Texas for the next Supreme Court vacancy. If so, James Ho may be enjoying his lifetime post at the Fifth Circuit for the foreseeable future. Ho celebrated his 53rd birthday on February 27th. That means his legal philosophy will shape gay and trans rights, the limits of free speech, who can buy firearms, and where and how, how much autonomy women have over their bodies, and what access they will enjoy to health care, and where the boundaries will be drawn between church and state for years to come. Ho may not make it to the Supreme Court, but he could still be the loudest voice on the scariest court in the scariest court in American. and shape the future of 40 million Americans in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi for decades to come. We'd like to thank our friend Steve Mason for providing some of the voices today. This is Stephen Munchelli for It Could Happen here.

Starting point is 01:32:32 And this is Michael Phillips. Until next time, thanks for listening. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women.

Starting point is 01:33:04 Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. If you're trying to keep up with everything happening on and off the court, we've got you covered on the podcast, flagrant and funny. You look at the top four number one seeds. What do you think UCLA is going to do?

Starting point is 01:33:29 Break down that for me. my friend. Obviously, Yukon is the overwhelming favorite in this tournament, but I'll be honest, I think people are kind of sleeping on Texas. Experts are suggesting that UCLA is the number one challenger to Yukon and that right after that would be Texas. S&C is so deep and so thinking just about everything. It really is annoying. So it's UCLA, Texas, South Carolina, LSU, only ones that could possibly upset Yukon. On Flagrant and Funny, we're giving our unfiltered on the biggest moments the conversations everyone's having.

Starting point is 01:34:02 So whether your bracket is busted or you just want the latest on the tournament, we got you. Listen to Flakran and Funny with Kerry Champion and Jamel Hill on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Presented by Capital One,

Starting point is 01:34:15 founding partner of IHeart Women's Sports. Dodge 5, City Hall building. A silver 40 caliber handgun was recovered at the scene. From IHeart Podcasts and Best Case Studios. This is Worshack. Murder at City Hall.

Starting point is 01:34:34 How could this have happened in City Hall? Somebody tell me that. July 2003, Councilman James E. Davis arrives at New York City Hall with a guest. Both men are carrying concealed weapons. And in less than 30 minutes, both of them will be dead. Now, everybody in the chamber is ducked. A shocking public murder.

Starting point is 01:35:01 I scream, get down, get down. Those are shots. Those are shots. Get down. A charismatic politician. You know, he just bent and ruled. all the time now. I still have a weapon, and I could shoot you. And an outsider with a secret. He alleged he was a victim of flatdown. That may or may not have been political. That may have been

Starting point is 01:35:21 about sex. Listen to Rorschach, murder at City Hall on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Lori Siegel, a longtime tech journalist. And consider my new podcast, mostly human, your bridge to the future. be an entrepreneur. Anyone can build an app. And it's very empowering. Each week, I'll speak to the people building that future. And we're going to break down what all of this innovation actually means for you. What I come to realize is that when people think that they're dating these AI companion, they're actually dating the companies that create this. We're experiencing one of the greatest tech accelerations in human history. And let's be honest, that can be messy. There's no playbook for what to do when an AI model who loses.

Starting point is 01:36:11 a story about you. But it's my belief that we should all benefit from this moment. Mostly Human will show you how. My goal is to give you the playbook, so you can benefit. The reason I say agency is because, like, if we can give power back to people, then I think that's probably the best thing we can do for your mental health. Listen to Mostly Human on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Hello, everyone. Welcome to It Could Happen here.

Starting point is 01:36:44 My name is Dana El-Kurd. researcher of Arab and Palestinian politics. And today I'm joined by Ilya Ayyub. Would you like to introduce yourself? Yeah, yeah. Hi, Dana. Thank you for having me. My name is Elia. I'm originally from Lebanon. My background is in both history and journalism. And I often write about the region. I'm also part Palestinian, and I also write a lot about Israel and Palestine. And obviously, in the past few years, I've been covering and also worrying a lot about what's been happening. Yeah, thank you so much for joining us, especially at such a difficult time.

Starting point is 01:37:19 For the listeners, we were recording March 22nd, 2026, and Israel's attack on Lebanon is ongoing. So we're really grateful to Elia for joining us and talking to us about what this means and what we're seeing on the ground. Yeah, so maybe I'll start there. Can you lay out for the listener, what is happening in Lebanon right now? So what's been happening in Lebanon is directly connected to the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, which started, what, about 20 to 23 days ago, something like that. That was in itself in the context of negotiations between the Americans and the Iranians in Switzerland, mediated by Amman.

Starting point is 01:37:57 And just moments later, really, that same night, the bombing of Iran started. In Lebanon, or rather, the way Lebanon enters this story is a couple of days after the assassination of Khomeini, Dairatollah of Iran, Hezbollah launched rockets towards Israel. And this was used by the Israelis as, effectively them saying that we will unleash hell on Lebanon. And that's often how it's been reported. What is often missed, even in that context, I mean, is that there was a so-called ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon and Hezbo, obviously, for 13 months before that. But that's so-called ceasefire. The reason I'm saying so-called ceasefire had already been violated by the Israelis,

Starting point is 01:38:38 and this is figures that come from the UNFEL, the UN Peacekeeping Forces in Lebanon, over 15,000 times. whereas they themselves, in fact, even the BBC today, I saw an article today, acknowledged that Hezbollah had not violated the ceasefire, which, you know, just I guess tells you also where the mood is at in terms of the coverage. Since then, like in the past three weeks, the hell, and this term was used by Israeli officials themselves, that has been unleashed on Lebanon, has been unprecedented. And even by Israeli wars on Lebanon standards, which is saying a lot, as of time of recording, at least 20% of the entirety of Lebanon has already been displaced.

Starting point is 01:39:19 And for the most part, these are people that had already experienced displacement at least once in 2024 when this war started, if not older patterns of displacements going back to the Civil War and the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon in the 80s and 90s and so on. And pretty unclear where this is headed. because just hours before we even started recording, they escalated their bombings of bridges connecting South Lebanon to the rest of Lebanon, bridges over the Littani River, which is one of the rivers in the south,

Starting point is 01:39:50 as part of the attempt to cut off the entire region of Lebanon, of South Lebanon from the rest of the country. And yeah, we can get into more of the details and the impact that this is having on Lebanon itself, of course, because this tends to be, unfortunately, like, not covered as much. Yeah, thank you. So to kind of summarize, because they decided to launch a war against Iran.

Starting point is 01:40:12 And obviously, there's so much to say about that, we're not going to be able to address every aspect of this conflict. But because of that, and after particularly the assassination of the Ayatollah, Hezbollah launched rockets. And then the Israelis who had already been breaking the ceasefire between them and Hezbollah that had emerged over the past year, decided to kind of ramp up their attacks. And when we say ramp up their attacks, you know, you've mentioned like the destruction of infrastructure cutting off the south, basically clearing villages, etc.

Starting point is 01:40:42 The Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, have said they want to impose what they called the Gaza model on Lebanon. So what can we understand from this kind of comment? Yeah, thank you. It's important to note that such comments are not new at all, and they have also been uttered in times of quote-unquote peace, so when there isn't any kind of active conflict. In my own article for 972, which I wrote about, I don't know, two weeks ago. So I quote a number of those politicians, and I'll just mention a few of them here.

Starting point is 01:41:15 You have Gallant, who has, of course, since been and still has an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court. He threatened to send Lebanon back to the Stone Age, and this was in November 2024. The diaspora affairs minister Amishai Chikli declared in September 2024 that Lebanon, quote, does not mean the definition of a state. And he described all of the Shia population of Lebanon, as quote-unquote hostile, which is genocidal language, by definition. And even about two, three weeks ago or so, Smotrich, who's one of kind of the main for right politicians in Israel today, said that very soon, as I'm quoting, very soon, Dahhi will resemble

Starting point is 01:41:54 Khan Yunus, Da'i being the southern suburb of Beirut, where there's a lot of support of Hezbollah and has always been talked about by the Israelis as like one of the quote-unquote Hezbollah strongholds. In fact, they pioneered, you might say, their Daahi doctrine in 2006, so named after Da'i, there was a war in 2006 as well between Israel and Hezbollah, which is quite explicitly a policy of bombing civilian infrastructure in order to put pressure on their enemy in this case, Hezbollah, which is basically an acknowledgement that they violate international law as state policy. And on March 11, a member of the Knesset for the same party of Smotri, as Smotritch said, and I'm quoting, we must conquer territory in

Starting point is 01:42:37 southern Lebanon, destroy villages there, and annexed the territory to the state of Israel, end quote. There's another one, Gaddi-Icen, quote, who was the former chief of staff of the Israeli army, the IDF, said around the same time, I think it was a couple of weeks ago, quote, the Da'i doctrine has never been more relevant than right now, and it must be implemented, end quote, the Da'i Doctrine being the one that I just mentioned. And this, as I said, not new. Whether in the context of talking about Palestinians in Razaar long before the ongoing genocide, whether in the context of talking about the Lebanese and so on,

Starting point is 01:43:09 there has been this strain of open utterances of genocidal framing on behalf of like Israeli politicians and military leaders. One needs to know this to understand why they act in certain ways in Lebanon. If it was just about like, you know, targeting their enemies or whatever, that would be like one way of doing warfare. But it will then explain like detonating entire villages as they've been doing during the so-called ceasefire. It wouldn't explain spraying herbicide. which they did about a month ago

Starting point is 01:43:37 over large parts of South Lebanon, including parts of Syria for that matter, which killed crops and so on. It would explain them not allowing farmers to harvest their crops. It would explain all of these things. What would explain all of these things is if you take into account

Starting point is 01:43:50 what they say their intentions are in Lebanon or the very least what they want it to happen in Lebanon, if that makes sense. Yeah, it really seems like the Israeli policy, especially now that there's been really no accountability for what happened in Gaza, is like basically to pursue maximum violence, including against civilians, and create, I think, kind of like a no man's land buffer zone around Israel. Now, there are some elements of

Starting point is 01:44:18 Israeli society that are like religious Zionist, like messianic types who want to like settle and like expand. But aside from those, those people, like I think even we would call like centrists in Israel or like the liberals in Israel are like, okay, well, yeah, Yeah, we do need a buffer zone. We need to flatten Gaza. We need to flatten southern Lebanon. And what this translates to, I mean, in Lebanon in particular, is I think, you know, some estimates say over a thousand have been killed in just the past like two, two and a half weeks.

Starting point is 01:44:51 Yeah. And then millions displaced, right? Yeah. 20% of the country. Lebanon is one of the smallest countries in the world. And South Lebanon is one of the only regions in the country that you might call like a breadbasket in terms of agriculture. So yeah, 20% of the population has already been displaced. And those are those that could be registered.

Starting point is 01:45:09 You can imagine numbers being higher than that. And as I said, like a lot of those people have already been displaced a number of times before, even in 2024 when there was the initial escalation. But many of them even going back to 2006 when there was the war and in some cases even further back in the 80s and 90s when the Israelis occupied southern Lebanon. And I guess this is really important to note because obviously what's happening today is connected to the war on Iran. Of course, it's directly connected. But if one only knows this, I think we miss what I would describe as a bit of an Israeli obsession with Lebanon specifically

Starting point is 01:45:42 for a long time. There's like historical roots to all of this. It even goes back to the Israelis having ties with the local Christian far right in the 60s, especially as the 70s and 80s. Like during the Civil War? During the Civil War in Lebanon. And a bit of this almost, I mean, ideological thing of like we will we will focus on the non-Muslims and hope that they're on our side that that sort of thing which is a policy that the Israelis have done within israel Palestine and and in Syria you know this is an ongoing thing as well and so on and so forth I really want to emphasize this because I have had the experience when I read a lot of the coverage and you know listen to podcasts what have you that even among people who don't support the state of Israel who

Starting point is 01:46:23 are very critical of it that tends to be understandably because Lebanon is less powerful than Iran, not as influential on a global scene or whatnot. But there's usually a tendency to link what happens in Lebanon directly to what's happening in Iran. And this has been true in the past three weeks. And as I said, this is, of course, partly the case. It's not like completely irrelevant. Hezbollah did even state that the reason why they launched those rockets was to avenge the assassination of Daedalas. Of course, it's directly related. But there's all of this like wider in all the context that can help at the very least explain why the Israelis are doing that in Lebanon. And also help explain what's happening to Lebanon itself, which tends to be not just focused on.

Starting point is 01:47:03 I mean, yeah, let's discuss for a moment where Lebanon was before these latest attacks, before the ceasefire, before October 7th. For the Lebanese people, it has been increasingly unlivable. There's been a financial crisis and economic crisis. Lebanon has hosted huge amounts of refugees from Syria, from Palestine, continues to. These conditions now where, effectively like what, like half of the country is like inaccessible or some large portion of the country is inaccessible. The capital city is being bombed, residential buildings. Like there's, there's nothing kind of off limits. What is the situation now for for regular people who first and foremost have not had any kind of like sense of accountability from their own government and have

Starting point is 01:47:51 had also Hezbollah sort of, you know, acting unilaterally in some ways. obviously this does not excuse Israeli actions in any way, but what's the kind of like sense of emotion right now among Lebanese people? I mean, despair is, I guess, one word to describe it. There's definitely a sense of helplessness. Hezbollah is not a popular party in the country in terms of like the percentage of the population. The recent actions, whether this one or like after October 7th, the decision to join the war

Starting point is 01:48:22 was unpopular and still is unpopular. that's something that the Israelis are trying to capitalize on, obviously, either because they want to just destroy the party or because as part of doing that, they also want to destabilize all of Lebanon, sort of both of those things are happening at the same time. The current government in Lebanon is led by the guy who was the head of the ICJ, once South Africa had started its case of accusing Israel of genocide,

Starting point is 01:48:43 like a year or so ago. So his binom is naive of what Israeli intentions are. But I think what's really important to understand of what's kind of the mood of the country is the sense that no. matter what we decide as a nation, it's completely out of our hands. And this goes beyond even questions related to Hezbollah and Hezbollah's actions. Because as I said, even when Hezbollah does not launch rockets or whatnot, Israelis continue to violence ceasefires anyway. They encroach land anyway.

Starting point is 01:49:13 They dynamite entire villages anyway. They spray those herbicides and so on anyway. And it's one of those things that it's also important to know this to understand why there are people, for example, in South Lebanon that regardless of their personal feelings towards Hezbollah don't see any alternatives because in fact there are none. Something that I know isn't talked about as much and certainly not covered as much is the fact that the armed force that is supposed to be the alternative to Hezbollah, the thing that we hear about all the time, that the Americans, what they want is for Hezbollah to be disarmed and for the Lebanese army to take over and so on and so forth. And this is basically the stated goal of the entire world in a sense, or at least a good chunk of it. And

Starting point is 01:49:53 in fact, it's officially the stated policy of the Lebanese state itself. That is their intention as far as like their public declarations and so on. And they have made certain moves to that end as well. But the Lebanese army is the army of a very poor country that has been an economic crisis for a long time. When we had wildfires in 2019, there wasn't even enough like equipment to tackle them and like foreign government had to donate helicopters and stuff like that. And that Lebanese army is also heavily subsidized, if you want to say, like funded in any case by the United States itself, the same United States that obviously heavily funds and arms the Israelis.

Starting point is 01:50:28 Of course, the weapons that the Lebanese get is nothing compared to the weapons that the Israelis get. There's no such thing as an iron dome in Lebanon. None of these things are available to the Lebanese. And so effectively what is being asked of Lebanon itself, and especially of South Lebanon, of the Ahean, East Lebanon, ultimately of all of Lebanon, is that just accept your fate. just accept that there's nothing you can do about the Israelis.

Starting point is 01:50:52 There's nothing you can do about their actions in Lebanon proper. I'm not even talking about any actions like rockets towards this. I'm talking their actions in Lebanon itself. And they're also asking Hezbollah, for example, to disarm, which in other self, I am not opposed to. But in the context of what has been happening, in the context of what's happening now, I think it's ludicrous to imagine that people in a context,

Starting point is 01:51:14 like in South Lebanon, who have decades now long experience of seeing Israeli occupation, of seeing Israeli troops on their lands, no matter, like, multiple different, you know, different prime ministers in Israel taking the charge and whatnot, but that continuing to be this kind of almost eternal fact in a sense,

Starting point is 01:51:31 at least that's how it's, that's how it feels. They're being asked to just disarm and hope for the best. That's really, like, effectively the policy towards Lebanon at the moment. Like, I saw an interview with one of the French ministers a few, a few days ago, and she was asked, like, why aren't we doing more to help Lebanon by someone in the audience or whatever? And she said that we're sending humanitarian aid and we have uniform forces in southern Lebanon and so on. Unifle forces, those UN peacekeeping forces, as I said, don't have a legal right to even retaliate against the Israelis,

Starting point is 01:52:03 including when Israel bombs them, which it has done at least twice in the past few weeks. The Lebanese army rarely engages with Israelis. They don't even have the means in the first place. And so what are people expected to do? And this is sort of the context in which everything else almost doesn't matter. Like in terms of whether you personally like the Hezbollah, I certainly don't. And whatever like one's personal feelings or even politics is towards a political party, because they're also members of the Lebanese parliament, towards the state itself,

Starting point is 01:52:32 whatever it is, that it really feels that ultimately it's like out of our hands. And this is like a component of this entire thing that I really see, to be honest, discussed. as though like there are like two sides to the story or like two equal armed actors for that, even non-armed, like equal states for that matter. And it's just not the case. Yeah, thank you so much for laying that out like that. I think that you're right that it's not well acknowledged how disempowered. The international community basically expects people in the region, including the Lebanese,

Starting point is 01:53:01 to behave and like accept the fact that they are collateral damage in Israel's, you know, perpetual desire for domination. American political scientist Nathan Brown just published this article called Israel's Forever Wars for the Carnegie Endowment. His argument is that there's been a shift in the Israeli policy where he says it used to be deterrence,

Starting point is 01:53:32 domination, and diplomacy have long blended in Israeli statecraft. And today he says, they've been eclipsed by something harsher, quote, a preference for domination, degradation, and the prevention of the adversary's recovery. I mean, I think he's right, though I think that we've seen

Starting point is 01:53:47 kind of a, at least a lower intensity, maybe not as high intensity, but we've seen a long-scale policy of domination even before this moment, but I think this moment does definitely bring it out, which brings me to my question of like, for Hezbollah in particular, in the last year, two years, like there have been assassinations. We saw the pager attack. You know, it seems that Hasbullah has been very effectively weakened. And since the Israelis are now kind of going all out, what do you think is going to happen to Hezbollah as a group set aside perhaps their public support or lack thereof? So it's important to note that Hezbollah comes from a certain context. They rose in the context of South Lebanon during the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon.

Starting point is 01:54:33 They rose as the alternative to existing parties that were either seen as to complicit with Israelis or maybe too weak or complacent or whatnot. And essentially because there was a need for something like Hezbollah at the time. And again, this is completely regardless of my personal opposition to a lot of their politics, whether it's in Lebanon or especially in Syria. But that question, if you want to call it the Lebanese question, is completely being sidesteped. It's not being tackled whatsoever. And in fact, it's not that dissimilar, I think, from the Israeli attempt to erase or try to

Starting point is 01:55:04 pretend as though the Palestinian question as well as can be completely sidesteped, that they can just continue to pursue this policy of just complete domination, as you said, you know, make these Arabic accord these with the UAE and the European Union. other, some of the other Arab states, for example, without any mentions of Palestine or Palestinians and so on and so forth. And in the case of Lebanon, it's like less official because there isn't that component, but the spirit of it is pretty similar. There is a sort of like a legalistic framework of the land for peace. And I think explaining that at least briefly would, I think, contextualize the code that you even knew, you just read out to us here, that, you know,

Starting point is 01:55:41 the Israelis occupied Arab territories in 1967. Palestinian, obviously, there being Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, Egypt, of course, was the Sinai, and Syria was and still is the Golden Heights. And so the land for peace, quote unquote, worked in the case of Egypt. They occupied the Sinai, and then as part of a peace deal with Egypt, they returned the Sinai to the Egyptians. It didn't happen with Syria. The Syrian Golden Heights have been occupied since 1967, or effectively de facto annexed in 1981. David Annex was so long that Smotrich himself was born in an illegal settlement in the Syrian Golan Heights. And I'm mentioning this because the Lebanese state, the prime minister that I mentioned earlier, about what, a week ago, 10 days ago or so, said that he's hoping for a land for peace framework,

Starting point is 01:56:31 which to me shows just how desperate even they are. Like they don't know what to do. They have no options in front of them. So what they're hoping is that by doing all of these things, public declarations, against Hezbollah, by declaring some of their activities illegal, by, I think, like a few days ago, they said that the media cannot call them the resistance, for example, which is in Arabic, how they would be referred to, and so on and so forth. These attempts to placate the Americans, especially, and so on, and maybe, like, show that, you know, we're doing something about this. Can you

Starting point is 01:57:02 stop the Israelis, essentially? Haven't achieved anything. The Israelis have just escalated, continue to escalate, continue to bomb more and more and more, larger and larger parts of the country. But that land for peace framework, which is the framework since the 60s, basically, is as far as I can tell right now, the only thing that the Lebanese government hope that they can even use. But the difficulty in all of that, like, A, I don't think it's realistic because of the Syrian example, like they haven't, they have never given up their Golden Heights. I don't see any reason why they would if they do decide to occupy all of South Lebanon.

Starting point is 01:57:35 And also because the shift, and this is what you were referring to with that person, and you mentioned, the shift in Israeli politics in the past few decades isn't even that, if you might call it strategic, that we're going to do the thing, even if it's illegal, we're going to occupy land, even if it's illegal, but sort of like the ultimate purpose of it is something that resembles some kind of diplomatic negotiation. It's domination almost for its own sake. There is no end goal necessarily. You mentioned there are, of course, religious Zionists, but you also have others that are not interested in settlement. They're just interested in destroying the land, like destroying having this so-called buffer zone, which is a euphemism,

Starting point is 01:58:12 which is just a no man's land, it's just destroying everything. And so the policy can shift, in a sense, but the intention is to just try and dominate for as long as possible, for its own sake. And this is a wider pattern in Israeli politics that I don't know how well understood it is, maybe a bit more now than before, because even before the ongoing war in Iran started, the Naf Taliban, who was the prime minister of Israel and reportedly wants to replace Netanyahu in the upcoming elections, said that Turkey is the next Iran. Virtually any Israeli paper center and further to the right, which is most of them, you read them, there is someone who has at some point in this, I'm not talking just a random

Starting point is 01:58:52 person, I'm talking like a high-ranking politician and military official, at some point described like Turkey as being next. And what needs to be understood with all of this is not, oh, can they actually do this or whatnot because maybe they can't. I don't know. I hope we never find out. But it's that like they can't stop. It's becoming an end in itself. There has to be an enemy. There has to be a constant creation almost of like an external enemy in like in Israeli political discourse today because nothing else works in Israeli politics. And this is a shift in Israeli politics in the past. I'm going to say, I don't know, two or three decades. I know how one would start counting that shift. And it does go back

Starting point is 01:59:30 to the Palestinian question and in the sense of like them not wanting to address it at all, not even pretending that they're going to because they've been pretending, you know, obviously not actually doing it, but even pretending that, you know, they were doing so the Austro accord and whatnot. There isn't even that. I think it's useful to understand their attitude towards Lebanon as at least in part a continuation of that attitudes towards Palestinians. So in many ways, like the Palestinian question itself remains the one that they want to

Starting point is 01:59:59 avoid at all costs and whatever that means bombing Iran, bombing Lebanon, bombing other countries later, I don't know, obviously bombing Syria, they've already done it, you know, and so on and so forth. Genocide as a tool of conflict management. Yeah. Yeah, it's just domination, I said, for its own sake, because they can't imagine any kind of other alternative. And they haven't had a need to do so because, you know, as you said, they've gotten away with a lifestream genocide for over two years now. why would they think differently about Lebanon, a very poor country that doesn't have that many resources and whatnot? Which isn't to say that they will succeed and they will win and so on,

Starting point is 02:00:35 but this is what they've been saying, this is their intention. I think that's very valid. I mean, it's not a coincidence. You said, you know, you would try to trace it back to like the past two or three decades. It's not a coincidence that this mentality and this, you know, reorientation of Israel's entire policy especially comes after the end of the second Palestinian Intifada, and then not even just no meaningful negotiations,

Starting point is 02:01:03 no negotiations at all. Like you said, there was the land for peace mantra, the idea with that is that they were going to get peace if they give back land, but the underlying assumption of that is that they would be held accountable by the international community, by their own allies. After the Second Intifada,

Starting point is 02:01:22 basically the Americans and the international community gave up, essentially even pretending that Palestinians would ever get anything. This has culminated in now and Israel that, as you said, it's domination for domination's sake, and they think that they can maintain control in this way. Now, Turkey is going to be a different beast than Iran. Turkey is a NATO member. But as we've seen in the last couple of weeks, like, they don't care about blowing up the entire region. They don't care about the straight of Hermuz being closed. They don't care about

Starting point is 02:01:55 oil fields being attacked. They don't care about, you know, the global economy tanking. Like, it's not inconceivable that they attack Turkey. Even if the outcome might be different or we might see like further escalations, it's not inconceivable. And now I just want to point this out, the very kind of pro-Israel think tank in Washington, the foundation for the defensive democracy, their new line now is to say, land for peace is outdated. Now, we need to pursue instead peace for land. There you go. Yeah, which means acceptance of Zionism earns these people a right to govern themselves.

Starting point is 02:02:41 It's a political vision that does not see the other as human, as having agency, as deserving anything really. It's not like they have an opposing side on an opponent that they want to defeat but ultimately have some kind of settlement and move beyond that or whatnot. There is no long-term plan, is what I'm trying to say, I guess. And maybe to emphasize a bit more in the cases of Lebanon, so what happens next for Hezbollah, for example, I'm not entirely sure. I don't think anyone really knows. It seems clear that the Israelis underestimated their capabilities. But to what extent that will matter if the Israelis continue to just bomb and bomb and bomb Lebanon for weeks on end, if not months on end and so on, I can't tell. What I can tell is that in the same way as the Israelis want to ignore

Starting point is 02:03:26 the Palestinian question, but it's still there. It haunts them in a way. because I work on ontology. In case of Lebanon, there is also that in many ways, that if you look at the shift in discourse, even within Israeli politics, from like, let's say 70s, but especially 80s onwards, I'm not going to say,

Starting point is 02:03:44 it was never good, but there was a stronger component of the Israeli, like politicians, let's say, like a higher percentage of them anyway, that were, for lack of a better term, pragmatic, that were willing to have concessions, that were willing to have whatever, because if only because they just did not want to deal

Starting point is 02:04:00 with, like, occupying a foreign government, that they had no intention to legally annex, as they did with the legally, none of this is legal, but like within Israeli law, I mean, as they did with the Golden Heights. And so that's what I'm saying in the case of Lebanon that it's almost like the worst case scenario is what's currently happening. And that's like completely regardless of what happens to Hezbollah, because Hezbollah can disappear tomorrow and the problem will continue to be the same, if not just get worse. The country has no economy to speak of. The currency was already devalued during the economic crisis was one of the highest evaluations in the world. And there are no prospects going forward

Starting point is 02:04:36 in terms of making this a country that can even sustain itself. It's already very import dependent. But if you exclude the South Lebanon and it being a breadbasket, East Lebanon as well, by the way, it's also a breadbasket. And that's another area of Lebanon that these have been constantly bombarding. To paraphrase that Israeli ministered, that Lebanon is not a state. It's not a nation. It doesn't, it's just a place. that's on the map. And that will pose a problem, obviously first and foremost for us, like for the Lebanese and people who live in Lebanon. But it is also a problem geopolitically. It's a problem internationally. It will freak out the EU in terms of the refugee crisis because the EU has actually

Starting point is 02:05:16 counted on Lebanon to keep a lot of people in Lebanon. They extend like a billion euros. I think it was two or three years ago or something like that. I wrote about it for Georgia at the time, actually. Because Lebanon had the highest percentage, it maybe still does now, I don't know, of refugees per capita, so to speak, compared to citizens in the world. One million or so senior refugees with roughly five million Lebanese or something like that along those lines. There's no census in Lebanon. So I'm saying all of this to sort of emphasize why there is the sense of despair in the

Starting point is 02:05:45 country and why if that's not even remotely addressed, whatever fires we're seeing now, whatever like horrors we're seeing, I just don't see any way they will stop anytime soon. Whatever happens even to Hezbollah next, there's no reason to imagine that some other group would, be formed at some point because people live there. People are from that land. We're talking about a million people. They have nowhere else to go. It's not like the Lebanese passport is so good that you can just go on a flight and go else. But there's nowhere else. They're just going to

Starting point is 02:06:14 stay in Lebanon. And many of them would want to, of course, go back to South Lebanon. This problem is not going away. But if you hear the rhetoric of your Netanyahu, you're in your other politicians, like this is not part of the picture. This has nothing to do with what their intentions are. They're exclusively talking to other Israelis. The debate is not whether we should destroy South Lebanon or whether we should destroy Lebanon itself. The debate is what do we do once it's destroyed? And even that is barely a debate, but like that's the extent of where it goes in terms

Starting point is 02:06:44 of like Israeli discourse. And like, yeah, I guess maybe just to drive the point home that if the Israelis themselves are not stopped in one way or another by their allies, obviously America has the biggest leverage or the EU being the second closest one, in one way or another, whatever the means are economic boycott, withdrawing your ambassador as Spain has done a couple of weeks ago, but just like on a global scale. Like even maybe dwarfing the boycott campaign against apartheid South Africa at the time, this problem is just going to expand.

Starting point is 02:07:15 And people in listening to this, of course, see that, see a version of that. Iran can just close the strait of Hormuz and then suddenly everyone, this is everyone's problem. Israel and America bombing those oil depots. And of course, Iran has also done that in retaliation. but proportionally still more than Americans than the Israelis has polluted, like, I forgot the number, but like the equivalent of like 84 countries combined in terms of like the toxins released in the air. These are things that people in Iran are breathing in. And the entire region relies on desalination plants.

Starting point is 02:07:47 And the Americans bombed one in Iran. Iran retaliated and bombed another one in Bahrain. If that continues, who knows, there's been increasing attempts, not just attempts, actual strikes, including just yesterday, against like, nuclear facilities or like close enough to nuclear facilities, so who knows what would have happened then? To say it's out of control would be like meaningless at this point, but there are levels of where this can go. And Lebanon is in a sense like deceivingly small. There's a book called Beware of small states that talks about Lebanon because a lot of the world is happening in Lebanon to put it to

Starting point is 02:08:21 kind of put it maybe metaphorically. And the trends that are being done to the Lebanese or to people in Lebanon, like the Dohae doctrine in 2006, was then used in Gaza, obviously. And now they're saying that they're going to use the Gaza methodology in Lebanon. So it's like it came back to Lebanon in a sense. But the point is that this will continue. There is no objective reason to believe that if Hezbollah is destroyed and completely disarmed and what have you, that this problem is going to go away. Because if anything, a new beast of some kind is going to be created in the fires in the same

Starting point is 02:08:55 way that Hezbollah was created in the initial ones. And so, yeah, the problem ultimately, and I say this as someone who has been campaigning, writing, gotten death threats from like Hezbollah supporters in 2019. When I was, as part of the protests, we were beaten up by them. This comes from no sympathy whatsoever towards them. It's just an acknowledgement. I'm also a historian that they come from a certain context. And if that context is not acknowledged at all, and in fact, the conditions that brought them

Starting point is 02:09:22 are now much worse than even the 80s, why would we believe that something else won't come along later on in one way or another? And this notion that the Israelis have, they're just a buffer zone and then destabilized Lebanon endlessly or whatever it might be, it also comes from this sort of imperialist hubris, that they believe that this won't harm them in one way or another, that they can endlessly and permanently have a neighbor to their north that has a lot of armed components and also constantly at war or whatever it might be.

Starting point is 02:09:52 it's hubris, it's imperative hubris, and it's also extremely, extremely dangerous, even beyond just what would happen to people in Lebanon. Yeah, it's hard to, like you said, underscore how apocalyptic this is turning out to be. Whether it's, we're worried about

Starting point is 02:10:08 the refugee waves that are going to be generated because of this, whether we're worried about the ecological impact, whether we're worried about non-state actors, militia groups, violent groups, emerging in the future, like on every level. This is not sustainable.

Starting point is 02:10:24 I don't know. I feel like I'm screaming into a void. Except we've known, we've known, like you said, for decades that this is not sustainable. This is not a sustainable situation in the Middle East. And I want people to know that this is not a Trump problem. This has long been a problem of American decision makers. Biden in particular also, like, bears a lot to blame for this situation. It's just, like you said, it's an imperial hubris, both on the part of Israel and the United States,

Starting point is 02:10:57 but it's also at its root, the fact that they completely dehumanize people in the Middle East. Like they don't see them as human beings that will have human reactions. So, yeah, I'm not saying, I'm not adding anything to what you're saying. I'm just emphasizing here because I'm, you know, as outraged as you. Yeah, yeah. And like, the thing is like it's sort of the same principle in a sense of that same understanding that also led me to like for years now to oppose the Iranian regime. It's that same understanding. It's not just that their brutality towards people within Iran, of course, but they have engaged in imperialist campaigns in Syria, most notably, but also in Iraq. And in Lebanon, it's like a different kind of thing. But there is that that component of it as well that hasn't contributed to make them like a better opponent of the Israelis or the Americans. If anything, it's made them weaker. One of the many problems, but I think the biggest one now is that this is, and this is completely regardless of the ethics of the Iranian regime, which I have opposed for several

Starting point is 02:12:01 years as well, this has nothing to do with supporting them or excusing their actions or anything like that, but just understanding why the Israelis are acting, specifically the Israelis are acting the way they have been acting for years now. There is this tendency. I mean, if you go on the garden, for example, now you see like crisis in the Middle East, and you can click on it and then just go about years and years and years as though it's the same thing.

Starting point is 02:12:23 As though like, you know, it's just this place that has crises and in a moment like you expect that this will happen. But as I think people know a bit better now with the global component of it, this also has a global ramification. Even the technologies that are being pioneered

Starting point is 02:12:39 if you want by the Israelis and also by the Americans to some extent in places like Gaza then get exported elsewhere. Palantir is now going to be Panetier AI is now going to be, Panetier AI is not going to be, going to be a core component of the U.S. military.

Starting point is 02:12:51 These are things that are like, because this is what I mean by like Lebanon is deceptively small, it's like it's not important geopolitically for the most part. But because that is the case, and of course, Gaza as well, then it allows, it has allowed the Israelis to get away with a lot of things. So maybe this is, I don't know, a cliched or I don't know, it's a meaningless thing to repeat, but the problem really goes back to impunity. The problem really goes back to the fact that nothing the Israelis have ever done, at least in the past several decades, has had any consequences to them, to what they do, to the region and so on. And this is absolutely a bipartisan problem in America.

Starting point is 02:13:32 None of this would be possible without the Americans. There's a very good argument to be made that if we're talking about the Israeli occupation of Palestine, we need to say the American Israeli occupation of Palestine, the bombing of Lebanon. We need to say it's also an American. none of this would be physically possible, diplomatically possible, economically possible, were it not for this unconditional support that the Israelis have gotten from the Americans for decades and decades now. If Biden had done anything about Israel's genocide in Gaza, really almost anything, I don't think we would be where we are today. And so no, this is not a Trump problem.

Starting point is 02:14:05 It's just that Trump being Trump is making it much worse. Speeding it up. It's just exploding everything even faster, speeding it up, and adding new dimensions to it and so on and so forth. But the problem goes back to American imperialist hubris, a lot of people not knowing what they're even doing in the region and the consequences of it all. So yeah, I'm not someone who tends to be very pessimistic necessarily

Starting point is 02:14:27 and stuff like that, but there's a lot of ways in which what is currently happening in terms of the Israeli and American war in Iran and Israeli war in Lebanon and so on, that can just go to different levels that I generally, and I'm someone who, has even reported on conflicts for a long time now generally struggle to even imagine. And I don't want to sound like I'm just panicking or anything like that.

Starting point is 02:14:51 There is a component of that. But it is a real problem that if Israel is not stopped in any way at this point, this will continue. And there is no objective reason to believe otherwise. Yeah. Extremely alarming to say the least. But thank you, Ilya, so much for making this. the time to explain this. I'll link to the fire these times in the show notes. Ilya has a

Starting point is 02:15:18 excellent podcast, and it's not Lebanon specific. It's kind of an internationalist perspective. Full disclosure, I've been on it many times. I've produced some episodes. So, yeah, there's not a bias, but it really is a very good podcast. In any case, thank you so much, Ilya, and hopefully we'll have you on on better times. Thanks, thank you, thank you, thank you for having me. Canadian women are looking for more. More out of themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast.

Starting point is 02:16:03 I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. If you're trying to keep up with everything happening on and off the court, we've got you covered on the podcast, flagrant and funny.

Starting point is 02:16:30 You look at the top four number one seeds. What do you think UCLA is going to do? Break down that for me, my friend. Obviously, Yukon is the overwhelming favorite in this tournament. But I'll be honest, I think people are kind of sleeping on Texas. Experts are suggesting that UCLA is the number one challenger to Yukon and that right after that would be Texas. S&C is so deep and so thick and just about everything.

Starting point is 02:16:56 It really is annoying. So it's UCLA, Texas, South Carolina, LSU. Only ones that could possibly upset Yukon. On Flagrant and Funny, we're giving our unfiltered takes on the biggest moments of the conversations everyone's having. So whether your bracket is busted or you just want the latest on the tournament, we got you.

Starting point is 02:17:12 Listen to Flakron and Funny with Carrie Champion and Jamel Hill on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of I Heart Women's Sports. I became a millionaire overnight, but lost everything that actually mattered. Wait a minute, Sophia, did you just say he lost everything? That's right, it's inheriting too much drama week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This person writes, I just inherited a fortune after losing my mom,

Starting point is 02:17:38 and now my girlfriend's entire family is coming out of nowhere with their hands out. One sibling wants me to fund their whole lifestyle. Another vanished for four years and suddenly reappeared. And my girlfriend is already giving my mom. money away. Hold on, Sophia. So the girl he wants to marry is already sending money out the door. And that's just the beginning. He makes a plan, sets up a trust,

Starting point is 02:17:57 and finally thinks he has everything under control. Okay, so things work out then? Let's just say the people he trusted the most are the ones who ended up shocking him the most. So does the money end up being worth going through all that? To find out, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or

Starting point is 02:18:13 wherever you get your podcasts. Ten, ten shots five. City Hall building. Silver 40 caliber handgun was recovered at the scene. From I-Heart podcasts and Best Case Studios, this is Rorschach, murder at City Hall. How could this have happened in City Hall? Somebody tell me that. July 2003, Councilman James E. Davis arrives at New York City Hall with a guest. Both men are carrying concealed weapons. And in less than 30 minutes, both of them will be dead.

Starting point is 02:18:48 Now everybody in the chambers ducts. A shocking public murder. I scream, get down, get down. Those are shots. Those are shots, get down. A charismatic politician. You know, he just bent the rules all the time. I still have a weapon.

Starting point is 02:19:07 And I could shoot you. And an outsider with a secret. He alleged he was a victim of flatdown. That may or may not have been political. It may have been about sex. Listen to Roershack, murder at City Hall, on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to It Could Happen Here, a podcast where a bunch of incredibly convoluted and very silly financial instruments destroy the entire world economy.

Starting point is 02:19:41 I am your host, Mia Wong. And with me today is someone who does not spend all of her time deep in the bowels of arcane bullshit written by different Federal Reserve boards. And that is Molly Conger, who is the host of the absolute. delightful. I mean, okay, I guess this is a who is really winning here kind of question in terms of things we research. Now, you spent a lot of time reading stuff written by Federal Reserve guys. I read a lot of stuff written by guys who want to kill the Federal Reserve guys. Yeah. And you know what? I still don't know what the Federal Reserve is and I'm not going to find out. You know, I don't actually think knowing what the Federal Reserve is somehow.

Starting point is 02:20:28 It doesn't change anything. I don't think it's actually relevant to this. I mean, it kind of. It's obviously, it's relevant to everything. But what Mia means to say is the reason I'm here is because I don't know what the economy is. And at this point, I'm afraid to find out. And unfortunately, your worst fears are happening. Oh, don't worry.

Starting point is 02:20:45 By the end of this, I will not understand. I am going to attempt to explain the economy. and by the economy, I mean shadow banking. Yeah. Also, before I go into this, though, you should listen to weird little guys. It is, it's really good. I like it. All my friends really like it.

Starting point is 02:21:04 Thank you. Yeah. It's somehow a nice, comma, kind of relaxing show about neo-Nazis. So. Yeah, it's got very chill vibes. Yeah. For a show about guys who are trying to, like, blow up. school buses. Yep. Yep. So, all right, you know, I'm reading this, I'm looking over this script.

Starting point is 02:21:27 Miraculously, this isn't, oh, wait, hold on. I think I cut the part where people blew up school buses. There was legitimately a segment in here that I might put back in, which I wouldn't close up a school bus. But, um, what a crossover event. Oh, boy. Oh, boy. The Saudi is really good at that shit. Turns out. Okay, okay. But let let's get back to the topic at hand, which is, what is shadow banking and why does it matter to all of us people who live in the normal real world and not in fake finance world? Does it have anything to do with shadow wolves? Unfortunately, no. What about Shadow facts? Sadly. Actually, there probably is a connection between the financing for the Lord of the Rings movies and Shadow banking. I'm just too tired to work it right now. I've dragged us off track and

Starting point is 02:22:18 We haven't even gotten on track yet. What is Shadowbank? Okay. So the good news, the good news, this is the first, it's not the last piece of good news we're going to get this episode, but, comma, the definition used by most non-academics is actually not that bad. There's a pretty good, it's very wishy-washy because it's a congressional report. And so it's specifically not supposed to be taking a stance in either direction on anything

Starting point is 02:22:43 because it's the Congressional Review Office and they're supposed to be neutral, et cetera, et cetera. allegedly. Yeah, right. You know, and like, obviously they're not. But like, you know, it's like kind of fine congressional report on the subject. And they do the thing that almost everyone does, which is they go back to the definition created by the Financial Stability Board. And I'm just going to, I'm just going to quote that because it's not that bad. Quote, financial activities facilitated by institutions other than central banks, banks, banks, or public.

Starting point is 02:23:17 public financial institutions. So it's banking that doesn't involve a bank. Yes. Canceled. I'm out. I'm out already. Yes. And they don't mean like me loaning you $20. No. No, no. Of course not.

Starting point is 02:23:31 They just mean unregulated banking. Oh, yeah. Which you can't legally call banking. I mean, you actually can't legally call it banking. It's just things get weird really quickly. I mean, I'm not a bank understander. But I know, at least in Virginia, you can't incorporate. a business that has the word bank in the title unless you are legally a bank. Because that's

Starting point is 02:23:53 like misleading. Yeah, I don't think they can legally call themselves a bank, but I guess you can call it banking activity. That's stupid and I'm mad already. Yes. Oh, you're going to get so much more mad by the end of this. So the base definition is it's not that complicated, right? It's something that does banking stuff that is legally not a bank. You know, and so we can talk about what What kinds of things are, is this, right? It's like private equity firms. It's hedge funds. It's venture capital firms.

Starting point is 02:24:21 So it's like evil stuff that ruins the world for no reason except for like 10 guys make money. Yeah, but it's also, you know, pension funds. It's like insurance companies. It's sovereign wealth funds, business development companies, repo markets, broker dealers, special investment vehicles, securitization vehicles, money market mutual funds, asset-backed commercial paper conduits. Hey, here's the thing, bud. most of those things you just said to me

Starting point is 02:24:44 are fake and they make me upset. It's really bad. Sovereign wealth fund, shut up. That's not. That's not a theme. I still, you know, all these, all these things are just like different ways of saying like,

Starting point is 02:24:57 you're poor and you're going to die. Yeah, I mean, the funny thing is sovereign wealth fund is like kind of a less fake one in that it's like, it's all fake. It's all fake.

Starting point is 02:25:06 It's like, well, it's like this, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia has pooled all of the money it's gotten from its like horrific. crimes and put them together into one giant thing and that's a sovereign wealth fund. Oh, so it's good is what you mean. No, I am a notable. There is, by the way, a camp of people who believe that sovereign wealth funds are like a

Starting point is 02:25:26 socialist thing and that you could use them to do socialism. I'm going to jump out the window. I think this is so stupid. Yeah, this is, we haven't even gotten into the nightmare stuff. So remember I was talking about the financial stability board definition in that congressional report, right, where it's like. okay, this is a bank that does non-banking stuff, or a non-bank that does banking stuff, sorry. Oh, I guess we should say, I guess we forgot to say at the top, the reason you're explaining

Starting point is 02:25:50 shadow banking to me is because we saw an article last week that those not banks were putting a stop on withdrawals from their not banks, and I didn't know what that meant. Yeah, that's amazingly, this is so convoluted. We're not even going to get to that this week. Right, but like that's why we're explaining this. Yeah, that's why. Right. There's like, yeah, there's like, there was like a mini bank run going on with these like shadow banks. No, it's not banks. Yeah. So we're going to get into how that can happen and why.

Starting point is 02:26:19 But before we get there, we need to talk about, all right, to get a sense of the complexity of this, right? The congressional report, like the accepted terminology for this is not shadow banks. It is. Right. That can't be their official name. That's not their government name. No.

Starting point is 02:26:34 It's non-bank financial intermediation. Now, what the fuck is that? And this is where this episode goes completely off the rails because the components of what count as intermediation are so complicated. I am not going to try to describe it until literally the end of this. I mean, is it like, what is Venmo officially? Like Venmo is not a bank, but it provides like financial services. Actually, I, it might. Because it's like a financial intermediary, right? Yeah, it might technically be a non-bank. I don't know what the regulatory structure is. It's not legally a bank. Yeah, I think that typically is one. Score one for Molly. Yeah, but okay, so this is going to get really bad.

Starting point is 02:27:18 Okay, so what I first started researching his episode, right? The first thing that I click on is the Federal Reserve's chart of how the shadow banking sector works compared to the normal banking sector. Molly, you have seen this because I posted it as a joke in our group chat. This chart, I have like a very, very large. like it is like a big normal-ass-sized monitor that I like do my work on. I had to zoom in to 380% just to make out the letters that label the boxes on this chart. If you want to read it, you have to zoom into 500%. That doesn't seem like a well-made chart.

Starting point is 02:27:59 No, here's the thing. It's actually really good. It's just this complicated. I learned later from a paper by Copenhagen Business School professor, Audney Helga Daughter. We're going to come back to Helga Daughter's work a lot in this episode. But I learned from her because she has also experienced seeing this same chart and going, what the fuck-ass chart?

Starting point is 02:28:21 I found out that the Federal Reserve recommends that in order to have the diagram be legible, you're supposed to print this chart as a three-foot by four-foot poster? Oh, that makes sense. Like meeting style. But like on a big easel. Put it on an easel. Yeah, right. But like, again, this is, this is a diagram that he's just labeling the parts of the system and making, and making like a line that shows how stuff moves through it. I guess I still don't know what we're talking about.

Starting point is 02:28:53 Yeah. So this is what we're going to get into in a second. But first, we have to talk about something even more bleak, which is that, oh, yeah, by the way, these, like, non-banking bank things, like these, like, all these, like, venture capital firms, all these hedge funds, all these fucking weird ghoulo. foolish banks that are not banks. Yeah, they have twice as many assets than the regular banking system. Oh, that doesn't seem good. Oh, it's about to get worse. It's about to get worse, Molly. That's like saying I keep 70% of the food in my house outside on the porch. Like, no, it goes in the fridge. Oh, oh, it's so bad. It's so bad. So, okay, there's a pretty good congressional report that I was talking about earlier that has this terrifying quote. quote, as of 23, the broad measured total financial assets

Starting point is 02:29:40 and narrow measure assets at NBFIs, this is the Shadow Banks, reached $85.7 trillion and $22.2 trillion respectively in the United States. But that's more than our GDP. That's almost three times our GDP. So that's a fake amount

Starting point is 02:30:00 of money. Yes. That's not real at all. But it kind of is, right? These compare to total financial assets of $31.1 trillion at banks in the same period. So again, this is almost three times our GDP in assets that they manage or control. So where does the money live? In a whole bunch of unbelievably convoluted bullshit, like combinations of like loans and real estate and stuff like that. It's not real money.

Starting point is 02:30:33 So like, okay, imagine this is schoolhouse rock. And instead of like the singing bill, you're like a dollar bill. Like, where are you? We are about to explain this. Where does the money live? Yeah. So, okay, okay. We are about one, two paragraphs away from getting to this or like one paragraph.

Starting point is 02:30:52 Okay. So the other thing that's very important about this and this is something Molly was kind of touching on at the beginning of the episode. So maybe I should have opened with this. Yeah, these people, these are the people who blew up the economy. in 2008. Well, yeah, because they're making stuff up. Yeah. It's so, it's so bullshit, Molly. You're going to get so mad. This is Calvin Ball. Fuck you. I win. Yeah, it literally is. It's nonsense. It's gibberish. They're doing fucking betting markets with the entire world economy.

Starting point is 02:31:19 Oh, yeah. We can all do that now. Yeah, it's fun. It's like we now have the power to do the shit that destroyed the entire world economy in 2008. So the thing about shadow banking and the reason why it's complicated to explain is that it's a catch-all term for like a million types of institutions that do different things, right? The commonality they have is that they're all not regulated by the banking regulations. Right, it's like we found a way to do financial crime that's not illegal because they forgot to make this illegal. Yeah. And, you know, but the thing is, it's so embedded into the system that like the U.S. debt working is dependent on the shadow. banks buying it.

Starting point is 02:32:02 Well, I don't believe in that either, so I'm good. Oh, it's so fake. Molly, I'm not even going to attempt to explain what an overnight repo purchase is to you because it's the fakes thing I've ever seen where they make one trillion dollars exist overnight and then it stops existing at the end of the night. It's incredible. I love how much of the economy is based on guys just imagining stuff and agreeing on the thing they imagined and then trading their imaginary tokens.

Starting point is 02:32:25 Like, is fucking pogs grow up. Yep. This is, this is unfortunately what, what are. our entire world is based on. It's so fun. Oh, God. Okay. So what is actually shadow banking? I've given you the broadest definition possible, which is like, again, it's doing bank shit without being a bank. But let's go back to the beginning of the term, which is where most people tend to start or get to eventually. This is from an IMF paper, quote, the term shadow bank was coined by economist Paul McCulley at a 2007 speech at the annual financial symposium hosted by the Kansas

Starting point is 02:33:02 City Federal Reserve Bank in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. And basically, it's institutions that borrow money in the short term through money markets to finance long-term loans, but they aren't banks, so they can't go through the Fed. They're financing loans with other loans. Yeah, we're going to, so. From a not bank. Yeah. But the big loan is from a real bank, and then the little loan is from a fake bank. Give me... And none of the money is reed. Hold on. Hold on.

Starting point is 02:33:30 Okay. We're going to get there. We're going to explain this in terms of burgers. It's going to be okay. I believe in us. Perfect. Perfect. But the other thing he describes is, and this is from Helga Daughter, quote, in the speech, he describes shadow banking as the whole alphabet soup of leveraged up investment conduits,

Starting point is 02:33:48 vehicles, and structures. So what he's talking about specifically is these are the guys who blew up the economy in 2008. Like these specifically, this is what he's talking. about, right? These are the people who took a mortgage and then did a bunch of bullshit to it in what's called a securitization chain. They did a bunch of bullshit to it so you could give the loan to someone else. So you could sell it to someone else. And this blew up the entire world economy. That's what he's talking about. He's talking about the banks that are not banks, the shadow banks, that did all of this bullshit to turn like someone's mortgage into a fucking thing you could bet on.

Starting point is 02:34:21 So selling debt is like selling the idea of future money. Yeah. And then sometimes that future money doesn't come. Yeah. So, so, okay, I will say, you do not need to understand this yet because we haven't, we still have not started the actual explanation. I'm never going to. I believe in us. We can do this. It's, it's not that bad. Okay. I'm not torturing you on purpose. I'm just numb. It's, okay, I, I believe in you. So I, I want to mention that I'm, I'm very indebted here to the paper I mentioned earlier from Copenhagen Business School professor Audney Helga daughter who wrote

Starting point is 02:34:57 a very good simplified explanation of this in her review of international political economy article called Banking Upside Down, the Implicit Politics of Shadow Banking Expertise. But, okay, as you can tell by the fact that it's called banking upside down the implicit politics of shadow banking expertise, this has been, when she's simplifying it,

Starting point is 02:35:17 she's simplifying it from like economists down to like a political scientist or an anthropologist can understand this. I am a throughout to attempt to simplify this down to a regular person can understand this. So I'm drawing on a lot of her stuff for the first part of this explanation, but I have turned it into burgers. I'll do my best. I'm being very brave. Okay, so a shadow bank, right?

Starting point is 02:35:43 It's something that does banking shit that's not a bank. So what do I mean by banking shit? That was my next question. Yes. I think we need to start with what is a bank? So, okay, okay. And this is where we're starting here. What does a bank do? I put my money in it and they hold it for me. So no, actually, and this is the interesting part. No, they do stuff with it.

Starting point is 02:36:05 Oh, yeah. They're holding on to the promise of my money. Yeah. So, okay, let's just look at this for a second. So, okay, so regular people give them money to store in the bank. This is called a deposit. The bank takes your money and loans it out. Right. And uses that to make money. more money. This is how it pays you interest, right? It's taking your money and it's loaning it out to other people. It's buying things with it. That part I understand. Yeah. And this is obviously a cartoon image and I know there's going to be econ people who are going to be mad at me. Look, if you understand. Why are they listening to this? If you already know what this means, go away.

Starting point is 02:36:43 This isn't for you. I'm not humiliating myself for your entertainment. Like for the political economy people here. When I say stuff that might, that's like, technically kind of fuzzy. It's for me, the podcast idiot. Yeah, like, you, you understand this. Like, I'm working at the level of hamburgers here. So, like, we have to do some abstractions. So, okay, the important thing for our purposes, right, is that there's two things here, right? There's, like, the deposit, is the money you give them, and then there's the loans. Right. And these operates on different timelines, right? You can take the deposit out at any time, at least in theory. but they can't get the money from the loan back at any time.

Starting point is 02:37:22 Right. Now, this is like one of the critical things of what a bank is, is this timeline thing, right? It turns your money, which you can take out at any time, into a different kind of thing, this loan, which can't be taken out immediately, right? And then they use that to make money. So this is called maturity transformation.

Starting point is 02:37:47 This is a very simple concept. made very complicated. This is one of the core aspects of that definition I was talking about earlier. This is one of the four things in it. But you now understand this. It's not that complicated. It's take short term, make long term, and we'll get to doing the reverse in a second. Oh, I don't think it works the other way. It's going to go so badly. It's going to go so badly. I don't know about bank, but just generally speaking, like, in terms of time and like how material reality works, I don't think it works the other way. It's not great. It's not great, Molly. It's not great. Okay. So, okay, there is, however, a problem here, right? Which is what happens

Starting point is 02:38:24 if everyone tries to get their short-term money back at the same time? Oh, you can't. Yeah, right? Because that's why we have deposit insurance. Yeah, right? Because the banks aren't holding short-term cash. What they're holding is long-term loans, and those loans, like, you can't pay someone a loan. Well, okay, actually, this entire, the crux of this episode is they found a way to do that. Yeah. Yes. And it. And it blew up the entire world economy. But if I wanted $40,000 out of my, if I had a checking account with $40,000 in it, and they gave me my neighbor's mortgage as a promise.

Starting point is 02:38:58 That wouldn't work for me. That wouldn't work for me. No, fuck that. No, no, no, no. You need something that can buy a burger. And they're not giving you that. So, okay, this is very, very bad. If people try to do this, it's called a bank run.

Starting point is 02:39:12 It is not good. It's bad. Yeah. So this blew up. This blew up the entire world economy. so many goddamn times that eventually we got financial regulation. Now, this regulation requires banks to have money that is like actual cash they can hand you. Like right now, on hand at all times.

Starting point is 02:39:32 And the government gets to, and this is, that's a little bit of somefication, but like, yeah, that's how it works, right? And it's insured by the government. Yeah, the government will give you your money back if the bank goes under up to like a certain amount. $250,000, FDIC insured. Yep. This is, this, that's, that's, that's what that means, right? The government will give you your money back. But also, there's a trade-off to this.

Starting point is 02:39:54 So this is a massive benefit for the banks, right? The fact that if they go under all of their assets will be repaid by the government, it's a massive benefit for them because it means that putting your money in the bank is like safe. Yeah, I love that for me. Right. Yeah, it's good. Now, the cost to the banks is that the feds get to see their balance sheet, right? The feds get to see what they're doing with their fucking money and they get to make sure that these banks aren't doing.

Starting point is 02:40:16 insane shit. Okay, that makes sense because they're insuring it. Yeah. And that like they're not doing like unbelievably risky awful shit and also that they're actually holding enough money to be able to pay people out. Right. Okay. So far so good. I understand bank. Yeah. Now shadow banking boldly asked the question. Okay. But what if you did all of the banking backwards? No one had access to the books and the government will only pay you back if the entire world economy looks like it's going to die?

Starting point is 02:40:50 I feel like at that point the government should just step back and just like here's the thing here's a thing right I yeah like I'm so down with this like yeah

Starting point is 02:40:59 I don't know fuck it like every single one of you motherfuckers is gonna pay this off by working as a barista for 30 years like fuck you but the government was like we want like we want capitalism to keep working

Starting point is 02:41:10 make every hedge fund manager work at a Waffle House. Yeah. Fuck them. Okay. I'm going to say something and then I'm going to make a disclaimer. So the kind of shadow banks that did 2008

Starting point is 02:41:33 work in the opposite direction. They start with debt. They take that debt and they turn that debt into like cash. Right? Can I do that? No. Does that work for me at my house?

Starting point is 02:41:48 No. So, okay, and I also want to mention, there's a bunch of other kinds of things. of shadow banks. The kind of shadow bank that's going under right now is not really this. The kind of shadow bank that's like exploding right now is a kind of shadow bank that's like, what if a bank that wasn't a bank gave a completely unregulated loan with secret terms to a corporation? And that's the one that's going under right now. But for a long, long time, the kind of shadow bank that was really important to the global economy, and this is still

Starting point is 02:42:17 like a massive portion of how all of the economic system works, is these ones where you're trying to take debt and turn it into something you can trade for cash. So, okay, you take debt, right? You start off with a mortgage. Okay. So these mortgages pay out over the extremely long term, right? But you want to be able to trade this mortgage for cash.

Starting point is 02:42:39 Right. And this is a process called securitization. Turning this mortgage into something you can sell for cash is making it into what's called a security. So now what happens, right, when it's packaged into a security, when there's a securitization process and then like the regular bank, the regular bank sends the mortgage to the shadow bank. And the shadow bank does like stuff and turns it into a security. And now what this means is that instead of you who paid the mortgage owning money to the bank, you own it to the shadow bank or whoever the fuck the shadow bank sells it to, right? Okay.

Starting point is 02:43:14 So the real bank is involved. The real bank is involved. Yes. Oh, yes. The real bank is making so much money off of it. This is why 2008 happened. Oh, because Wells Fargo did this with everybody's mortgage. Oh, yeah.

Starting point is 02:43:26 Oh, yeah. Okay, because I couldn't figure out, because you said this was not too late as he named, and I was like, I thought Wells Fargo did that. That's a real bank. Oh, no. But the real bank was shadow banking. The real bank figured out a way to sell their mortgages. And it's going to get much worse as we go through this.

Starting point is 02:43:41 But that's what causes this, right? is turning these mortgages into these like securities and like these like collateralized debt obligations and these like special packaged bullshit that you could sell to someone. So the way I would describe this is it's like, do you know how a bond works? Honestly, Mia, I do not. Okay, we let's do this. We can do this. Okay, so the kind of bond that you are normally likely to encounter is a government bond.

Starting point is 02:44:09 Yeah. Okay, so you pay the government money. to buy the bond. And what the bond says is at a certain point in time, you hand it back to the government and they pay you more money. Right. It's like a promise for later. Yeah, right. So it's basically a loan,

Starting point is 02:44:25 but it's a loan in a form where like the government's technically like selling it. And then the other thing about bonds, right, is if you hand the bond to someone else, well, okay, I mean, this is technically bare bonds. But like you can then give the bond to someone else. And now if they give it back to the government, they get the money.

Starting point is 02:44:45 In like 10 years, they get the money, right? Right. Okay, I get that. And you can sell these things. And this is what these people are doing with mortgages. That's not as, like, secured as like a government bond. Because if I have a $100 government, like, if I have $100 bearers bond, I know for a fact that on the date on the bond, it's going to be worth $100.

Starting point is 02:45:04 Yeah, they're going to pay out. Right. But if it's somebody's mortgage, the government's going to pay it. But like, the mortgage got, the person who has the mortgage. That's not real. That's not money. Nope. Yep. That's like that's a promise, but like my hand is behind my back. Yeah. It's a shit show. And this whole process is the largest sort of, I'm not sure if that's actually the largest. I would need to actually like get. I've never, I haven't seen in-death breakdown sectorally, but like. None of this is real. You could just say whatever. Um, this, this is one of the most important kind of shadow banks because in order to turn this mortgage into security, the moment you do that, you do this by creating what's called a special. purpose vehicle or someone else creates one.

Starting point is 02:45:45 It's called a special purpose vehicle. Yeah. It's a nightmare. It's a nightmare. I'm going to put this mortgage on a roller coaster. Yeah, it's fucking ridiculous. Right. It's a special purpose vehicle.

Starting point is 02:45:55 It does a loop-de-loop. But the moment you create one of these, the moment you create one of these like security mortgages, right, that's a shadow bank. You've created a shadow bank. Right, because that's not real banking, that's shadow banking. Yep. Because you're creating another entity that is not a bank that's doing the banking stuff. I thought that the banking and the shadow banking were like separate things, right?

Starting point is 02:46:15 Because the shadow banking is like, oh, they're doing non-bank stuff. They're all in on it. They're all in on it. If the bank is doing shadow banking, I would, I'm stupid, but I would call that a crime. This is another thing that cost 2008 because a bunch of what was happening here was. Why isn't that a crime? Because our country is run by the bourgeoisie, Molly. That's why it's not a crime.

Starting point is 02:46:37 You're just telling me this for the first time. Yeah, it's bad. So what happened in 2008, one of the things that happened, right, is so all of these regulators are supposed to be looking at the balance sheets of these companies. But they're hiding stuff off the books. Yeah, they were hiding these things in these like special purpose vehicles, like, in these like shadow banks. They didn't open the trunks on the special purpose vehicles. Yeah.

Starting point is 02:46:59 So no one could see the fucking dead bodies in the trunks of the vehicles because they weren't on the balance sheet that like the government had access to. What's the point of the balance sheet if you don't put the whole balance on it? I'm fucking, I don't know. And this is like legitimately, when you read the accounts of like why shadow making has exploded, and by the way, it's exploded since 2008. It's like way bigger now. It exploded like in popularity or like exploded as in like destroy?

Starting point is 02:47:23 There's so much more of it. There's so much more of it. Because it went so well. It went so well in 2008 that now everyone's doing it. Because here's the thing. After 2008, we got like a little tiny bit of banking regulation. And the banks lost their fucking minds. And so more and more money went into.

Starting point is 02:47:40 all of these unhinged shadow making things. Okay, but so like when a toddler has a tantrum, you don't give them a billion dollars. When these shadow banks went under, these things were not backed by the government. The government bailed them out anyways. Yeah, they didn't have to do that. Nope.

Starting point is 02:47:53 So they really, they learned their lesson. They really learned their lesson this time. Yeah, like, they bailed out these banks and they fucking sold you out. And, like, you know, like, one of the things that I think people have forgotten was there's this thing called robocalls during the Obama administration, right?

Starting point is 02:48:07 Part of how the financial recovery happened was that all these, these banks would like go to courthouses, right? And they would just repossess mortgages on mass. Oh. And they had like a robot that was like sign. It would just sign, like a blank check sign off on all these mortgages that were supposedly underwater.

Starting point is 02:48:26 And they would just steal people's houses. People who were on top of their payments, people who like didn't know money, they would just take their houses. And this happened on mass. And this is like how the banks recovered was they stole everyone's houses. And that's a crime, right? Yes. It should have been a crime.

Starting point is 02:48:40 like it was illegal. It didn't matter though because everything you're describing to me is a crime. It's so nightmarish. Well, actually, here's the thing. Most of the stuff I'm describing is not a crime. This was actually a crime. But why is nobody in jail?

Starting point is 02:48:54 Because Barack Obama went up in front of these people and said, I am the only thing standing between you and the guillotines. I'm pretty sure that's a direct quote. And why didn't he bring the guillotine with him? Because he wants the capitalist system to continue. I mean, that's a silly question. I know the Barack Obama is.

Starting point is 02:49:09 I'm just upset. It's not good. Okay. So let's get you another question that you asked, which is why would you do this? Why would you do this thing? Oh, to make money. Yes, but it's actually more complicated than that. Oh.

Starting point is 02:49:22 Okay. So on the one hand, these assets, you know, a mortgage does make more money than just putting your money in the bank. Right? That's like the basis of banking, is that they can use your money that's sitting in the bank and getting interest and then they make more money by spending it elsewhere. But so they're just doing this because they hate us, not just to make money. No, there is an actual explanation. There's the third reason. So then why would you ever have your money in a bank or buy something like, say if like government bonds you can sell really quickly, right?

Starting point is 02:49:52 Why would you ever want that? And the reason why is something called liquidity. Right, you want to be able to spend the money. Yes. Rather than wait 30 years for it to get paid back. Yes. Liquidity is just how easy is it to turn whatever you own into cash, right? real money because most of what we're talking about is not money. It's the idea of money.

Starting point is 02:50:13 Yes. So liquidity is literally, it's the burger test, right? Can you buy a burger with this? Can I eat this? Money is like the most liquid asset, right? Because you can turn this into a burger. Right. So liquidity is the only part of this that's actually money. Everything else is not money. Yeah. Well, liquidity is the measure of how money is it basically? Like how easy it to turn this into burger? Is this a special vehicle securitization? That's not real, Mia. No, it's fake as shit, right? This is not that complicated, right?

Starting point is 02:50:45 If you, if, if, if, it's like, like, you can, you can buy a burger with $10. Yes. Right? That's liquid. Actually, you kind of can't these days. I know. Look, I, I, look, I, imagine a world where you can buy a burger for $10. Imagine, imagine a burger. Yes.

Starting point is 02:51:03 Imagine a burger that's purchasable. Now, what you can't buy a burger with is, like, the $10 that a guy you work with owes you for buying him a burger. Depends on how well you know the burger guy. Yeah, but that's where things get bad. Yeah. Right. Now, the thing is, right, so the $10, the guy you work with, like, owes you, not liquid. You don't have the money in your hands, and if you want to get it from him, you have to, like, go ask him for the money, and maybe he has $10 and maybe he doesn't.

Starting point is 02:51:35 right, at which point you can't get your $10 back until he has the money. But that $10 that I am theoretically owed is an asset that I have, not a debt. Yes. Okay. Yes. This is an asset. This is stupid. Now, loans are not liquid assets, right?

Starting point is 02:51:51 And they're not liquid assets because you can't get the money back, like immediately. So I don't have $10 I can spend, but on paper I do have $10 theoretical dollars. Yeah, right. And this is also like most of what billionaire money is. Fake, right. Because most of their money is like in like a stock. or some shit or like it's weird fake money. Like theoretically they could access this amount of money, but they don't have it.

Starting point is 02:52:11 Yeah. It's not real. Now, okay. But there is this question. So why would you keep your money and fake money instead of real money? And the answer is that it gives you more money back because say you're an asshole, right? And you're charging interest on your co-worker for that burger loan. Right.

Starting point is 02:52:27 So that $10 is actually worth more than $10. More money. So the $10 that I don't have is theoretically worth $12. You're worth more. Yeah, it's worth more than the money that you do have. I can get cheese on the burger. Yes. Right? And this is like the fundamental thing of the banking system. Like one of them is that illiquid assets or like assets that aren't money are worth more than money?

Starting point is 02:52:51 I guess like when I put a small amount of my savings into a CD, that's what I'm doing except normal style. They're doing it weird. Yeah, basically. Because that's like an illiquid asset that I'm. I'm trading the ability to access that liquidity for the potential of more money later. Wait, sorry, when you say a CD, do you mean like a physical like a disc, like a CD? No, a CD like at the bank. Oh, like the bank, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Starting point is 02:53:15 The investment product. Yeah, sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry, I was like. No, I'm not talking about buying compact discs. I would just sleep at 5 a.m. this morning. I'm talking about investing Mia ever heard of it. Wow.

Starting point is 02:53:27 There's actually a really an annoying thing researching this episode because there's like, so CDOs are like a type of loan that we'll kind of get to in a bit, but there's also a tech position called CDO. It's like Chief something officer. Chief Duky officer, who cares? Yeah, whatever the fuck, right? But like when you're trying to search for stuff

Starting point is 02:53:46 that's like about CDOs, right? The other one keeps coming up. I fucking hate it. Okay, okay, locking in, locking in, right? Lock and load. Now, what if you both want into more money and also the ability to buy a burger?

Starting point is 02:54:00 I guess I would probably break one of Carl's fingers. This is the guy that owes me the $10, Carl. Yeah, but even then it's hard to, even that's like, this is too hard for these people. I would go to Carl's house and kick him out of it. Well, yeah, so, but the other thing is like, you are not very rich.

Starting point is 02:54:18 Okay. These people, if you are really, really rich, I am talking like billionaires, maybe like high, high class multimillionaires, well, you can go to a shadow bank. Oh. Right? You can get a loan based on the loan.

Starting point is 02:54:32 No, well, you say, so the thing is that you have money, right? But you want to turn your money into more money. Like, you have like actual cash, right? Like you are, you are, for example, a pension fund. No, I'm not. You have a shit ton of cash. Or imagine a pension fund, right? This is also really hard because it used to be easier to explain this because, like,

Starting point is 02:54:55 we used to live in a world where people had pension funds and had mortgages. And now we no longer have pension funds or mortgages. I live in an apartment, and I will always live in an apartment. Yeah, no. So, okay, so like, imagine a pension fund, right? You have a shit ton of money from your members paying into the fund, but it's cash. You need to turn that cash into more money, but also, you're a pension fund. So you constantly have to take money back out in order to pay the people who are retiring.

Starting point is 02:55:24 To pay old people, yeah. And this is also a thing that, like, you know, if you're just like a rich person, Sometimes you want your, a lot of times, you want your money in assets that are, like, you can turn back into real money, but also make you a ton of money. Right. They need to sort of revolve a little bit. They need to be like, yeah. I don't know, like a jello, like partially liquid. Yeah.

Starting point is 02:55:44 And this is what the shadow banks do, right? Because the thing that you can buy is one of those mortgages they've turned into like a security, right? You can go buy someone else's debt. Uh-huh. But because it's a magic security now, and these are called. mortgage-backed securities. And again, if you're old enough to remember, yeah, anything about 2008, that's what blew up the whole economy, is these mortgage-back securities. Yeah, I've heard of that because it was bad. Yep. Terrible idea. And so we're still doing that? Oh, yeah.

Starting point is 02:56:13 Oh, okay, good. I mean, it's less, specifically the mortgage-back ones are less bad, also they've started doing it with, like, commercial retail loans, which is incredible. Oh, great. So that's really fun. They're also doing with other unhinged shit that we're going to do. do like next episode. And what these people are really buying aren't just these like, you're not buying like one person's mortgage, right? Right. They're like pooled and like bundled. Yeah. Yeah. They like they bundle them all together and then you, you buy the rights to a percentage of, of the pool. It's not like when you sponsor like an elephant in Africa or something and they send you a picture of like a specific element at your family. They don't send you,

Starting point is 02:56:51 they don't send you a picture of the family you're harming. No. These are the Joneses. You own their fucking house. Yeah. It's, it's, it's a shit show. Um, No. Well, I mean, eventually you might have to go figure out who that is because you like own whatever the fuck percentage of like the mortgages or whatever. But like, okay. So these are just like someone else's debt that you're buying. And the people who can do this are, you know, people who have billions of dollars. It's not you the listener. And by the way, if you the listener have billions of dollars lying around for some reason. Can I have some? Please, yes. Please, please give me some of them so I can house like literally every trans woman. And like, you know, like, you know, you know, trans person, I can do it. Like, please give me your billions of dollars so I can, I can achieve this goal. But like we're talking about, you know, like the pension fund of California.

Starting point is 02:57:37 We're talking about mega corporations, insurance companies, the kinds of things I can actually buy these, like, you know. Now, this is where we get to one of the other problems, which is that these things are not insured. So, what do you do in order to try to make it less risky? What do you get if you can't pay the loan back? And this is what's called collateral. I don't know.

Starting point is 02:58:00 A swift punch in the nuts? Oh. No, they take your house. Right? Yeah. That's supposed to be the thing. So, okay, the way that, like, shadow banking loans tend to work is that they have collateral, right? So you give them something or, or it's either you give them something directly or it's like if you promise to give them the thing.

Starting point is 02:58:21 Yeah. And giving it to them directly is like a repo market thing. We're not really going to get into those right now. That's also a kind of shadow bank. But there's a problem, right? Which is, what if the thing that you're paying, you're paying as collateral, like, what if your house becomes worthless? And what if, Molly?

Starting point is 02:58:40 Then it's completely uninsured and there's no way to fix it because I don't even have anything to give it. Now, Molly, what if, and this is purely hypothetical, it could never happen in the real world, Molly, but what if somehow, someone, someone decided to use the same house, house as collateral for multiple different securities. Well, that could never go wrong. What if, Molly, they made a word for this that is so complicated I am not going to attempt to read it on the show.

Starting point is 02:59:10 What if, Molly? What is it in German or something? No, it's like this, it's just like this. It's like the length of my head. It's like hyper, hyper, something bullshit. Like, I refuse to say it because it is just like a completely like finance gold bullshit term they made up. So, but the point of.

Starting point is 02:59:27 The point of collateral is that you can use it to pay off the loan if you default on the loan. And so that literally won't work more than once. Because once I eat the burger, once I eat the burger, it's gone. Yep. And this is one of the things that happened in 2008. I can't promise 10 guys my burger. Now, Molly, here's the amazing thing here, right? Because the advantage for these companies, right?

Starting point is 02:59:52 It's like if you're the bank that has the mortgage, suddenly you can spin your mortgage off into like multiple securities that you can sell. Right. It's worth 10 times more and that's great for you. Yes. And comma, comma. We haven't even, again, I just described the system where these people are promising the same house to most old people. This isn't even the extremely unfathomably reckless and greedy shit. No, it is.

Starting point is 03:00:16 Oh, it is. But it's not the worst of it. Oh, good. Okay. So do you remember that quote from when I was giving the first definition of shadow banking, right? Like I gave, I gave this quote from the guy who invented the term where he called it, quote, the whole alphabet soup of leveraged up investment conduits, vehicles, and structures. Right. So we've kind of talked about the conduits vehicles and structures, right?

Starting point is 03:00:49 Those are all of the shadow banks that like make the things, right. I love the conduits vehicles and structures. Yeah, all the acronyms. But what does leveraged up mean? Oh. Now, okay, in this case, it means that a bunch of these banks have taken out. a shit ton of like risky high interest loans in order to buy more of these fucking mortgages because I think they can make more money off of it.

Starting point is 03:01:13 So they took out loans to buy these unsecured securities. The regular ass banks were doing this. Yeah. They went into debt to buy more of these shitty mortgages. So they took out loans to buy what are essentially unsecured loans. Yep. because I thought it would make them more money. But there's no money involved.

Starting point is 03:01:38 Oh, oh, Molly, oh, Molly. It's, it is about to get so much worse, right? So sticking with leveraging for a second, right? You might have actually heard of something called a leveraged buyout. I have heard those words, and then I stop listening. Yeah, so here's the thing. Leveraged buyouts are something that actually happens in the real world that does fuck you directly, which is a whole bunch of companies that used to be like normalized companies,

Starting point is 03:02:04 like died because venture capital firms who, by the way, are also shadow banks did this, right? They came in, technically speaking, they did it through like risky bond purchases, but basically they did a bunch of high interest loans and then they go buy a company. And then they like strip it for parts.

Starting point is 03:02:19 And then they try to raise the stock price of the company. Yeah, and then they trip for parts, sell everything and get out, right? That's what a leverage buyout is. These people are sort of are doing kind of a version of that, but like they're taking on this debt in order to like buy fucking shitty underwater

Starting point is 03:02:33 mortgages. Because they look like they're making so much money. They're taking on real debt to buy hypothetical debt. Oh, it's about to get so much worse. That doesn't seem like a good idea. It's not to get so much worse. So that's what like the leveraged part of that. I don't even know how you do that in burgers. I don't know. You're going into debt to like buy the promise of burgers in the future. So you can sell that. those future burgers. Yeah, but burgers are real. The thing, we're not talking about a real thing at all. Well, technically, technically speaking somewhere at the bottom of this is mortgages. However, comma, we're about to get into a kind of asset where there isn't anything behind it.

Starting point is 03:03:17 And this is where the really, really, truly unhinged shit starts. It hasn't you? Which is that these companies figured out a way to bet on whether these mortgages were going to fail or not. That's so tight, Mia. I fucking love that. I love it. Yeah. I love it. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. This, by the way, I can't emphasize enough how unhinged this is. The mechanism they're using to do this is called a credit default swap. Oh, I've heard that phrase.

Starting point is 03:03:44 This was supposed to be how they did insurance. Their mechanism for doing insurance on all of these insane loans they were doing was originally like, okay, I'm going to, you're, I don't know, so you have a bank, right? The bank has given out a risky loan. So this bank goes to another bank. They shouldn't do that. And they say, hey, if this person actually pays a loan, back, I will pay you money. Okay. So the other, so the other bank is like taking a gamble here.

Starting point is 03:04:09 Yeah. So the other bank that's giving out the loan, right, gets money if the loan goes under. So in theory, they're sort of like insured against the risk. They call it like hedging. So like so like so theoretically it's less bad from them because now even if the loan goes under, they still get money back from that other bank. So the other bank is just a bookie. Yeah. And the other bank is betting that they are going to get it. So then, and if the loan does get paid, then that bank makes money. And this is legal for everyone to do? Yep. This is real banking or shadow bank?

Starting point is 03:04:41 This is real bank. No, this is technically, actually, no. This is actually both. Both of you do this. Technically speaking, the instrument, like, like the actual like credit default swap or whatever is named by the shadow banks, but then they're brought by the regular banks. I'm starting to think that the bank search of the shadow banks and that all of this is just fake and bad.

Starting point is 03:05:01 Like, here's the thing about these systems, right? Is it like a lot of the original literature on it was considering them separate. But it's like, no, like the regular banks are making their own shadow banks do these things. They're all involved in these assets. They're also investing in the shadow banks, which is the problem we're having right now. Right. It's like, it's the same guy. He just like turns his chair around at his desk.

Starting point is 03:05:20 And he's like, now I'm shadow bank Todd. Yeah. Well, sometimes it's that. Sometimes it legitimately is just other entities they work with. But yeah, but there's still, it's still the bank engaging. So it's like, oh, this. These are non-banking practices. Yeah, but the bank is doing it.

Starting point is 03:05:34 Well, but here's the thing. The important part for that, though, is that, like, the non-bank also can do this with other non-banks. Even better. Even better. Yeah, right? I just feel like, once we're talking about shadow banking, like, the real bank should not be in the room. Like, go home, Wells Fargo. You don't belong here.

Starting point is 03:05:48 You're drunk. No, but, like, they're funding all of this, right? Like, if the real bank is involved with the shadow banking, that means, like, I can't opt out of being involved in this. Nope. Because they have my money. Yeah. You know what we were talking about that at the top that, like, uh,

Starting point is 03:06:01 of these, like, thank banks had to, like, stop their withdrawals. Oh, yeah, one of those, by the way, was J.P. Morgan. But that's a real bank. Yep. But they're involved in the shadow banking shit. So they're exposed to when they're, like, fucking $700 million loan to, like, a fucking, actually, which one was the $700 million? I think a $700 million loan that went under was the one that was to a subprime auto loan

Starting point is 03:06:22 company. That's a bad investment. Oh, yeah. It's so evil. It's so evil. Why am I trusting all of my money that I have in this? world. I'm letting this guy hold on to it who's obviously not good with fucking money. Well, because the FDIC is insuring it.

Starting point is 03:06:38 Right, but it's like, why are you in charge of having the money? You obviously don't make great financial decisions because you invested $700 million in subprime auto loans. So, Molly, this is the point where we need to bring debt the first 5,000 years back into this and emphasize the extent to which the financial class has always been deeply connected to the military and why it's always been. to be connected to war financing. I'm starting to realize that this is all very bad.

Starting point is 03:07:06 It's very bad. It's all very bad. And this is to some extent why, right, like, part of what right-wing conspiracyism about the financial system is, is that, like, these people are like, like, the right-weger's, like, these people are, there's, like, a baseline level of anti-Semitism, like, in the U.S., right? Because it is a Christian society that is just, like, what fucking happens there. And these people are like, okay, we can channel all of. the anger at like, oh my God, my God, my fucking house got stolen

Starting point is 03:07:35 by the bank because they were betting on the mortgage to fail. And... I still understand why that's legal. Yeah. Well, all of these right-wing conspiracies do is they look at that shit and they go, oh, well, it was the Jews. And it's like, no, like, fuck off.

Starting point is 03:07:49 Like, these are all... No, it was the bank. Yeah, and the other thing, and this is actually a really important thing that's not well understood here is that, like, the actual people who run these fucking banks, the people who work at them are all fucking white Christian dipshits. this is like a really like persisted issue that everyone fucking has which is that like

Starting point is 03:08:04 one of one of the great successes of anti-semitism was like creating the image of the banker as a Jewish person and no they're not the bank like I fucking went to school with these people they're all a bunch of fucking white frat bros they're fucking white Christian frat bros University of Chicago you have a degree in economics in the University of Chicago not frankly I have an anthropology degree thank you very much I took I took a real degree not a fucking fake degree like the stupid econ bullshit I was to say, that's actually so evil to study economics. No, it's so hideous.

Starting point is 03:08:33 You probably met some of the most evil people on this plane. I was just, like, in a dorm with them. Okay. So. But you saw them? I know all these people. Yeah. And like, it is not, it is not a bunch of Jewish people.

Starting point is 03:08:44 It's a bunch of Christian fratros. Like, that's like the thing that's actually going on. There's actually a whole one day I will write behind the Bastards episode about leverage buyouts and about how, like, there was like a Jewish guy who kind of like did a lot of the inventing stuff. but him breaking into the banking thing was like a whole thing because there was so much anti-Semitism

Starting point is 03:09:03 because all of the banking sector was run by all of the fucking like weird dipshit like CIA like WASP motherfuckers I mean the Mormons have a huge hedge fund yep yep yep yep yep yeah so like the what is it I read an article about it

Starting point is 03:09:21 the hedge fund that the Mormons operate like they have their like best and brightest finance bros like you know Mormons do their to your mission if you're really good at finance your mission, you don't have to go to South America and tell people about the Book of Mormon, you can work at the hedge fund as your mission. It's a nightmare. I'm doing hedge funds for God.

Starting point is 03:09:37 Yep, that's a shadow bank, by the way. Yep. It's great. So, okay, okay, coming back to this again, right? So we're talking about like what causes 2008 and how do these shadow banks like do this? And the answer is that they've turned all of these mortgages into these like fake securities they can, they can trade, right? They package them all together, and they find out something really crucial, which is that if they throw a bunch of loans that they obviously know are going to fail together

Starting point is 03:10:08 and send them to a regulatory agency, and by the way, all of these like bonds that they're issuing have like grades based on supposedly like how safe they are, and they figure out. I know about that. Yeah, and they figure out that they can send a bunch of really shitty bonds, but if they package enough shitty bonds together, they could send them to the regulators, and the regulators would have would evaluate some of them as being good, and then you could sell the good ones to your pension fund because I thought it was a good bond and it made money

Starting point is 03:10:36 that's just lying and then yes and yes and then and then behind the scenes right all of these fucking companies all these shadow banks all the regular banks they're all doing these credit default swaps right so they're all betting on which ones of these are going to fail I'm putting all of these boys in timeout I'm going to put them in the bottom of a pit it's so evil And they start doing these, making these like even more complicated instruments, right?

Starting point is 03:11:01 Where now what they're selling to you isn't just the package of mortgages. They're also selling you the credit default swaps with the loan. So theoretically what's happening is like they've created an instrument that regardless of what happens to the loan you make money. That's not how anything works? No, it's bullshit. It's so obviously bullshit. I made up this fake thing where no matter what happens I get rich. That's cool.

Starting point is 03:11:24 I would love to do that. Yeah, and nobody was like, well, I mean, a couple some people were, but like, people didn't just be like, wait, hold on. No, obviously you can't make an asset that makes money regardless of whether the thing fails or not. I invented a money machine. Like, that's fucking ridiculous. And then eventually, yeah, it was like, no, they ran out of fucking mortgages. You know, one of the ways that the blame for this was deflected onto regular people was that they blamed the banks or like they blamed regular people for like not being able to pay the mortgages. But the thing is, by the time you get to the point where you're like, packaging all the, you're betting on the mortgages, right? If you're a bank, even if you're the regular bank, you don't make money off of like someone paying their mortgage back. You make money on betting on the mortgages. So you're incentivized to just keep giving out loans you know won't happen because you can sell those loans off of some other dipshit and then you, and then you can bet on those loans that they're going to fail. And you can make money and that's

Starting point is 03:12:17 how you make your money. Because you're not a bank anymore. You're a bookie who's cheating. Yep. I don't think that's. good, Mia. No, this was the entire fucking financial system. And we just let these people stay in power. And I'm just supposed to just continue living my life like this? I don't know. Like, looking at this and then learning that all of these people got fucking bailed up by the government and none of them went to prison and... Do they know they're cheating liars who are faking and making it up? Or are they like so high on their own supply? They're like, they're like, no, bro, no, but this is totally going to work. It's totally going to work. Well, here's the thing. Some of them know and some of them don't.

Starting point is 03:12:57 Because some of them believe that this is cool. Yeah. Like, some of them legitimately thought that this was just going to work forever. Like, do they believe their negative money backed by other fake money, backed by the idea of promises of fake money? They think that's money? Yeah. Yep. Well, that was going to work. It's not. It's not. Nope. And it turned out to not be any fucking money. And it blew up, again, like, entire countries, countries were buying these. They went bankrupt. So, like, this is less real than a bored ape NFT.

Starting point is 03:13:27 And that's really saying something. It's astonishing. Because at least the, at least I can look at least I can look at the picture of the monkey. I can't look at this. No, like, you can't look at the bet you're making on whether, on whether monkey go down. Like, it's like, like, all my apes gone. Yeah, but it's depression because the entire world is just this now. It's the shit the banks we're doing where you're betting on whether the mortgage would feel.

Starting point is 03:13:50 But now it's your betting on whether the mortgage would fail. And now it's your betting on whether, like, what day we're going to drop a bomb on a run. Like, nothing is real and everything is gambling. Yeah. Yeah. And this is, you know, what I would call a sort of terminal crisis stage of capitalism where like... Because everything is so divorced from any material reality, from any good or service. Like, there is a limit to which you can run an entire economy that is purely based on gambling.

Starting point is 03:14:14 Like, there's just, there's a limit. And we're going to hit it really soon. That's got to break, right? Yeah, yeah, it's going to break. It's going to break spectacularly. However, comma, I do have good news for you. I do. I have good news. You now actually understand what non-bank financial intermediation is. No, I don't. I'm going to walk you through it. You actually do. So I'm going to quote the IMF's definition of non-bank financial intermediation. Quote, all entities outside the regulated banking system that perform the core banking functions, credit intermediation.

Starting point is 03:14:52 That is, taking money from savers and letting it to borrowers. The four key aspects of intermediation are maturity transformation. We know this one. Right. This is what the bank does. The loan gets older. Yeah, yeah. And then it gets paid back over time.

Starting point is 03:15:07 Yeah. Well, it's, you turn your short-term thing into a long-term investment. Or you do the opposite. Opposites not good. Yeah, they're both kind of a disaster, but like, yeah, yeah. The other opposite is kind of how we got into this mess. There's liquidity transformation, which we know this too. It's turning...

Starting point is 03:15:25 Turning money into a thing that's not money. Yeah. Or turning not money into a thing you can buy burger with. Okay. Yeah. We got this. Leverage. We also know this, which is you go into a bunch of debt to buy something else.

Starting point is 03:15:39 And then there's credit risk transfer, which we know that one too. It's the betting market. where you're supposedly swapping the risk but both of you two are now betting on whether this thing is going to fail. So it sounds like even just like regular banking is kind of just gambling now.

Starting point is 03:15:57 Yep, yep, yep. And it's fun too. So this is a thing that used to be talked about more and isn't now, but like most of like the world's corporations are also basically this now. Like, and this has been a thing for a while, but it's like the auto manufacturers

Starting point is 03:16:11 don't make their money off of cars. I mean, they sort of do. They make some money off cars or like most of what they make their money off of is like the Ford finance company, which is like the auto loans thing. Oh. And then the auto loans thing trades a bunch of like does all of this other financial bullshit to make money. So like, I don't think that's a good idea. That's what capitalism is. So everything, everything is fully reliant on this like stupid gambling bullshit.

Starting point is 03:16:38 Emberers wearing no clothes economy. Yep. And if anybody points out that none of this is connected to a material reality, everything falls apart. Well, here's the thing. The thing that stops everything for falling apart is that the one thing you can do with your money is turn it into gun. Now I'm listening. And that's what stops it falling apart, right? Because now I'm listening. And this is also a sort of graperism, but it's like behind every bank is a man with a gun. Because the reason that this money is even sort of real is that the bank can like, like the police,

Starting point is 03:17:11 will come get you, right? Like, men with guns will appear and coerce you to pay shit, right? But what if, what if instead of burger, we bought guns? You know, like, this is what is broadly referred to as the social revolution. It is broadly considered a negative by the financial sector. It is broadly considered a positive by everyone the fuck else. That's not true. It's not considered a positive by, like, I guess the people who own regular businesses.

Starting point is 03:17:39 And this is, like, this shit that, like, you know, it was. kind of less unhinged back then, but like if you go read the people who were like doing this shit in like the early 1900s, if you read their writing, it's all them being like, oh yeah, no, by the way, like a bunch of banks just like turned the entire Ottoman Empire into like a debt peon and now their entire economy is just dedicated to paying off these fucking loans and this is like hideously fucking evil. Like they're all complaining about the same shit. And the important lesson we learned from that.

Starting point is 03:18:08 The important lesson we learned from that was to do it more. More. Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah. To invent increasingly more complicated ways of doing that. Yep. And this is why the term third world is a slur. Because instead of being a political movement, because the countries in the political movement that was called the third world movement, all of their economies got fucking annihilated because they had these like loans whose interest rate could change. And the U.S. jacked up all the interest rates.

Starting point is 03:18:37 And so suddenly their loans were like, like the amount you had to like pay on the loans it went from like 20% or something to like 50 or 100 or some shit. And, you know, and like in these countries have never recovered. Like Nigeria has never really economically recovered from the shit that happened to them. This is why a whole bunch of Latin America is like this too. Like it's like why there's so much sort of like riding systemic poverty is that the economies were entirely transformed into machines to like pay back these fucking debts taken out by these dictators.

Starting point is 03:19:07 This is the whole fucking economy now. And, you know, there's other shadow banks. that do other kind of completely unhinged shit, right? And I've been focusing this week on like specifically the kind that blew up the economy in 2008. But there's another kind that's like blowing up the economy right now, which is called private credit, which is I mentioned this briefly earlier, but private credit is when these like unregulated companies that are not banks give out unregulated loans with unknown terms to other companies. And then those loans go to shit.

Starting point is 03:19:35 And there's a whole bunch of ways that can blow up, including by the way, these companies are funding a bunch of the AI bubble. Oh, and that's a great investment. It's great. You know, because much, much like a mortgage, there's a real physical thing, like a house involved, right? It's not just vibes. Oh, yeah. Oh, Molly, Molly, they, those motherfuckers, I'm going to talk about this a bit. I might have Ed Ditron on for this part of it, too, just because, like, Ed does this all the time.

Starting point is 03:19:57 But, like, those motherfuckers out there selling securities that are backed by fucking graphics cards. Like, at least the more, I can't believe I'm fucking saying this. But, like, at least the mortgage-backed securities, like, there was a house you could steal to get your money back. Graphics cards, Molly. All my apes are gone. All my apes are gone. I was like, there's other ones that I'm like, it's so bad. It's just, oh, but that's for another time because it is late as fuck, and we are out of here.

Starting point is 03:20:33 Molly, thank you, thank you for sitting and enduring an hour of you knowing what a shadow bank is now. I almost know what a bank is. I'm still working on the rest of it. But I think I'm getting closer. I believe in you. I think we've made real progress today. I don't know. Now you can kind of understand what's going on when this thing sector explodes again in like two weeks.

Starting point is 03:20:56 You'll have to explain it to me again then. I will be happy to. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the honest talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women.

Starting point is 03:21:28 Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHeart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. If you're trying to keep up with everything happening on and off the court, we've got you covered on the podcast, flagrant and funny. You look at the top four number one seeds. What do you think UCLA is going to do? Break down that for me, my friend.

Starting point is 03:21:55 Obviously, Yukon is the overwhelming favorite in this tournament. But I be honest, I think people are kind of sleeping on Texas. Experts are suggesting that UCLA is the number one challenger to Yukon and that right after that would be Texas. S&C is so deep and so thick and just about everything. It really is annoying. So it's UCLA, Texas, South Carolina, LSU. Only ones that could possibly upset Yukon.

Starting point is 03:22:22 On Flagrant and Funny, we're giving our unfiltered takes on the biggest moments the conversations everyone's having. So whether your bracket is busted or you just want the latest on the tournament, we got you. Listen to Flakron and Funny with Carrie Champion and Jamel Hill on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHart Women's Sports. I became a millionaire overnight but lost everything that actually mattered. Wait a minute, Sophia. Did you just say he lost everything?

Starting point is 03:22:49 That's right. It's inheriting too much drama week on the OK Storytime podcast. So we'll find out soon. This person writes, I just inherited a fortune after losing my mom, and now my girlfriend's entire family is coming out of nowhere with their hands out. One sibling wants me to fund their whole lifestyle. Another vanished for four years and suddenly reappeared.

Starting point is 03:23:06 And my girlfriend is already giving my money away. Hold on, Sophia. So the girl he wants to marry is already sending money out the door. And that's just the beginning. He makes a plan, sets up a trust, and finally thinks he has everything under control. Okay, so things work out then? Let's just say the people he trusts.

Starting point is 03:23:22 of the most are the ones who ended up shocking him the most. So does the money end up being worth going through all that? To find out, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Lori Siegel, a longtime tech journalist. And consider my new podcast, mostly human, your bridge to the future. Anyone can now be an entrepreneur. Anyone can build an app. And it's very empowering.

Starting point is 03:23:45 Each week, I'll speak to the people building that future. And we're going to break down what all of this innovation actually means for you. What I come to realize is that when people think that they're dating these AI companion, they're actually dating the companies that create this. We're experiencing one of the greatest tech accelerations in human history. And let's be honest, that can be messy. There's no playbook for what to do when an AI model hallucinates a story about you. But it's my belief that we should all benefit from this moment.

Starting point is 03:24:18 Mostly human will show you how. My goal is to give you the playbook, so you can benefit. The reason I say agency is because if we can give power back to people, then I think that's probably the best thing we can do for your mental health. Listen to mostly human on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Oh God, I hate these assholes. Zoom, if you're listening to this and leaking my shit,

Starting point is 03:24:49 keep all of this in. Fuck you. Keep all of this in. Keep it all in. Beautiful. Beautiful stuff. It's sufferable. It's insufferable.

Starting point is 03:24:57 It could happen here. Executive dysfunction. Disorder. Disorder. The weekly newscast we do. That covers what's happening in the White House. The crumbling whirl of what it means for you. And Sophie's simmering rage at Zoom, constantly moving the recording button.

Starting point is 03:25:11 Not even just Zoom. It's all the, it's insufferable. All these goddamn platforms with their stupid AI features and moving of my settings. I sound like the oldest person in the world. But stop moving the recording. No. This sucks. Stop it.

Starting point is 03:25:26 It's so annoying. Holy shit. Everybody's pretty pissed about AI these days. I mean, it's insufferably stupid. But stop it. Stop it. And we have to use Microsoft for work. And every time I try to copy something, it asks if I want to use co-pilot.

Starting point is 03:25:42 No, I never want to use co-pilot. Fuck off. Sophie, you're really not maximizing your productivity. Okay, Gary. This week, we're covering. I know what that means now. And no. Don't do that to me.

Starting point is 03:25:59 Collicular as shit. Stop it. Stop it. Okay, I'm going away now to your jobs. What are our jobs? Really? You're not going to join in? I'm here.

Starting point is 03:26:08 I'm always here. That's Sophie Lichten. Also, Mia Wong. Robert Evans. I'm Garrison Davis. That's right. This episode, recovering the week of March 18 to March 25th.

Starting point is 03:26:19 Speaking of AI, Open AI is announced they are shutting down their AI-generated video app SORA. As a result, the Disney deal has fell through. Disney's no longer going through with the $1 billion investment and character licensing deal with OpenAI, according to the Hollywood reporter. I know our audience is full of a lot of big SORA heads, and I'm sure this is some tough news. The SORA community is taking hits. Yeah, it's okay. You can still play Sora in Smash

Starting point is 03:26:49 Ultimate. You can recover, I believe in you all. There's a video game character named Sora too, huh? Yeah, the key blade, the key blade will still be there. I didn't, I didn't get into those games. Actually, hilariously, also a Disney franchise. Also licensed through Disney, yeah. Great. Great stuff. Well, I found this very funny in part because, like, when SORA came out, there was this

Starting point is 03:27:11 like burst of enthusiasm for like, soon we'll just be generating our own movies and TV. You won't need Hollywood. But then it turned out that you can't actually, like, do, like, even if you want to make stuff with Sora, like, even if you wanted to include, like, clips of it to like help augment other films you were making. And there were a couple of filmmakers who tried to do this. You could summon critical ways where they were like, well, you know, I can use like pieces of storage generated video to like illustrate this point I went to about AI. Well, you couldn't actually use like SORA footage and anything that you wanted to like sell to

Starting point is 03:27:41 Netflix or Amazon or like whoever are put in a theater because like the terms of use basically did not allow it because of how much risk you were at of getting sued for, you know, utilizing other people's shit, content other people made, OpenAI was not willing to indemnify the users. Adobe has a similar, like, slop AI video generation machine that does indemnify, like, users of the content they make, and that is still going. Yeah. So I think that was kind of, like, one of the key issues here is just that, like, you can't actually do anything with your SORA clips.

Starting point is 03:28:16 Yeah, I mean, this doesn't mean it's going to lead to the end of AI generated video on social media. Lord no. Unfortunately. This is a movement that Open AI is making towards business to business sales and away from this direct-to-consumer application. It's still an interesting move. The fact that Disney's breaking off the deal,

Starting point is 03:28:36 also interesting. It's exact ramifications for Open AI and like AI-generated video in the long run. Still unclear. Yeah, I also just want to mention that like obviously the other reason they're doing this is that this stuff is hideously expensive. Yeah, a lot of money to generate

Starting point is 03:28:51 this stuff. Unfathomable amounts of money are just being lit on fire. I listen to everything ever written by our friend and colleague Ed Zitron. If you want to know how much money is being lit on fire by this bullshit. But yeah. Yep. A few other small news stories. The U.S. Army has raised its maximum enlistment age to 42. And the Pentagon is planning to maintain National Guard presence in Washington, D.C. through the entirety of Trump's second term. In a special election Tuesday night, the Dems flipped Trump's own state house district in Florida, Palm Beach County. Trump won this district by 11 points in the 2024 election. As Tuesday, Democrat Emily Gregory won by two points, nearly a 14 point swing. Are we going to point

Starting point is 03:29:42 out how he voted in that election? Vote by a mail. But it's okay because the Florida system is safe and secure. Yeah. Also, I want to point out this is more vindication of the Mia of the Mia blue tsunami theory that this is going to be a 2008 style blowout if they're losing fucking Mara Lago for a two point. Yeah, I try not to predict how the fucking bigger elections are going to go anymore. Yeah, it's it's so hard, but it's not, you wouldn't call it a good sign for the Republicans. This is not a good sign for Republicans, even though only like,

Starting point is 03:30:18 33,000 people voted in this election, it is still interesting data. Yeah, you would think, again, that he would have more of a lock on his backyard, but also, why would he have thought about it? Like, I go back and forth and people are like,

Starting point is 03:30:31 well, if they were going to steal an election, wouldn't they have done the one in Mar-a-Lago? Probably not. Nah. Probably wouldn't have thought to do it. Probably would have figured they don't need to. The FBI is investigating former director of the National Counterterrorism Center

Starting point is 03:30:42 Joe Kent for allegedly leaking classified information. And this investigation predates his resignation last week. In an interview with Tucker Carlson last week, Kent implied Israel may have been involved in the killing of Charlie Kirk and that the FBI stopped Kent's investigation into this quote-unquote linkage. Oh my God. Jesus Christ. Yeah, man, Israel killed Charlie Kirk. That's why there haven't been any other people on the right who have complained about Trump's aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes. Like no other conservatives have been pissed.

Starting point is 03:31:17 about the invasion of Iran. Just Charlie Kirk. He was the lone anti-Semite. The only... He was the only one. Charlie Kirk was the Golden Dome, single-handedly. Stopping Trump. Yeah, no.

Starting point is 03:31:30 It's just a silly idea. For our first big story, let's talk about airports. Everyone's favorite way to spend five to who knows however... Impossible to say. How many hours? Yeah, an impossible about. Oh, God. No way to know.

Starting point is 03:31:48 DHS has been shut down for over a month now, and more than 400 TSA agents have quit after being left without pay, while ICE agents continued to receive paychecks through last year's big, beautiful bill. This past weekend, Trump announced ICE would be deployed to airports to assist TSA during the shutdown.

Starting point is 03:32:07 By Monday morning, ICE agents had been sent to airports in Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Fort Myers, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Juan, Newark and the two New York airports. Interestingly, come Monday, when ICE was spotted, they were not wearing masks, which seems to go against agency claims that masks are for protecting agents against so-called doxing. That morning, Trump trothed, quote, I'm a big proponent of ICE wearing masks as they search for

Starting point is 03:32:37 and are forced to deal with hardened criminals. I would greatly appreciate, however, no masks, in all caps, when helping our country out of the Democrat caused mess at the airports, etc.? Thank you. Later on Monday, Trump was asked whose idea it was to send ICE to airports, and he had this fascinating response. Mine. That was mine. That was like the paperclip. You know the story of the paperclip?

Starting point is 03:33:04 182 years ago, a man discovered the paperclip. It was so simple. And everybody that looked at it, say, why didn't I think of that? Ice was my idea. I called, first person I called was Tom Holman. I said, what do you think? He said, I think it's great. Then I saw today there was some masks on. I didn't think the masks were appropriate.

Starting point is 03:33:24 I put out a statement and I asked them, would it be possible to take off the mask? Because they should wear a mask when they're dealing with the murderers and the thugs left in, let into our guys. Discovered the paper clip. Discovered the paper clip? Every now and then you get a little hint about his media diet.

Starting point is 03:33:42 It's just fascinating. Discover the paper clip is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard. It's insane. Somebody told him a little story about like, well, you know, the person who went into the paper clip and Trump just kind of ran with it, that's got to be it, right? Yeah. It's like the paperclip exists as like a platonic form, like existing in the, as like a piece of truth.

Starting point is 03:34:04 Someone shizzled it out of a piece of granite, the first paperclip and was like, yes, I've done it. It's like 40K shit where like the theory is that all technology. has already been invented. So if you invent a technology, you're discovering it again. The dark age of technology gave us the paperclip, and it is actually heresy to invent a new kind of paperclip or other way to attach papers together.

Starting point is 03:34:26 Now, in less funny news, also on Monday, Trump confirmed that ICE would be arresting people at airports. We see ICE arresting illegal migrants at airports. Yeah, yeah, that's why the Democrats are going crazy, because they've allowed by what they did, and hold up, we put ICE, who are a very high level. I mean, they really are a high level group of people.

Starting point is 03:34:51 And they love it because they're able to now arrest illegals as they come into the country. That's very fertile territory. But that's not why they're there. They're really there to help. Uh-huh. There to help. Most people who are undocumented do not illegally enter the country through airports. That would be silly.

Starting point is 03:35:10 They overstay a visa. That's where they lose their legal presence. On Fox News, Tom Homan claimed that ICE was helping to reduce long lines at airports as well as arrest criminals. And we're filling the holes. The wait lines are already dropped. Plus, we're doing a security function at the airports. We're going to arrest criminals going to do its airport. We're going to look for human trafficking, sex trafficking, money smuggling.

Starting point is 03:35:38 Money smuggling. Yeah, they're just going to steal cash off. of people at the airport. Yeah. Yeah. Now, TSA has done that for a while off and on, so this isn't entirely new, but they're just going to take money from people. By Tuesday evening, lines at ATL, the airport in Atlanta, the most busy airport in the

Starting point is 03:35:57 world has the most amount of travel to and from. By Tuesday evening, lines were back down, but by Wednesday morning, a friend of mine took three hours to get through TSA. God. So, God. What exactly is ICE doing? Mostly standing behind TSA at security checkpoints, standing behind people still doing the regular TSA work,

Starting point is 03:36:20 occasionally directing pedestrian traffic, and maybe at most yelling of people to empty their pockets. Hey, they're keeping the cookie clicker economy going. The mobile app economy is benefiting enormously for all these people standing around their phones. ICE agents cannot actually do the job of TSA since they do not have the training nor the certification required to do so. Nope. So ICE is largely just acting as auxiliary staff and security for the airport.

Starting point is 03:36:47 But regular airport staff aren't suffering from the financial strain of the shutdown because they're still getting paid. Aaron Barker, the president of the TSA Union Local 554, which covers airports in Georgia, like ATL, denied that ICE contributed to short lines on Tuesday compared to the weekend, noting that Tuesday is a non-peak travel day. Yeah, of course, it's Tuesday. Quote, it has nothing to do with ice presence being there. The ICE officers in Atlanta are not doing any screening functions. They are literally standing behind the officers while they're checking documents and screening passengers

Starting point is 03:37:24 or walking the queue line that cascades through the airport, unquote. New York and New Jersey TSA Union President Hydra Thomas said during a press conference, quote, you want to bring a tactical force into an environment where you're required to have customer service and skill set, a mindset where you know what you're doing, how to identify something that might be suspicious. They don't have that training, unquote. No, and the TSA doesn't really have that training. Let's be clear. No. TSA does not actually. TSA doesn't know what they're doing at all. There was never any chance of this helping anything.

Starting point is 03:37:58 This is only going to be more of a pain in the ass for people at airports, which already are unpleasant to be at. Now, on Monday, there was viral video of plain clothes agents wrestling a woman into handcuffs at the San Francisco airport. This incident actually took place Sunday night. Angelina Lopez Jimenez and her nine-year-old daughter were supposed to fly to Miami to visit a relative. Instead, she was detained by ICE agents and sent to an airport holding room, according to the New York Times. On Friday, TSA agents flagged her name on an upcoming passenger list and informed ICE that Lopez Jimenez was scheduled to fly from Miami on Sunday.

Starting point is 03:38:42 Lopez Jimenez and her daughter were detained by Border Patrol back in 2018, but were released with a notice to attend court for removal proceedings. Eventually, she stopped showing up for appointments, and her deportation was ordered in 2019. This weekend at around 9.30 p.m. Sunday night, two plain clothes agents approached Lopez Jimenez in Terminal 3 in San Francisco, and she then handed over her two Guatemalan passports, one for her and other for her daughter. While being led to the international terminal, she tried to run away, prompting the agents to tackle her to the ground. On Tuesday, her and her daughter were sent to Guatemala. The New York Times says that this operation was unrelated to the ICE airport.

Starting point is 03:39:25 deployment ordered by Trump. Also on Sunday night, Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune told Trump that the Senate had reached a deal to fund TSA and the rest of DHS except for ICE, which would be handled later in a reconciliation bill. But Trump instructed Thune to kill the deal. Later that night, Trump trothed, I don't think that we should make any deal with crazy, country-destroying radical left Democrats unless and until they vote with Republicans to pass the Save America Act. That is the Voting Restriction Act, which includes voter ID with

Starting point is 03:40:04 picture, proof of citizenship to vote, heavily restricting mail-in-voting, requiring paper ballots, as well as, quote, no men in women's sports and no transgender mutilation of our precious children, unquote. Senator Ted Cruz and John Kennedy are continuing to work. on this plan that Thune told Trump about to reopen DHS Sands Ice. On Tuesday morning, Kennedy said on Fox News that Thune told him the president is reconsidering the option and, quote, unquote, may be on board. Later that day, Trump was asked if he supports what appears to be the quote unquote emerging agreement coming out of the Senate to reopen DHS.

Starting point is 03:40:44 Trump replied, quote, I'm going to look at it. We're going to take a good, hard look at it. I want to support Republicans. and sometimes it's awfully hard to get votes when you have Democrats that don't want to have voter ID, unquote. Trump then went on to discuss the Save Act and how he added no men in women's sports, quote unquote, because it's nearly a, quote, unquote, 99 to one issue. It's time for our first break, and we will return with more news. We're back.

Starting point is 03:41:24 So let's talk about the war that's been going on for like a month at this point in time. You know, as we're kind of sitting here right now, we've all seen gas prices leap up substantially. In California, there's some areas where you're paying like $750 a gallon. Good Lord. It's gone up by about a dollar where I live. It looks fairly credible. There was a lot of fear that like kind of the worst case scenario would be that oil gets anywhere near like $200 a gallon. Or $10 a barrel, not a gallon, sorry.

Starting point is 03:41:52 That would be real bad. But what we're looking at right now, there's credible reason to explain to it. expect that like this stuff won't peak any lower than about 175 bucks a barrel, which is pretty catastrophic for the U.S. economy and the global economy as a whole. Nightmare. It's bad. And Trump has been, I think, increasingly making it clear that he is looking for an off-ramp. There's a lot of reporting from inside the administration that suggests they did not think

Starting point is 03:42:18 things would still be going on this long, that they thought that after the first, you know, rank of Iranian leaders were kind of wiped out, the guys behind them would be willing to play ball with the administration in exchange for staying in power, which is more or less the offer that we gave Delci Rodriguez in Venezuela. And the Venezuelan regime, the people who kind of were behind Maduro, were willing to take. But Iran is a very different country. And they're in a very different situation. And they have a very different military. And they have a very different physical strategic situation than Venezuela does than any other country that the United States has attempted to use these kind of like violent bullying tactics on. And, and,

Starting point is 03:42:58 And so far Iran does not seem to be interested in coming to the table. Trump has made a couple of statements about how we're working on getting out of this. You know, we've presented an option to the Iranian government that basically allow them to get rid of all of the sanctions if they just promise to stop enriching uranium and the handover everything that they do have and to never try to get a new. I think it's pretty clear they're not willing to make that promise anymore. I think they were. I mean, they certainly were earlier, five years ago. But at the time which you've repeatedly killed all the people running the country, you've kind of only made it clear that they need noops.

Starting point is 03:43:35 And that's the waiting game that we find ourselves kind of currently locked in here. Is Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz. They've, at least last I checked, I think, hit 17 ships heading through the straight or in the strait. And that's caused the vast majority of traffic that would be crossing through to hold back. And so you've got this massive backlog of craft just kind of weight. because they can't go through. Trump previously had made some big statements about,

Starting point is 03:44:02 well, the U.S. Navy will escort them through and we'll get like a global coalition of naval forces to escort them through. That hasn't come to pass. For one thing, very few governments with navies seem interested in sending sizable naval forces to the Strait of Hormuz to do this. And for the other thing, that's not an easy thing to do.

Starting point is 03:44:25 It may seem like it, because it would be a real crazy thing to all of us listening if a single U.S. naval vessel were destroyed in combat, right? Like the last time anything like that happened was the U.S.S. coal, which was hit while it was in dock by a suicide bomb. The idea of, like, a destroyer getting sunk would be deeply upsetting to the American people, I think probably, and like deeply, it would be a huge problem for, let alone if an aircraft carrier were to take serious damage.

Starting point is 03:44:51 Yeah. These would be serious problems for the administration. The problem is that you can't escort fuel tankers through the Strait of Hormuz without exposing them and the ships escorting them to direct fire. Geographically, you know, you've probably heard a lot about Karg Island recently, which is this island that, as we talked about in a previous episode, a lot of Iran's oil infrastructure is on because the coast of Iran is not, mostly not deep water. And you need very deep water for the boats that transport huge amounts of crude oil. These are massive vessels. These are some of the largest machines human beings have ever built of any kind. Yeah, these are the size of skyscrapers.

Starting point is 03:45:30 These are skyscrapers on their side. They are enormous boats. When people were suggesting, like, what if we just drive the oil, you have no idea how big these fucking boats are and how much oil it takes to keep the world running. Yeah. So you have a very narrow waterway for most of this. So it's not like it is in, you know, other waterways or in the broader ocean where people have a lot of roots they can take. big ships can only take one very well-known path through the strait, right? And it's really easy to

Starting point is 03:45:58 mind that path. If you've got naval vessels escorting those big boats, then you've got U.S. naval vessels that are exposing themselves to direct fire from the mountains and hills in a way that is impossible to stop them from getting shot at, from having drones flung at them. And we have a pretty good understanding of what we can stop and what we can't stop. And based on everything that's been happening. My suspicion is that Trump has been getting told by his officers, we can't guarantee we won't lose sailors and we won't lose ships if we do this because you are sending them through the chokiest of choke points. And Iran has spent 50 years preparing to fling shit at naval vessels, escorting oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. There's no guarantee it's not going to be a bloodbath.

Starting point is 03:46:43 So that's why the administration is looking at stuff like, well, what should be sending in Marines? and we have Marines that are moving into the area. There's been a lot of talk about having them seize islands in the strait, potentially even Karg Island. The problem with that is, obviously, Iran has to deal with the bottleneck of we need this big island with its deep harbors. Otherwise, we can't get our oil out. But if the U.S. takes that island, it's in the middle of a bunch of shit Iran controls, and they can fling explosives at the forces who take that island all fucking day long. It is a very bad position to be in if you're the Marines.

Starting point is 03:47:21 I don't care how well trained you are. I don't care how much support you have. That is a bad position to be in. And any military leader who has been under fire is trying very hard right now to let Trump know this will not be a low casualty endeavor and it will not be an easy endeavor. And you will not wind up just controlling this island and being able to dictate things to Iran. You will wind up having potentially thousands of your boys held captains. by Iranian forces that surround them

Starting point is 03:47:50 and fling explosives at them all day long. It's a bad position to be in. Yeah, and this is, I think, part of, like, the issue with the Trump administration's policy here is that, like, Trump himself and the people around him just seem to have been treating the Iranian army as not a real army. It is.

Starting point is 03:48:04 It is. No, this is an actual army. They know what they're doing. Like, this is not the Venezuelan army. Like, this is an actual army. Yeah. Like, you can't do this shit. There's a lot of guys left who have a lot of experience

Starting point is 03:48:17 and preparing for this exact war for a very long time. Yeah. And who are ideologically motivated to not have the U.S. like invade their country. The issues here with the fact that there's no good way to open the straight, I think has been dictating a lot of what Trump's been doing with his negotiations. And I've started calling them like market negotiations because if you look at whatever Trump releases a statement, so on Monday, for example, he released a thing saying like,

Starting point is 03:48:45 like, ah, we've entered, like, peace negotiations. And that was Monday morning, as the markets were opening, from a very panicky weekend where people were, it was sort of setting in that oil prices were going to be increasing. And whenever Trump does one of these speeches where he says, oh, well, we're going to, we're going to find some way to open the straight. Or he does these, like, peace off, like, he sends this peace deal to Iran, which we don't know the details of.

Starting point is 03:49:07 There was, like, a reported leak of it in the Israeli media, but we don't know exactly what's in it. From that Israeli leak, it didn't seem to be, a, I mean, it didn't seem to be something that the government would accept, right? But the reason he's doing it is because he's trying to calm the markets down on a sort of, on a sort of day-by-day basis. And part of it also was that there was this whole panic that Trump had been threatening early this week to start doing all of these bombing campaigns against Iranian, like, civilian power

Starting point is 03:49:34 facilities and supposedly non-civillian power facilities to you. And then on Monday, he was like, no, no, no, we're not actually doing that. Actually, we're doing peace talks. We're pushing this off for five days. And this is, again, market. manipulation stuff, right? Because he watched... We're only at war during the weekend when the markets are closed. So this is what these negotiations are, right? And that's why in Iran immediately,

Starting point is 03:49:56 it goes like, no, like we're not in negotiations and then released their own five-point plan to end the war in which the U.S. would pay war damages. And they've been really consistent about this, which is the U.S. will pay war damages and reparations. And in this one, and also, you know, there was a whole thing about obviously like the U.S. stopping the war. they're bringing deterrent measures in place to keep the U.S. and doing it again. They want the U.S. to have its regional proxies stand down, which would also presumably end the other major thing that's going on in this war, which is just Israel ethnically cleansing the south of Lebanon. We just release an episode about this. It's very good.

Starting point is 03:50:30 Yeah, to make a defensive barrier. Yeah. And the last part about this, and this is the part that I think is the real kind of clincher here is that it would give Iran control over the Strait of Hormuz, which is. which is a real problem for any kind of American negotiation because this was always a thing that the Iranian government never did, right? They had the military capacity to hold the straight. The reason they didn't do it was that it would start a war. But now you've started the war and now you've opened Pandora's box

Starting point is 03:50:57 and you can't put the fact that they can do this militarily back into the box. Yeah. Right. So now they're just being like, fuck it, you guys can't actually defeat us militarily before the entire world economy collapses. Like, fuck it, give us the straight. Now, I do want to mention something about some of the, the oil tankers, which is that, okay, the whole situation is very murky, but Iran has been,

Starting point is 03:51:18 I mean, obviously it's been allowing its own tankers to go through, which is not a huge amount of oil, but it's some. We got a reported case. The statements on this were released by the Thai government and also a Thai oil company where the Thai basically foreign minister, like, called the Iranian government and said, hey, we have an oil tanker here where you let it through. and they went, yeah, sure. So there seems to be some kind of process by which countries can do some kind of negotiation with the Iranian government and be let through what exactly that looks like and the details of it are really unclear.

Starting point is 03:51:55 We don't know if this is a pattern or if they were just like, yeah, sure, whatever, Thailand, you can do this. But yeah, that's kind of the state of things. I guess we should also mention there's been a bunch of reporting at the U.S. deploying 2,000 paratroopers. I've seen both 1,000 and 2,000-sided as a number from the 82nd Airborne into the region, which presumably would be there for that, like, disastrous Carg Island campaign, but, oh, boy. Which is not boots on the ground, but it's an island.

Starting point is 03:52:23 It's not, doesn't count us the ground. It doesn't count as the ground. It doesn't count as the ground. We're good. I'm so excited for us to fight an entire war in the Arctic where he's like, there's not boots on the ground because they're all wearing snow shoes. Can't get us there. Nope.

Starting point is 03:52:37 you see all the Marines are wearing jet packs. They never touch the ground. They've got those weird water backpacks that you fly. You can fly with if you're at the goats. They're a little jet ski backpacks. They're not touching the ground. They're all laying a quarterway road in front of them, so they're not technically on the ground.

Starting point is 03:52:58 They're on this road. Yeah, so things continue to go badly for kind of everyone involved in this war, except I guess the Israelis who are... They seem to be happy. Yeah, they seem to be having a great time doing another ethnic cleansing. But there's another group of people who've been doing extremely badly as a result of this and has gotten almost no coverage in the American press to the extent that I found out about... I mean, like, I was starting hearing about the stuff from just like by friends who are Indian,

Starting point is 03:53:29 which is that things are very, very bad right now in... East and Southeast Asia and just South Asia in general. Multiple countries, including like Thailand, for example, have either sent part or all of their government employees home and told them to just work from home because they can't afford to keep their offices open because like cooling the offices is too expensive. They're sort of rolling crisis like across the entire sort of Pacific Rim area

Starting point is 03:54:00 because all of these countries are unbelievably reliance on oil, natural gas. This is also down to stuff like cooking oil, too, which they also have not been able to get. And so, you know, you can look at Sri Lanka where there are these just enormous fuel cues because the Sri Lankan government, they're four years out from the last time that they weren't able to input oil. That one was a sort of currency crisis balance of payments issue they were having. But the moment there was a problem with the oil supply, the government started doing rationing. So now you have these massive lines for people trying to get gasoline. that's, I think, one of the worst ones in terms of just pure inability to get gasoline

Starting point is 03:54:39 so this is a problem across the region. The BBC also said, I'm just going to read the quote, declared Wednesdays a public holiday. Sure. So, yeah, they're just adding another day to the weekend because they can't have businesses open because businesses can't afford to, like, heat or cool themselves.

Starting point is 03:54:58 They literally can't afford to keep the economy running. And variations of this are playing out all across South Asia, there's been a massive closure of industries in India. A whole bunch of restaurants, I think the estimates were about one-fifth of restaurants are just gone because they can't get cooking oil. And you have the situations where like anything that requires like cooking oil, even though the things that are open, like can't be used. Gujarat, the Indian state of Gujarat has a very large ceramic industry and it's gone. It's been gone for like a month. 80% of it is shut down. This is 400,000 people affected by this because they're using propane and there's

Starting point is 03:55:36 no propane. And this is playing out across the region, right? There's been some reporting about concerns in Taiwan over whether they're going to have enough sort of liquefied natural gas in order to keep their ship facilities running. But Taiwan is like kind of okay. It's places like Sri Lanka, places like Thailand, it's places like Myanmar, it's India, where things are getting really, really bleak really quickly. There was a story that I kind of did make it through into the American press about how the U.S. temporarily lifted sanctions on Iranian oil

Starting point is 03:56:12 specifically so that there were these tankers, Iranian tankers, that were just at sea, and the sanctions specifically on those tankers were lifted so India could buy it. And this has been happening with Russian oil, too. And the reason this is happening is that if you're not getting these kind of injections of oil, the situation there would be.

Starting point is 03:56:30 be even more bleak than it already is. And obviously there's some places where just everything is continuing as normal, but you're starting to see just kind of these countries unravel because so much of their infrastructure is based on an oil and natural gas that's coming through the Gulf. And it's really fucking bleak. And it's something to keep in mind as this crisis rolls on.

Starting point is 03:56:58 we're dealing with like gas price go up, which is obviously bad in an issue. There are a shit ton of people in the world where it's like, yeah, I know, like 400,000 people are out of their jobs because their entire ceramics industry is gone. Yeah. Right. And these are not people who have money in the first place. And this crisis is just going to continue as long as the Trump keeps this war going. So I guess we'll see how long that is.

Starting point is 03:57:23 Hopefully not long. Yeah. I mean, polling continues to be bad. I'm sure Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance are going to be on it as they continue their negotiations. Yeah. There's not a long list of people that I want running negotiations less than J.D. Vance, but like, it's not great. No, it's not great. There's no way to sugarcoat it here. It says something about how much fucking Kushner screwed the pooch that Iran is like, yeah, get Vance in here.

Starting point is 03:57:54 Bring in, bring in Vance. We get J.D. Vance in here. I don't want to talk to that other guy again. There is, like, a legitimate problem they're having, which, like, there's been a lot of jokes about how, like, all the DEI firings are, like, fucking them. But, like, it actually is where there's, like, a whole bunch of the embassy staff people, like, got fired because they weren't white and because the Doge people were just like,

Starting point is 03:58:14 fuck it. And now it's like, I mean, this was a situation already. The U.S. governments, like, experts on other countries tend to be like... I mean, if you look at what happened in the lead up to the Iraq war, or anyone who knew anything about Iraq as an actual S subject matter expert was basically isolated and cut out of like the planning because they were all saying don't do what you're doing. It's not going to work. Well, and even even in administrations we regard as competent, like I randomly, like when I was at University of Chicago, like going to school, I met the guy who was who was set com Syria analyst, like right when that's beginning of the Syrian revolution and he was like reporting to Barack Obama about what was going on. And it was just like some guy. Like it was like some guy who'd gotten like an undergrad degree, right? Yeah.

Starting point is 03:58:59 Like, and even those guys are getting like it was just like some random asshole with, I mean, like he's like, new his stuff. But he wasn't like a, he wasn't like an expert on this. Right. And even those people are gone. And so now you're dealing with those people who are supposed to be running these negotiations. You just have like literally no idea what's going on because they fired every non-white person. And so it's just catastrophic for the entire world. Yep. Cool.

Starting point is 03:59:26 One more ad break, and we will return for a final segment giving an update on a friend of the pod Gregory Bovino. Oh, Greg. All right, we are back. Unfortunately, it's time for our reoccurring Bovino segment, hopefully the last. God. What's Boving on? He just had a very interesting interview with The New York Times. He did.

Starting point is 04:00:03 in which he said that before he was demoted from his role as commander at large, he had a plan at DHS to deport 100 million people. Something that DHS then tweeted about with a silly little graphic that they stole from another artist. The New York Times reported, quote, Mr. Bovino said he had a master plan that was in motion before his exile, back to El Centoro. It would have neutralized protesters, he said, and made it possible to deport 100 million people. That is a goal that the Department of Homeland Security has widely promoted. If it sounds extreme, it's because it's nearly 10 times the estimated number of undocumented

Starting point is 04:00:51 people in the country. It's also more than a quarter of the entire U.S. population, unquote. Yep. Gregory is also quoted in this piece of saying, I wish I'd caught even more illegal aliens. I mean, we went as hard as we could, but there's always a creative and innovative solution to catching more, unquote. God. Would have been nice for a journalist to follow up

Starting point is 04:01:17 on what he meant by that. Yep. Yep. Mm-hmm. I want to talk a little bit about that 100 million number because there was a New York Times report where Trump said, in one meeting, due the 2024 campaign, Mr. Trump said that if it was up to Mr. Miller, there would only be 100 million people in this

Starting point is 04:01:36 country and they would all look like Mr. Miller. Wow. Yeah. I mean, that's, he's not lying. Yeah. You know, and he, I guess, has the numbers reversed in that, in that the Bovino one is deport 100 billion people, which is the one that's been floating around in sort of, like, right wind circles more.

Starting point is 04:01:53 And this one was that there's only 100 million left, but. And it's completely disconnected from reality and like the economic reasons for why. Yeah. These deportations or even something, disconnected from the economic reasons behind this sort of immigration enforcement. There's just no logistical capacity. No, like, it's, I mean, yeah,

Starting point is 04:02:12 it would be one of the largest ethnic cleansings we've ever seen. But it's a thing that, like, people like Miller and, like, Bovino wants, this is kind of what we've seen a lot in Trump administration between the people who actually want the economy to work and the people who have, like, some other ideological goal. Yeah. Because there's the people who just want, the white ethno state, right?

Starting point is 04:02:32 And that's sort of the Bovino, like, Miller wing. And then there's everyone else, like Scott Besten, like the treasury people who were like, holy shit. Yeah, we want there to, we want that. We need the permanently subjugated immigrant underclass. You can't deport 100. And well, this isn't wouldn't even be the immigrant underclass, right? This is, this is like most of the non-white people in the U.S., right,

Starting point is 04:02:55 who they're talking about deporting, who are just, you know, people here. like me. And obviously, like, we don't know if Bovino's just lying about this because, who knows, it's Bovino, but... Yeah, what this master plan actually looks like or what it included, also not expounded upon something that the journalists at least did not get an answer out of that was then reported. No. It's unclear, but during Bovino's, like, rain at Border Patrol, this number was something that DHS mentioned as a gold multiple times. For an example, earlier this month,

Starting point is 04:03:29 Louisiana Senator John Kennedy was questioning David J. Beir, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, about his criticism of DHS. And Senator Kennedy read a quote from Beers' social media. They referring to Republicans think they can troll their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing. End quote. Your words not mine.

Starting point is 04:03:56 Did I read that correctly? That was in regard to a part of... Did I read that? Did I read that? About advocating 100 million deportations. That is what DHS has tweeted from their own account. A hundred million deportations would be ethnic cleansing. You would be removing one third of the country.

Starting point is 04:04:15 So yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland Security. And you don't think this is hyperbolic. Give me 30 more seconds. I think advocating 100 million deportations is ethnic cleansing. On February 15th. He really thought he ate with that one. Yeah, he was really thinking he was going to dine out on that, huh? Wow.

Starting point is 04:04:35 What a loser? What is rattling around in your skull that you listen to that and think you won? Like, what is happening here? God. You're having fun? You're having fun with that, huh? Okay. Speaking of the Department of Homeland Security,

Starting point is 04:04:54 there is a new big boss in town. Former Senator Mark Wayne Mullen has been sworn in as the new DHS Secretary. During his confirmation hearings, Mullen said he regrets calling Alex Preti a, quote, deranged individual who came to cause max damage. Those words probably should have been retracted. I shouldn't have said that. And as Secretary, I wouldn't. The investigation is ongoing. And there is, like I said, there's sometimes going to make a mistake and I own it.

Starting point is 04:05:22 That one, I went out there too fast. I was responding immediately without the facts. That's my fault. That won't happen as Secretary. So you regret that statement? I already said that, yes, sir. Would you want to apologize to the family of Alex Preddy? Well, sir, I just said I regret those statements.

Starting point is 04:05:40 Is that the same as an apology? I haven't seen the investigation. We'll let the investigation go through. And if I'm proven wrong, then I will absolutely. Is that the same as an apology? Oh, God. Man. Just speak like a person.

Starting point is 04:05:56 We've got to bring Mr. Rogers in here to tell you what an apology is. is. Come on, bro. Also, there's a lot of discourse about his name being Mark Wayne, and you can't tell me that guy doesn't look like a Mark Wayne. He looks like a Mark Wayne. He looks like a Mark Wayne. Thank you so much.

Starting point is 04:06:10 Jesus Christ. Just say sorry, dude. Later on in this same hearing, Mullen defended the actions of the officer who killed Renee Good saying, quote, it's very clear that an officer had to make a split decision in that case. Throughout these hearings, Mullen reiterated that he wants. to keep the agency out of the news. Quote, my goal in six months is that we are not in the lead story every single day, unquote.

Starting point is 04:06:39 When questioned about what ICE reforms he would be willing to put into law, Mullen said that a quote unquote better approach would be working with local municipalities. I would love to see ICE become a transport more than the front line. If we get back into just simply working with law enforcement, We're going to them and we're picking up these criminals from their jail. One, we're going to reimburse them for having the person there. And partnership is violent. I don't think there needs to be a wall to change that.

Starting point is 04:07:10 I think I can work within what is there. But there's an approach that can happen, but we've got to have partners. What he's trying to do here is essentially blame ICE overreach on sanctuary city policies, saying that ICE wouldn't need to be in all these places, being on the ground, if sanctuary cities would just cooperate with ICE for removal operations. In response to a question about ICE and CBP, illegally entering people's homes, Mullen said, quote, we will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant,

Starting point is 04:07:45 unless we're pursuing an individual that runs into a place of business or residence or a house, unquote. If this is true, this definitely is a partial movement still with this, exception, but a partial movement from the so-called administrative warrants, which became popular under Christine Nome. Which, big if, like it. I think, as like James has said before, I think there is, like the wind is changing a little bit, but, I mean, it could very easily change back the other way. It is, it is simply too soon to say, and obviously none of these things will be, like, satisfactory. I should not exist as an agency. Yeah. But it is, it is, it is simply, It is interesting to see the Trump administration slowly adjust towards pressure being put on ice from the public.

Starting point is 04:08:36 At Mullins' swearing-in ceremony, Trump said, quote, generally speaking, Mark Wayne would be very much in favor of what I'm in favor of. He might be worse. He might be worse than me. Oh, no. So generally speaking, I think I can answer that Mark Wayne would be very much in favor of what I'm in favor of. Would you say that's right, Mark? I can't think of too many things. He might be worse. He might be worse than me. That's my look at his wife. He's saying, that's right.

Starting point is 04:09:04 But, so, yeah, he's going to be great. So, we'll see. We'll see what that turns out to be. Great stuff. Great stuff. These people are so bizarre. Like, they can't talk. They sound ridiculous.

Starting point is 04:09:24 Nightmare. That's my only take. Because they can't do normal. They can't human. If you would like to send us a news tip relevant for news purposes, you can do so at cool zone tips at proton.me. Again, for news-related tips only. Put a trans girl on your couch.

Starting point is 04:09:47 We reported the news. We reported the news. We reported the news. Hey, we'll be back Monday with more episodes every week from now. until the heat death of the universe. It Could Happen here is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more podcasts from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, poolzonemedia.com,

Starting point is 04:10:10 or check us out on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can now find sources for It Could Happen here listed directly in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than No Grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of Motor Racing's most coveted series.

Starting point is 04:10:30 Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive. into the under-explored pockets of F-1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend, the recent uptick in F-1 romance novels, and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years.

Starting point is 04:10:47 Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you're trying to keep up with everything happening on and off the court, we've got you covered on the podcast, Blagrant and Funny. You want to start with the first pleasure for the Big Ten Coach of the year? Oh, whatever. Would you like to?

Starting point is 04:11:03 You're a Spartan, is that what I'm getting? Exactly. So whether your bracket is busted or you just want the real talk on what's happening during the tournament, open your free I-Heart radio app, search Playgrin and Funny with Carrie Champion and Jamel Hill, and listen now. Presented by Capital One, founding partner of IHart Women's Sports. 10-10 shots five, city hall building. How could this have happened in City Hall?

Starting point is 04:11:28 Somebody tell me that. A shocking public murder. This is one of the most dramatic. events that really ever happened in New York City politics. I scream, get down, get down. Those are shots. A tragedy that's now forgotten and a mystery that may or may not have been political.

Starting point is 04:11:47 That may have been about sex. Listen to Roershack, murder at City Hall on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I became a millionaire overnight and lost everything that actually matter. Hold on, Sophia. Did you just say they lost everything after becoming a millionaire. That's right. And it gets worse. It's narrating too much drama week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This person writes, I just inherited a fortune after losing my mom, and now my girlfriend's entire family is coming out of nowhere with her hands out.

Starting point is 04:12:18 And my girlfriend is already giving my money away. The girl he wants to marry is already sending money out the door. Find out how it ends. Listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Thank you.

Behind the Bastards - It Could Happen Here Weekly 225

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.