Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 1/19/26: Markets Panic, Jeffrey Sachs On Greenland, Troops To MN & MORE!

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

Krystal and Saagar discuss markets panic amid Trump threats, Jeffrey Sachs joins on Greenland, Trump threatens troops to MN, ICE attacks Krystal, Gavin Newsom vs. Ben Shapiro.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you,

please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breaking points.com. Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Chris? And why are we at home? What's going on? Well, it's Martin Luther King Jr. Day. So that is why we are at home for both personal and also want to always give the crew some time off, much deserved. And we have actually, though, a really big show. I'm sure you guys are aware there is a lot that is breaking in the world right now, this crazy letter from Trump with regard to. Greenland. We've got Jeffrey Sacks. Fortunately, in the show this morning, reacted that to talk about Iran, to talk about the Board of Peace, what's going on with Canada, China. We're going to

take a look at market reaction, these tariffs that Trump is now threatening as well and the EU reaction. So we'll get into all of the geopolitics today. We also have obviously huge significant domestic developments in terms of Minnesota. Tim Walls is called up the National Guard, and Trump is threatening to send in some 1500 troops. So we have the possibility of two armed forces facing off against each other in American streets. Obviously, it's an incredibly, it's a very scary situation. I just don't think there's any two ways around it. We also have ice coming after years truly, but wanted to use that as an opportunity to highlight some of the specific lies that they've been caught in just recently in the context of what's going on on the ground.

In Minneapolis, we're also going to take a look at a pretty interesting moment from Gavin Newsom in his. interview with Ben Shapiro with regards to Gaza and whether perhaps he is being a bit overhyped as the Democrats potential 2028 nominee. Yeah, that's right. Lots in the show. Lots in the show today. So why don't we start here with the global market reaction to the tariffs? Definitely the bigger story, I think, that has happened. And we're talking more with Professor Sacks by the context, so a lot of the Greenland stuff. But this is after a Trump true social post over the weekend threatening Europeans with a 10% tariff on all. of the major economies who are not currently bucking or bucking the United States on Greenland.

So U.S. stock futures and European shares have dropped. Gold and silver have notched new highs. President Trump said he would slap these tariffs. These stocks, Europe, 600 fell more than 1%. And trade sensitive stocks and others bore the brunt of their selloff. The 10% tariff is scheduled to kick in on February 1st for all the goods imported from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland. And so obviously all of the major, major economies of Europe, the most significant are going to be the French, German, the UK tariffs in particular.

All of this is being considered now in the European Union about potential retaliatory tariffs. There is some $93 billion in tariffs which have been readied as a potential response. However, currently the New York Times reporting as of this morning, Chris, I'm just sending you the article if you want to put this up from the New York Times reporting this morning. the European Union officials lean toward negotiating, not retaliating over Trump tariff threat. European Union ambassadors held an emergency meeting on Sunday, and leaders from the 27 nation block will meet in Brussels later this week. I will also note for everybody that Donald Trump and the administration is going to Davos this week. And so the Davos speech, Trump is apparently going to talk about some of the housing initiatives and the mortgage bonds and the mortgage bonds. credit card affordability rate. Personally, you know, wouldn't talk about affordability at Davos,

just me, in terms of a general message if you're trying to target the American people, I wouldn't go to the Klaus Schwab, you know, a place with a world economic forum to talk about that. It's not really giving, it's not really giving like cares about the little people, is it? Yeah, I would not personally don ski gear at Davos sitting next to NVIDIA's Jensen Wong. But all of this is the context of all of these European leaders. This is probably going to be the most important Davos meeting, maybe of all time, because Trump is coming there. We're going to talk with Professor Sachs with the Board of Peace.

The tariff question is almost certainly going to get discussed and negotiated here in the context broadly of Greenland. But I think why this matters is that at the very same time, this juxtaposition is fundamentally what the White House is having trouble with. at the very same time that they're doing the private equity housing initiative, the credit card interest cap rates. These are good policies. I support them. And, and, you know, in a normal administration or this is the only thing that you would want to kind of be talked about. But obviously, the tariff threat, the potential threat of tariffs here, market reaction, Greenland itself, Venezuela, Iran. So much of this is all is pulling, you know, in their messaging, I didn't even mentioned ICE, that's a whole other, like domestic political story. And so things like that

are starting to get buried. And I think it just demonstrates the way that the president and this White House likes to react and basically just, you know, run the country and or the world. And as such, you end up in this situation where you have a speech which is supposed to be talking about affordability and the betrayal of the Davos class. But it's also going to be a lot about Greenland. I mean, that's one of the things here with the whole tariff question. We'll talk more with Greenland. Professor Sachs is a very strong view on this. Mine is generally, I'm curious for yours, is, look, I don't care. I hate the Europeans and I don't particularly care that much about Greenland. At the end of the day, you know, yes, strategy, we have a treaty where we can basically do whatever we want.

I want the Greenlanders to be fine. The idea that Denmark owns Greenland as a colony is, in my opinion, ridiculous, especially when we're talking about the kingdom of Denmark. We're like, okay. Put all that aside, though. why, I mean, this is, you know, I've talked about this with Israel. I've talked about this with Ukraine. And the same basic strategic logic applies here. Is Greenland being part of the U.S. like notionally kind of strategically important for the U.S. because of melting polarized caps and all that? Yeah, you can make a case. Is it important enough to jeopardize your trading relations with some of the world's largest economies in Europe? And yes, we can talk about their declining influence and all of that. Obviously, no. Like, this is not what you would center, you know, your entire geopolitical orientation of European relations on of the question of Greenland. And I said the same thing when I was talking about Ukraine and Russia. It's ridiculous. Like, sure, yeah, Greenland. Okay, let's try to buy it or whatever. Fine. And just basically, I guess, extend the treaty, which we currently have as part of our country. I don't even think most people would particularly care about that, although they would care if you do spend a bunch of money on Greenland and then.

and people are also having an affordability problem here at home. But in general, this applies the same logic of you have multi-billions in bilateral trade with France, Germany, the UK, Denmark. By the way, Denmark owns that patent on Novo Novartis, you know, Osampic. So if Americans, you know, care about that, that's certainly why you should care a little bit about Denmark here in particular. Norway, Sweden, we actually do a lot of high technology trade transfer and all of them with those countries. you know, our relations with those countries should be based on our mutual interests. And you may say even Greenland is an interest.

I accept, you know, that to a marginal degree. But I don't think it's in any way such a compelling thing to base, again, just like Ukraine, where we based all of our foreign policy and economic policy around this country, which didn't matter here at all, to now, you know, a barren land where, yes, a few military bases and some polar ice shipping lanes. Again, you can make a case for that. But I just don't think people at home are going to be. be buying this, especially when Trump is making it all about himself and whether he got the Nobel

Peace Prize or not. Again, it's, yeah, it's like insulting, right? They don't even bother with their war propaganda anymore with their conquest propaganda anymore. It's like, I'm, my ego was hurt that I didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize, therefore you should give me Greenland. Like, yeah, that's a message that's really going to resonate with the American people. I mean, on of everything, like the Venezuela action has some support. It's not really what people were looking for before from this administration.

Beforehand, people are very opposed. Now, in terms of the kidnapping of Maduro, it's sort of like relatively split. In terms of running Venezuela, this is still extremely unpopular. But some of the logic on Venezuela, the failed lack of logic on Venezuela also applies to Greenland. Like, does Venezuela have natural resources that will be useful to us? Yes. Could we have acquired those resources without this whole incentive? sanity. Yes, that was all on the table. It's the same with Greenland. Do they have some things that

are useful to us, including like a strategic positioning as the polar ice caps melt? Sure. Do we already have the ability to make deals with them and put our military there as much as we? Yes, we do. So what is this all about? And, you know, with Trump, a lot of it does just ultimately come down to show and ego, right? He wants the show of, and I think for his legacy, he likes the idea of, of having expanded U.S., you know, the expanse of the U.S. He likes that. He thinks that this is a good sort of like reality show type play. He thinks it will be fast and easy the way that he sees Venezuela as being, you know, as we're in the early days and we haven't seen all of the fallout and consequences

and what that could potentially lead to. He sees Greenland as an easy mark and as an easy target. And I don't think that it gets much more complicated than that. I agree with you. But in the meantime, you know, I mean, look, Europe is. is comparatively weak, right? They're certainly, you know, declined over the years. You're still talking about the EU having some 450 million people.

You're still talking about this being a very wealthy region compared to the rest of the world. You're still talking about a lot of trading relationships and, you know, important things like a Zemphic that we get from the region. So, you know, it's not nothing to completely brazenly say, listen, that territory that you think you have, like, we're just going to take it because we want it. The Europeans have really tried to, you know, accommodate Trump. They've tried to appease him. They've tried not to piss him off. And so you're also forcing a decision point from them where that becomes no longer tenable. You even had the AFD, which is Germany's far right party that, you know, Elon Musk went and spoke with them and one wing of them is like banned because they're neo-Nazi, whatever. They've done a lot to try to reach out to Trump and to the MAGA movement in the U.S. Their leader even had to come out. and condemn these actions with regard to Greenland. So if that's the type of like left to right political unity you're getting in Europe, again, they have to respond to their domestic constituencies. They have to respond to their own sovereign self-interest.

Yes. And the, yes, that's exactly right. And Emmanuel Macron, who, you know, is incredibly unpopular in France, he came out and had sort of the strongest statement saying that the EU should use their most aggressive, what's called like a trade. Bazuka, their most aggressive suite of policies that they've never used before to try to push back here. So you're kind of forcing a reckoning. Canada is, you know, the strongest example here where Mark Carney, who I think is extremely intelligent, understands financial systems because he was a central banker, he makes a trip to China and says, hey, we're going to do a deal with you. Actually, you know, we are going to let some of your EVs into our country. And actually, we want to do a venture with you so that we can use your technology and build electric vehicles here in Canada.

We want a new partnership. This was unimaginable just a few years back when there was incredibly tense and hostile relations between Canada and China. So, I mean, it truly is forcing a sort of global reckoning much against the, you know, the will of these states, which have tried to just sort of like, you know, let's just calm the waters and go along to get along and see if we can get through this thing. I was talking to Dave Smith and I'm like, look, I think the Greenland thing is ridiculous. But then they keep saying, oh, but this will be the end of NATO. And we're like, well, you know, it's like maybe it wouldn't be such a horrible thing, right? Because obviously it's facetious for anybody who wants that to take that out of context. But in general, you know, if we look at the more recent, you know, not only the U.S. relationship with NATO, but Libya, Ukraine.

I mean, it has been a massive drain and source. of attention in Eastern Europe. I've long looked at it as a massive liability with Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. As you also say, I mean, more, this is why it's so difficult. And, you know, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the hypocrisy of the Europeans who decry the Venezuelan government and Iranian government is illegitimate and support American actions to overthrow theirs. But when it's their country. And stood bias through an entire genocide in Gaza and all of that. Not just us. They supported Israel. I mean, look at their own societies. Germany, I mean, you talk about censorship of Palestinian, you know, advocacy in America. Look at the UK. Look at Germany, okay? These are not consistent people that we're dealing with. And then they're like, oh, because the kingdom of Denmark and Eric the Red took Greenland in the year 400 AD or whatever, it's ours forever.

I'm like, all right, all right. You know, there's only a certain level of hypocrisy that I can, you know, stomach whenever it comes to, their rule of Greenland. So let me just say that unequivocally. And then the idea that the Danes, who again basically turned it over to America in the 1950s, have any like security guarantee over Greenland is preposterous because they literally couldn't hold it whenever they were conquered by the Nazis in World War II. Put that all aside. So just just so people make clear, I'm not one of these like international law posters. In general, in general here, the question comes down to, is this about Trump or is this for America?

Right? And I think that's why that, you know, many of the defenders of this administration and others will talk about it just in the language that I just said, all of which I agree with. They will talk about this strategy. What we will, what we are remiss is centralizing this central point, you know, as the cleavage of all our relations with Europe. If we're going to break relations with Europe, in my opinion, it should be over Ukraine. It should be over something that's important to us. It should say, hey, you guys have gone all in on this absolute nonsense. You're trying to drag us into all of these wars. We are breaking from you because we think it's better for our strategy to make sure that we have an economic block of these core countries, France, Germany, the UK, the traditional allies. And we are not going to continue to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into Ukrainian morass, jeopardize our relationships with Russia, China, and create this entire multipolarity system, which draws up away from East Asia. All of that sounds good, right?

But that's not what's happening. You know, it's like Iran. I talked about this with Professor Sachs. Crystal, you know, we are, can you imagine the strategic logic of bringing a carrier strike group from the South China Sea where 40, 50 percent of the world's GDP is moving through to support, you know, a color revolution in Iran and potentially overthrow the regime. That is the most counter strategic logic in the world. And then same here with Venezuela, where we brought a vast armada, which again drew away from any potential Iranian, you know, influence, so that we can currently operate this blockade so that every month we can make, you know, a couple hundred million in oil.

And look, I know that that sounds like a lot for everybody, you know, who is made listening in relative, but like put it in relative terms. The United States is a net exporter of hundreds of billions of dollars of petrochemicals across the world. And that first Venezuela sale again, and this speaks to the core of everything Trump does, the first Venezuela oil sales goes to a major Trump donor. Because, of course. I mean. And there's in some bank account in Qatar. It's some private bank account, not with the U.S. Treasury. I mean, yeah, and that's the thing. I mean, with the Board of Peace, right, a billion dollars in cash to this thing that Trump controls that he's the chair of that, yeah, I guess these other countries can sit on. But if I don't like their decision, I get the final say. I mean, it just, it's just, it. It truly, I do think the best way to think about the way Trump operates is through the lens of reality TV and through the lens of the mafia. I genuinely do. You know, and he conflates American interest with his own personal interest, which is abundantly clear when you look at this insane, you know, Greenland, I didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize thing. He sees this as like, yeah, of course, our country should invade Greenland and take control of Greenland because of my own personal slight. I mean, this is just a completely bonkers way of viewing politics, of viewing international affairs, of viewing, you know, the American interest, all of that.

Can I tell a funny story about the Nobel thing? Sure. Yeah. Yeah. So back in 2010, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an activist from China. And the Chinese government heavily punished the Norway, the state, because they operated under the. the same belief that the Norwegian government awards the Nobel Peace Prize. And the Norwegian government had to consistently be like, guys, we have no control over the Nobel Peace Prize.

And it was the United States that consistently criticized China for acting in a childish and gangsterish manner of trying to punish the country of Norway for the incorrect belief that the government of Norway controls the Nobel's Peace Prize. So for those of us who I covered that, actually, a lot at the time when I was in college. And so to see it flip around and how it be our president operate under the same Chinese belief that everything is being pulled here all by the strings is just so, is so ridiculous.

Also, why is Denmark being punished for the crimes of Norway? Well, they were once the same country. To be fair, they were once the same. But they're not anymore. A long time ago, they were in the wrong. I mean, it's just, it's hard to take any of it seriously, except that it is so serious. And, you know, the best I can hope is that it does for some sort of reckoning and realignment. But I think that realignment will be very damaging to the United States because as much as Trump loves to talk about, and this is true, that Europe really relies on our military spending for their, you know, for their sovereignty effectively.

We also rely on the entire rest of the world using the dollar as a reserve currency. I mean, that effectively was the deal after World War II. It's like, okay, yeah, we're going to do this. You know, you get to use our nuclear umbrella. We're going to put all these bases here. We're going to protect you. You don't have to spend as much on military spending so you can do your social safety net spending. But we are getting rid of the gold standard.

You guys are going to use the dollars of the world's reserve currency. And that is the way that we're able to have run these tremendous deficits and have this extraordinary amount of debt. And if that goes away, and I'm not saying we're like on the brink of that, but he is helping to accelerate that process. where if we're going to break our end of that deal, then they're going to say, okay, well, we're not keeping up our end, our side of that deal either. And that will have tremendous consequences for the U.S. and for what we're able to spend and what we're able to do. You know, the way I sort of look at this in the macro in terms of figuring out what the fuck Trump is up to is, I think if you look at his budgetary priorities, it becomes pretty clear, right? He's asking for a one and a half

trillion dollar defense budget. He's no longer interested in like mutual self-interest, you know, let's do deals that make sense for us. He's no longer interested, certainly in like alliances or like the trappings of the UN or any of that. He is going to, his view is we will use hard power. We will use guns. We will use our nukes. We will force the world to comply. And even for, you know, us with all of our military spending and all of the bases that we have around the world, like he talks about the fact that Denmark can't defend Greenland. Like, we can't defend all of our military. Where we have 800 bases around the world. You think we can defend that? We couldn't beat the freaking Houthis. Like for all of this projection of, oh, we're so strong, et cetera. Like, we didn't do anything to Iran really other than symbolic strikes. We did not, you know, defeat Hamas. We did not defeat Russia. We did not. We did not defeat Russia. We didn't. not defeat the Houthis. Of course, we all know the list of failed adventures in the Middle East and how that is gone for us. So it's this sort of Potemkin village of strength that we have, really. And so even if you have this one and a half trillion dollar defense budget, if you are solely relying on your might and your

guns and at the time when you've, you know, you've talked a lot about how we have this weakened industrial base, like that one and a half trillion dollars isn't even going to get us what it should get us. But if you're just relying on that, you are going to end up in a very, very poor and very dangerous position. And then you pair that with on the domestic side, you know, the ICE budget, the way that that is now larger, the budget for that one federal law enforcement agency is now larger than the military budgets of all but like 13 countries in the entire world. You can see their approach. It's all just guns, police state, you know, hard. power approach. And, you know, it actually, it actually belies the fact that both domestically

and in global affairs, America and the Trump regime is quite weak. And they feel like they have to sort of crack down in this aggressive manner in order to hold on. We are, you know, the strategy works until it doesn't work. So I have a dozen books behind me. The phony war from, you know, during the World War II, for example, Hitler was unstoppable. You know, he conquers Denmark. and Norway, all of these countries, then the phony war erupts, and then he comes and, you know, the smashing success that happens in France and the takeover. And then what happens? They decide to invade Russia, right? Or if I could take it back to the First World War, you have the stunning initial success in the movement of the German troops. And then, oh, we're stuck. We're stuck here

in the trench battles. And it's not, you know, look, that's just the wars itself. Prior to that, you know, Germany, let's say, or the United States, for example, in our takeover, you know, if we're talking about imperialism, I really recommend everybody to go and to read, or sorry, to listen to Dan Carlin. He has an episode. It's behind a paywall now, but you should go and listen to it. It was about America's experiment, you know, with taking over Cuba and the Philippines. It was a disaster. It was an absolute disaster that the entire country backed away from. that and actually I just want to you know like reiterate this point the point that we ultimately made and this is when we had real debates actually in the country was we can have an empire we can have a republic and I think America has always been an empire and part of that has led to the development of the very things that I think that Donald Trump's election was a backlash against the deep state right because you can't run an empire without a vast array of bureaucrats who can change every four years it's just inefficient so you have to have the CIA the state department the

Defense Department, this $1.5 trillion, these entrenched interests. And Trump, you know, whatever you may say about him, he was elected, I think fundamentally about a lot of Americans to try to blow some of that stuff up. In terms of 2016 and 2024, I think it's unequivocal. It was a change election. Like, that's what you wanted to change. On the economic system, can you deny the Federal Reserve of which Trump is currently in a fight in? And part of the reason I backed Trump kind of in this fight, does the Federal Reserve work for the global banking system or for the average American household, right? Does the U.S. Treasury and his body... bonds and the way that it operates work for the stability of global finance or for the

American's pocketbook. Like the development of this empire system, which has tremendous benefits to the American elite, as well as the global elite, many who are in Europe now, crying over Greenland, has been the very thing that a so-called populist or nationalist uprising was retaining sovereignty is to retain sovereignty from the imperium itself. And so, yeah, I know this is a little bit high level, but like, that's part of why I'm looking at all of this. And it's not it doesn't just feel like betrayal, let's say, like of the spirit of the election. It fundamentally misunderstands, I think, Trump, why he came to power in the first place.

I think Americans actually were sick of it all. You know, part of it, even on Ukraine, Ukraine fatigue. Where did it come from? They're like, wow, we can't manage this. The Houthis. I can go into the, you know, specifics about that interceptors and all of them. that, but you can't look at American power over the last five years and not say in any sort of prolonged conflict, we're screwed. And eventually, this type of behavior will run up. Again, you know,

somebody will buck eventually. I can't predict when. Now, it may even come in 10 years, you know, the story of the First World War is written from 1880, you know, the Franco-Prussian War. Nobody at that time would have predicted it would have ended up, you know, where it was. But looking in retrospect, it's undeniable. So yes, you know, they're, they're constantly claiming and looking at victory in three-week increments when anybody can responsible is trying to look at patterns and paths that were on. I think it is inevitable, not a war per se, but a falling apart, you know, of the current system, which in some ways I welcome because as I just laid out, I don't think it's good. There needs to be a transition. There's no doubt about that. But I mean, it's like with so many.

Transition to what? Right. And that's the thing with Trump with so many things like the Federal Reserve is perfect example. Like, yeah, I have my issues with the Federal Reserve as well. I don't think it should be independent from like the democratic will of the people. But then the offer from Trump is instead of it being, you know, beholden to Wall Street, it's going to be beholden to me. Yeah. And I'm going to use it for my enrichment and my cronies and to, you know, my oligarchic friends. And so, I mean, it's sort of a battle between like Wall Street controlling it and the Silicon Valley oligarchs controlling it.

And I'm not excited about either prospect. So, I mean, and that's that's the way Trump is with many things. It's like this you can, okay, the world is changing. US is not going to be able to hold on to its position as this global hegemon. What do you do about that? And the answer from Trump is to act like a thug to up the defense budget to $1.5 trillion and to throw your weight around in this like reality show-esque thuggery style and hope that you can hold on and grab enough resources. at least, you know, until he's out of office and the hope that the damage and the blowback

from all of that comes, you know, after he's long gone. Yeah. All right. Well, why don't we kick it over to Professor Jeffrey Sacks? Big time analysis here from him. We talk about everything. So let's check that out. All right, guys, we are very fortunate to be joined today by Professor Sacks of Columbia University, who is an economist and world-renowned thinker and bestselling author. Scarcely needs an introduction. Many things to speak with you about today, sir. Thank you for joining us. Great to be with you. Thank you. Yeah, of course. So let me start with this pretty wild letter that the president of the United States apparently sent to the prime minister of Norway. So

here we go. It says, Dear Jonas, considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land being Greenland from Russia or China. And why do they have a right of ownership anyway? There are no written documents. It's only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago. But we had boats landing there also. I've done more for NATO than any other person since its founding. And now NATO should do something for the United States. The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of

Greenland. Thank you, President, D.J.T. What do you make of this extraordinary communication? to this matter. Yes, exactly, which was not only sent to, you know, Prime Minister of Norway, but was also sent to apparently a number of European ambassadors. Well, I think it's terrifying because either he's insane or he's not insane. We don't know which, but either way, it's terrifying. If this is serious and this is how a president speaks, we have lost our country, our democracy, our system, and our safety. If he is an old man with the megalomaniacal tendencies already and he's over the edge, which I think is perfectly possible, though I'm not a psychologist, this is also something that we're seeing, somebody who is decompensating in front of

our eyes. We had a president last time who collapsed on. the job. Maybe it's happening again. Again, I have to say this is so strange, wild, nuts that it's not something that grown-ups in normal behavior would do under any circumstances, much less someone who holds this office. If this is taken as clever or cute or normal, I think people should reexamine their thoughts about this. So I find it, frankly, astounding. So zooming out, Professor, there is a big, you know, now push by the United States kind of centering its relationship here with the European powers. Crystal, if we could put the Trump Truth Social up about sanctions or sorry tariffs that are being put into place here. President Trump saying we have subsidized all countries of the European Union, etc.

I will, you know, stick to the important part is that there will be tariffs increased to some 10% on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, Netherlands, and Finland. And the tariff will be increased to 25% beginning on June 1st. It's time for Denmark to give back Greenland. So when we're talking here a little bit about the relationship with the European powers by the United States. And in the broader context, Greenland, I think, is important. I don't think any of this would be happening with. without the sugar high that the administration is currently on after Venezuela and in particular, you know, after midnight hammer. Those seem to have really convinced the president and his team. The United States can truly be, you know, the world's superpower and can act like this way in any sphere of the world in its demands. What do you think the effects of this type of strategy and a belief system in the White House could wreak in terms of the international.

situation. Again, if this gang continues to pursue this course, this is not the will of the American people. This is not the will of Congress. This reflects no constitutional process whatsoever. This is gangsterism, and gangsterism generally ends in shootouts. So, I think that this is a perilous and reckless course. And Europe, sadly, became essentially a vassal of the United States over the past 30 years in any event. So it barely can utter a word in its own defense. They're scared of their shadow. They have been rather pathetic.

I've spoken to many European leaders over many years warning them about the direction of the United States. It's not only Trump. Trump is doing it in a crazy way, but this also reflects a kind of thuggery that the United States has been on for a long time. And now it seems completely unhinged. And of course, we're going to see whether any European power or country can actually express an honest view. But they're getting close, at least. The German government has said that Greenland is a very bright red line. the French government in many different levels of foreign minister and president have expressed the fact that this will not be tolerated.

Britain, which is, of course, I think, the most delusional and subservient country, and that's been true for many, many decades, was able to utter a sentence, at least, that this is not acceptable. By British standards, that's quite remarkable. We should understand, by the way, that more important things are happening in the world than this in many ways. A couple of days ago, the Prime Minister of Canada was in Beijing, and Canada and China signed a strategic partnership. Very interesting. Because for Canada to do that, reflects the fact that they understand that the United States has gone loony, has really completely left any kind of normalcy. I'm very happy that they have normal relations with China, but to declare it a strategic partnership, which I perfectly understand, and I commend the

Premier of Canada for doing it, shows what Trump is at. actually doing. The idea that they're on a sugar high because they're succeeding one thing after another, I think is fundamentally wrong. It's, of course, what's pumped up hour to hour on true social. But I think nothing has been accomplished except to put the world on notice that the United States is out of control from any legal restrictions and any normal restrictions. Of course, I think this puts much of the world on high alert. We are in a nuclear world. The United States is not alone in power. It is not invulnerable. It actually rarely gets its way. The United States does not run Venezuela, by the way. They kidnapped a president. They killed some people. They don't run

anything. They've commandeered a few ships. But nothing is settled on that score. there is no way that the United States is going to own Greenland. It's not going to happen, although the United States may claim it. So it could absolutely one-day claim that Greenland is the United States. And I think that that's actually likely by Trump. But that will not make Greenland part of the United States. It will make the United States an invader of Europe. that will dramatically change the scene. So I don't really feel that this is in any way a demonstration of the United States being a superpower. I view it as a delusional, unchecked period.

And I can't really say myself whether it is a mental instability of a president or gangsterism that is premeditated and but thuggishness just on its own. It is not strategic. It does not increase America's wealth or safety or security or the economy or anything else. There's nothing that's happening right now that sticks in a meaningful way for the benefit of MAGA or the benefit of the American people or the security of the American people or anything else. It's a lot of, it's a lot of performance. It's a lot of, it's a lot of, it's a lot of, uh, rather insane boasting and threatening and bombing, but nothing that's happened in my view, has any consequential benefit of any sort for the American people.

Even probably his friends that he's enriching on each of these things, on each of these actions, probably that doesn't last either. This is just to my mind a massive and very dangerous instability. The fact that nobody in Washington in power, in any office, I mean, elected office can find the words to express how bizarre and dangerous and completely unacceptable this is, is a sign of how profoundly degraded our constitutional system is. So I think that it is a warning to all of us. He's invading Minnesota the same way he's invading Venezuela and he's in the same way that he's threatening to invade Greenland. It's completely,

unhinged and it's very dangerous. Let me go ahead and put up this Financial Times tear sheet about the European response here. So it says the EU is readying some 93 billion euro tariffs and retaliation. You've got Davos happening this week, the World Economic Forum, lots of conversations happening between European leaders. They're supposed to be speaking with Trump as well. I mean, what would you, what can they do? What would you advise them to do?

do you think that they have woken up and realized that they need to take a more assertive posture and assert some sort of sovereignty here because clearly the strategy of appeasement has failed? Yes. That's what I've been saying to them for many years and especially during the past year. But they're very sad, semi-pathetic, scared of their shadow. and I don't know whether they still remember how to be national leaders of sovereign countries or to act together. They're showing a little bit of sign of this. The tariff retaliation and all the rest is one thing.

What they should be doing is saying unequivocally, we're not negotiating, we're not discussing. I won't use the words that I would use and that I think that they ought to use in their private discussions but basically they ought to say this is nuts it's not going down we're not even talking about it so stop that's the most basic point they ought to get together with Russia and China and India and other parts of the world and the bricks

to say we cannot go day to day with this kind of madness and treat it as normal. Because basically, every country in the world is threatened by a completely lawless United States. And they are, they've expressed, they've explained, Mr. Miller has explained that there are no laws. Donald Trump has explained that there are no laws. We're in the hands of a small number of people in a system that seems to have lost its voice and is unable to comprehend what's happening. I should add that, you know, as we're watching this, they were trying last week to overthrow the government of Iran. This was clearly a CIA operation from beginning to end with Mossad.

that's also a very lawless, reckless, dangerous action, and we are still close to a generalized war in the Middle East, which could well turn nuclear. That's not gone away either. So either we, as a country, somehow regain some constitutional order, or I think we are all imperiled. Professor, I do want to ask you, because you were talking there about the Europeans and about our system, I think one of the problems that I see is, for example, the Europeans say that the sovereignty of Greenland is just total and complete. And at the very same time, the German chancellor called the Iranian government illegitimate and it's time to fall as of, you know, I think a week ago. For example, all of them did not recognize Maduro as the president of Venezuela. And they effectively support. the kidnapping by the United States and the current operations. If anything, their only qualm is that we didn't put boots on the ground and then force some sort of, quote, democratic transition. You know, at the very same time, President Zelensky of Ukraine, whose country is literally being invaded, is supportive of regime change in Iran. And even here in the U.S., while many congressmen and others may be upset, let's say, over Greenland, they fundamentally agree with this idea

and hence why they didn't have any war powers resolutions or anything else on Venezuela, on Iran. I mean, if anything, they were more hawkish than even the Trump administration was on Iran. And so it seems as if that fundamental hypocrisy in their stance and lack, not even just of principles, but they don't believe in law whenever it benefits, let's say, an agenda that goes to them, seems to have opened the space through which something like this can happen. Because if they were to, let's say, enforce something on Greenland, it would fundamentally call into questions their relations with multiple other states across the world and their very own foreign policy. Your points are absolutely right and extremely important. I would put it this way, and I think it's also really important to understand.

The United States foreign policy has been lawless for many decades. Our presidents and our rhetoric have generally hidden that to a minor extent at least. But the kinds of thuggishness that Trump is displaying is part of American foreign policy for a long time. We invaded Iraq not on wrong premises, but on completely false premises. We overthrew the government of Syria in a CIA operation that went on for 14 years. We bombed Libya to oblivion and created what has now been 15 years of civil war in that country. We overthrew, helped to overthrow a government in Ukraine in February 2014 that put us on the path of war. You won't find almost any of this in the New York Times or the Washington Post. God forbid, that's the CIA outlet or the Wall Street Journal. which just chortles on who's going to make money on what particular venture. The lawlessness

has been there for a long time. It's coming unhinged, though, with Trump in the last few weeks, because now everything is open game. And that's why I say that there may be something psychological or something constitutional or something gangsterism in this, but the pace of the lawlessness and the brazenness of it and the boasting of the absence of the, of any restraints is something new compared even to the lawlessness before. Now, the Europeans used to object once in a while to this. There used to be European leaders who objected to the Iraq War, for example. They said it was not correct. It was dangerous. I knew those leaders. We don't have them in Europe for the last 15 years. It's an interesting question.

question why. I think they are afraid of the United States and afraid of Russia and very weak internally. And basically, this political class has been raised by the CIA and the American Deep State and all of the organizations, the Atlantic Council and the German Marshall Fund and all of these favorites and Davos and everybody else. You better play the American game if you want to have political success. So they have lost their voice entirely. And it's shocking for me because I rather like Europe and always hope that Europe would be a stabilizing influence on an extraordinarily violent U.S. foreign policy. They dropped that. By the way, the Ukraine war was a complete provocation by the United States. And that's why the New York Times, which is our phony newspaper,

reported that it was unprovoked a thousand times precisely because it was provoked by the United States by overthrowing a government in order for NATO to enlarge. Okay. Now, having said all of that, the Europeans would not tell the truth in public about this at all. I speak to the leaders. Some of them even know it in private. Some do not know it. But the ones that know it in private won't say it in public.

So we've had a situation where you're completely right. Europe went along with every abuse. And let's remember, we have just been complicit in a genocidal operation in Gaza. So this isn't theoretical about what's going to happen to Greenland. We had a genocide in Gaza before our eyes in the last year, which the United States funded, armed, supported with military. military intelligence and gave full diplomatic backing to. That's, by the way, both Biden and Trump. So we're in, and the Europeans couldn't utter a word. Interestingly, I was at the UN Security Council after the Israelis bombed Iran. So around the table, all the Europeans said,

They made warnings to Iran. You better show restraint. Not one of them challenged Israel for having just bombed Iran. I actually, ironically, had a little colloquy with the ambassador to Denmark because I went up to her after her rather shocking words and said that how much I like Denmark and in a publication that I co-edded every year. year the World Happiness report. Denmark's always at the top, the happiest country in the world, and she was very happy. She smiled at me, and then I said, but wouldn't it be nice if you mentioned not Iran's restraint, but that Israel just bombed Iran? She turned around and walked out without a word. That's the level of the reality. Same thing happened with the kidnapping of Maduro.

all they could get out of their mouth was, well, he's a terrible person or he's an illegitimate president. No one could say a word about the United States brazenly violating the UN Charter and its implications. So you're completely right. I don't want to attack the Europeans when they're being attacked. But I do want to say that consistency that actually we should follow some principles is what keeps us all alive. We hope. And if Europe doesn't utter a word when the United States makes every abuse, every regime change, every covert operation, every bombing, every complicity in Israel's crimes, then they turn around and are surprised about Denmark. It's a little sad. By the way, I don't know if we have time,

I would like to just find you a statement if I can find it, that I read, that I said to, let me see if I can find it quickly. I'm sorry to take the time, but no problem. No, please do. I spoke to the European Parliament a year ago. And I told them, this is going to happen. and they thought, what's a matter with you, Mr. Sacks? So I want to read you what I said.

This is verbatim because it shows you could see. I said to the parliamentarians. So I'm not saying that we're all at the new age of peace, but we are in a very different kind of politics right now, a return to great power politics. Europe needs its own foreign policy and not just a foreign policy of Russophobia. Europe needs a foreign policy that is realistic, understands Russia's situation, understands Europe's situation, understands what America is and what it stands for, and that tries to avoid Europe

being invaded by the United States. It's certainly not impossible that Trump's America will land troops in Greenland. I'm not joking, and I don't think Trump is joking. Europe needs a foreign policy, a real one. Europe needs something different from, yes, We'll bargain with Mr. Trump and meet him halfway. Do you know what that will be like? Give me a call afterwards. That's what I told them. Okay, when I told them this, they were not impressed. Oh, Mr. Sachs, you're exaggerating. And America's not so bad and blah, blah, blah. They don't understand, but most of the world doesn't understand. And most of my neighbors on the upper west side of New York do not understand because they don't understand. Because they don't understand. read the New York Times, I'm sorry to say. I'm going to pick on it one more time because the violence, the regime change, the brutality of American foreign policy is not exposed and not discussed in polite company except now Trump, to his bizarre credit. I can't use that word in a full sentence with him, but he's at least saying out loud the brazen truth, that there is no law

and no constraint for the U.S. incidentally, I think it was, yes, I think it's the Washington Post today that ran a story that said, how terrible Putin is, everyone sees he's a liar because he doesn't come to the defense of this country and that country and this country. Instead of saying how terrible it is our president of the United States is bombing and attacking and so forth, the Washington Post, which is the mouthpiece of the intelligence agencies, twists it so that it's Putin that's the villain because he doesn't respond to Trump's thuggery. So Putin's a liar because he doesn't stand up to Trump's thuggery rather than an article that Trump is a thug. and maybe it's a dangerous thing for the world that the United States is led by a gangster group. So that's where we are. I want to talk to you a little bit about this.

Am I being intemperate? No, you're fine. It's making logical sense to me. Everybody wants to hear you speak. No, no, I'm sorry. It's just it gets worse and worse, more brazen, more shocking. and it's Trump's style is to normalize this. And that is absolutely grotesque.

Sorry. I wanted to talk to you, too, you know, in the context of all of this, about this Board of Peace proposal from Trump. Have you dug into the details here? Here's some of the latest reporting from Bloomberg. Trump wants nations to pay $1 billion to stand. day on peace board. I'll just read you a little bit of this. The Trump administration's asking countries that won a permanent spot on his new board of peace to contribute at least one billion dollars, according to a draft charter for the proposed group seen by Bloomberg. Trump himself would serve as its inaugural chairman would

decide on who is invited to be members. Decisions would be taken by a majority with each member of state present getting one vote, but all would be subject to the chairman's approval. Each member state shall serve a term of no more than three years. The three-year membership term, not apply to member states that contribute more than USD $1 billion in cash funds to the Board of Peace. We also have news that, you know, of a variety of countries that have been invited. Apparently Putin himself has been invited onto the Board of Peace. This was all originally conceived, you know, in the context of this quote unquote peace plan in Gaza. But now apparently the Board of Peace is being positioned as sort of a Trump run alternative to the UN.

How do you view this? What is he up to here? If George Orwell had written it, you would think it mildly funny, clever. You might view this in a Marvel comic strip as somebody aiming to run the world. I view this as sad and pathetic. I said a year ago to many leaders when Trump's so-called peace plan for Gaza was put forward, that this was a travesty and a trap. And after a genocide, this is not how things should proceed. Things should proceed with a state of Palestine and Palestinians in charge of reconstruction.

God forbid Israel should have some responsibility to rebuild after they've killed probably hundreds of thousands and destroyed this area. But actually Trump prevailed on one leader after another because he threatened them, he bribed them. He told them you can't have data centers unless you do this. You can't have this missile system unless you do this. He twisted everything out of shape and got that plan approved. Now he's doing it again. This is shambolic. He's got his hedge fund friends.

He's got you can't even joke about putting Tony Blair on this since the British are. the most responsible for having screwed up the Middle East for the last century of anybody. So why don't we put Tony Blair back in charge of Gaza? He can maybe rewrite the Balfour Declaration. The whole thing is so absurd. You don't even know where to start. But again, I have to admit, hardly anyone says boo about anything right now. each one is scared of putting a word out right now.

I don't think any of this lasts, but on the other hand, this kind of gangsterism plays for a little while. It makes us all at risk. One of the things that I see in this Board of Peace, Professor, I'm curious what you do as well, is it's almost like a recreation of the UN security. Council, you're especially with Russia, and a quasi-privatized version with Trump as some sort of

emeritus chair. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. Look, around the world, there are actually grownups. And when you talk to them, they know that this is loony. This is insane stuff. Nobody is joining Trump's board to replace the UN Security Council. Many people think the UN Security Council is dead, killed by the United States.

But nobody, okay, I can think of, yes, a few hedge fund guys, maybe a son-in-law and a few others who will join the board thinking that it's something real. Nobody believes that this is an alternative to the UN except some crazy media story in some mainstream medium. pumped up by talking to someone in the White House. And the fact of the matter is the United States is not all powerful. It can't run Venezuela. It can't overthrow the world. It can't own Greenland. It tried very hard.

It could not in a proxy war with Russia, defeat Russia in Ukraine. That was a war between the United States. States and Russia, people should understand that. Fought with the Ukrainians that killed in vast numbers, that was the U.S. strategy. But it didn't work. The U.S. has not had any success anywhere in the Middle East in actually achieving stability or long-term goals. It has created chaos in Libya, in Somalia, in U.S. Sudan, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen. And it's tried to overthrow the government of Iran

last week. And my view is it's not over yet. Maybe they'll be bombing in the next few days. This is an ongoing story. That's not peace. That's not security. That is not in Richmond except maybe, and I admit, there are some Silicon Valley gazillionaires that do make a lot of money off of these wars, and maybe this is how Peter Thiel likes it, but for the American people, this is not leading to anything real over the longer term. And it's not a great show. There have been, a spate of articles in the last few days that America is back as the world's sole superpower. This is absurd. Yes, you can kidnap a president and you can bully and you can even commit a genocide.

You can announce the peace board. That doesn't give you ownership of the world. The fact of the matter is, I have just been traveling throughout Asia. Real investment, real business, real technological advance is taking place not in the way the United States would like it to happen or we pretend, but actually is happening outside of the United States and not in the U.S. control or the U.S. orbit. So I find the gap between the brazenness, the rhetoric, and so forth, and the underlying

instability and unreality wider and wider. And I think it is absolutely important for us to understand and to keep remembering. Trump is sending Trump. troops into American cities. And of course, that's terrifying, but is that a show of strength? Or is that a show of utter contempt for American society, for the safety of the American people, for the Constitution, for law? It's the latter. Does it prove that he's a great man, a strong man, No, it doesn't prove that. It proves that there is a degree of recklessness that we've not seen in our country in, at least since the Civil War, I would say. And it's very serious.

Something I'm struck by in your comments there is, and I've noted this, is we are amazed at our power, as you said, to kidnap Maduro with the Delta Force raid, to take out. some Iranian nuclear facilities with, you know, a high precision strike. But we seem to be, at the same time, we seem completely and totally enabled to recognize the constraints that surround us. So, for example, one of the things that apparently held up a potential strike on Iran is a carrier strike group had to make its way from the South China Sea, is the idea that we, you know, because a significant number of naval assets are also in the Caribbean. And it also, it also, it seems to me like the grasping of a lot of the straws here seem to be indicative actually of declining power and ability of considering what has happened now over the last five years.

Absolutely. And if you look at the situation in Iran, the bombing last summer did nothing but performative. It did not set back Iran's nuclear program two years. It didn't set it back at all necessarily. 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium are just out of sight. The amount of centrifuging needed to turn those into nuclear weapons if they want that is actually quite tiny at this point. Nothing was solved in terms of security except breaking any kind of oversight and a chance to have the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, have a continued line of sight into what was happening. At the same time, Iran demonstrated hypersonic missiles that pierced Israel's Iron Dome. They did not target the absolute most sensitive targets in Israel.

They targeted some military sites, but actually they showed that they can pierce the iron dome. It's not so iron. And Trump's golden dome isn't going to be so golden after trillions of dollars spent on it either. So the idea that we have proved this overwhelming strength is absolutely false. And as you say, they did not have the means even if they had wanted to act last week. And they may want to act next week, by the way, when this carrier strike group comes closer. So I do not put it past events at all to see that we're in a war next week. But it's not going to be so simple.

And the United States is not the only nuclear superpower, nor is, is, Israel. And if there is a war, it's right into the cauldron of nuclear weapons all over the place. It would be the most dangerous kind of war one can imagine in all of modern times. This is not the same even as the recklessness of the Iraq war. So the idea that this is somehow American strength is an illusion or a delusion. It is an unhinged government. And again, is it unhinged by literal mental instability? Or is it unhinged because of gangsterism or some combination or maybe the difference is

too narrow to matter? But when a president writes to the prime minister of Norway as, you opened to say, you didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize. Now I don't have to think about peace. This is not under any definition the kind of situation that any American should want for our own safety and security, much less that the world should want. By any standard on any interpretation, this is deeply, profoundly disturbing and unnerving. Professor, my final question for you is, you know, I'm American. I can't help.

But in spite of some of my best attempts, feeling a bit of American nationalism, and this all seems incredibly terrible for our country, for the people of our country. But I do wonder if the brazenness of it is sort of a wake-up call for the rest of the world. You pointed out the new alliance between Canada and China. You see Europeans showing some theoretical signs of potentially thinking about a bit of a backbone. Obviously, there have been efforts with bricks, et cetera. So is it possible that out of this brazen, undeniable gangsterism that you emerge actually with a better order if we're looking at the entire globe? Yes. In fact, there are diplomatic conversations happening all over the world within regions and across regions saying we need to get our act together. This is very dangerous. And the bricks is one part of that. That's half the world population with the 10 countries right now.

about almost half the world's GDP, and they are absolutely aware of what the implications of all of this are. But I think everywhere in the world, Trump is uniting the rest of the world in the opposite of what he intends. You know, India was courted, Supposedly, I always thought it was absurd, and I told the Indians that Indian leaders many times, courted to be on our side against China, join what's called the Quad, which is an informal group of the United States, India, Japan, and Australia, that supposedly are the major powers to surround China and to keep China contained.

And I said to the Indians, Indian leadership, many times this is a bad idea, don't be used by the United States. They, many times, many said to me, you know, we have a good inside track, we have good relations, and so forth. During the past year, all of that has broken. Predictably, in my view, I have to say, I told them so very, very explicitly. And what did we see in Shanghai at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? We saw Prime Minister Modi, President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia, in close embrace. Of course they're in a close embrace. They have the United States that is completely erratic, doesn't have a consistency hour

to hour, much less day to day, week to week, or month to month. every day is a new threat, every day is a new slur, every day is a new tariff, every day is a new executive decree. Of course, these are serious countries that are actually not interested in playing some game of Donald Trump's mind, but actually interested in stability, their nuclear powers. They don't want a nuclear war. They don't want to be a nuclear war. They don't want to be brazenly threatened or pushed around by the United States. So the answer is, yes, Trump is raising in everybody's mind. How do we make a multipolar world precisely because we don't even have a stable power

in the case of the United States, one that anyone can rely on for any moment, because it's whimsical. It is without any kind of treaty constraint, external constraint, or respect for anybody else. So the answer is emphatically, yes. It's very hard to reshape the thinking. Europe has been so wrong vis-à-vis Russia, so misunderstanding of what really happened to create the Ukraine War, which is a U.S. created war, basically outlined by Zbig Brzynski back in the 1990s that we're going to take NATO and bring Ukraine into NATO and we're going to make Russia third-rate power.

Well, Europe played along so much that now that they're threatened imminently with basically an invasion by the United States in Greenland, they don't know how to react because they've been so much under the U.S., so much influenced, I should say, by the U.S. approach and by the fear of Russia. But even they, as we talked about, are rethinking everything right now. Maybe they'll even realize, and actually I have to say, Chancellor Mertz, said it a few days ago, that maybe he needs to call President Putin. That shows that even the Europeans are recalibrating right now under this threat. And I can tell you that's happening all over the world because I'm hearing those conversations.

I'm being asked about these issues. This is happening all over the world. Well, Professor Sachs, we really, really appreciate you making some time for us. I know it's late at night where you are. So thank you so much for your insights at this pivotal moment. Great to be with you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. So one thing Professor Sacks did is he tied together the foreign policy with this domestic crackdown happening in particular in the streets of Minneapolis. And I think that's appropriate to connect those two things together. And we have some very ominous developments there. Let me go ahead and put this up on the screen. Trump has prepared 1,500 soldiers to possibly.

deploy to Minnesota. Let me go ahead and read you a little bit of this. The Pentagon has ordered about 1,500 active duty soldiers to prepare for a possible deployment to Minnesota. Defense officials told the Washington Post after President Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to unrest there. The soldiers are assigned to two infantry battalions with the Army's 11th Airborne Division, which is based in Alaska and specializes in cold weather operations. The Army placed the units on prepare to deploy orders in case violence in Minnesota escalates, officials said, characterizing the move as prudent planning, not clear whether any of them will be sent to the state officials said, speaking like some others on the condition of

anonymity. And this comes after Governor Walls has also mobilized the Minnesota National Guard. This is from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. They are staging, it says, to support local law enforcement and emergency management agencies. So Sagar, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is a very, very dangerous and frightening situation. You have the National Guard, which is under the command of Governor Walls, a Democrat, obviously, and someone that, you know, Trump absolutely despises. And you have the possibility of this military unit, these soldiers being sent in under the command of the president of the United States. You already have thousands of federal agents who look like they are in Fallujah, like in battle, in full camo and the face masks and the,

you know, full armored up, all of that already on the ground. And you have the residents of Minneapolis, you know, thousands of them either out protesting or participating in some of the, you know, the actions to record ice, to, to, uh, record ice, to, you know, follow them around. And so it's, I mean, it's as close as I think we've come in our lifetime to some sort of like direct actual soft civil war or actual civil war. We're talking about two armed units under control of separate political parties facing off in the streets. Yeah, I'm, I'm not going to go there yet because it is still possibility. But I will say, I think that this is, I think it's dangerous and really defeats the purposes, you know, for. everything of the stated goal. And I don't know, though, because at the same time, it seems to me like that's what the Trump administration wants. I have been thinking, you know, quite a lot about this. I don't understand the strategy. And, you know, look, I think people who have watched the show know my feelings about immigration. I think they know my feelings about sanctuary cities. I think it's

crazy, you know. Part of the argument from the administration is about lack of cooperation from local jails, authorities, et cetera, for part of the reason of the justification. But the point, I think that belies this broader point where the confrontation that they appear to seek here is with these blue state governors for a sense of control. And a lot of it, you know, kind of ties back to this fundamental theory, which goes back to, let's say, BLM or after Los Angeles, where that this was something that the public sees as restoring order. And looking now at the track record here over the last, yeah, it's January 19th. Wow. So it's actually been a year. It's been a year now. So it's been exactly a year or 364 days of how this is played out. What we have watched is that the administration

went from extremely high polls coming in on immigration around the border, approval in the initial days of closing down the border, effectively stopping illegal migration to the United States, to then a shifting of the strategy here, not only with ICE, but with specific ways of conduct in blue cities, a sort of like retribution. And what has happened is that has dramatically polarized the issue of immigration on the left, number one, because it makes it about something much bigger than, let's say, deportation around, let's say, people who are here illegally and who are criminals, to a bigger story about the role of the federal government in the streets here of the U.S. Now, if we take it back to BLM, it was actually a very popular decision, this idea

of sending in the National Guard federalization because it felt like things were totally out of control here from local authorities. Part of the problem, and this is why I actually do think the Democratic messaging appears to be hitting, is about this notion about ice and chaos, right, is that if those two things are tied together, let's say, with the shooting of Renee Good or all of these other videos, which is going viral here everywhere, they are seeing that as more chaotic, let's say, than the tens of millions of people who are currently present in our country illegally. Now, I accept and have said, I think that ignores a certain level of chaos of what that means.

I have tens of millions of people who are here illegally. And that the entire societal breakdown that I think that comes from that, part of the reason I supported, deportation or any of these initiatives. What we are watching here, though, I think, is moving past that and is instead largely about confrontation with a theory, a theory backed on something that came in the 2024 election, which again was about control. But I think it misreads how much of the public, first of all, has fuzzy ideas around, you know, various different things.

But it also makes it, you know, distasteful maybe the wrong word. But it is one where, you know, individuals like myself, many, I mean, there was that famous clip going around of a guy who in Minneapolis who was like, listen, I'm right leaning, but this seems crazy. Right. And I do think that what that ignored is that there were two different choices that the administration could have chosen to go about this type of thing. One is actually the initial Florida approach, which was E-Verify.

E-Verify punishes businesses, employers. and makes it structurally and financially impossible to operate illegally in the country. This encourages self-deportation. It doesn't require, let's say guys with masks going door to door asking about your neighbors. The other, which they chose was ICE and then they publicize, you know, much of this action as like a show of strength, a show to Americans that they're like in control. I think that they're really losing the country and the message on this one. And I think the more, though, just like an international affairs, that's what the first hour and a half of our show has been about, the more that they lose some of the support, it actually kind of ratchets things up in a more dangerous direction because the administration always doubles, triples, quadruples down.

And that's where that is where I have fear. I don't, I'm not afraid of a civil war. I still have relative faith in our justice system. Remember that a judge ruled multiple times against the, uh, the, Trump deployment to Los Angeles and ruled Italy restored state control. Yeah, I'm not going to even an insurrection act. By the way, sometime this week and the next month, the tariffs are likely going down at the court. There has been significant. Maybe. Although I don't know why the Supreme Court is dragging their freaking feet. I don't know why they're dragging their feet.

A long time that we thought this decision was coming and it still doesn't come. But anyway. Fair. I still think it's near 9,200 percent that they're going to be. I would be stunned if they ruled against them. I guess anything is possible. Anyway, yeah, go ahead. Well, I think there's a lot to what you say because I think it's, I think we should almost put the conversation about immigration aside because I don't think this is what that's this is not about immigration.

I mean, even if you just, Sagar, even if you just were going to go to the place where most undocumented immigrants are, it is not Minneapolis. Like, it's something like 2% of the immigrant population in Minneapolis is undocumented. It's a very small percentage. Most of the, you know, the Somali immigrants that either are so upset about, they almost all are American citizens. Many of them born in the United States. You know, a lot of the Somali immigration happened in the early 90s. Right. And the 80s.

The vast majority of them are either naturalized or born in the United States, American citizens. So it really is much more about this show of crushing dissent of retribution against the opposition. And you can see that, you know, in the way Trump is moving now. So he's, he, they're investigating. The DOJ is investigating mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis and governor Tim Walz. They're not, you know, to your point about the justice system, and sort of like yes and no, because on the one hand, you did have a judge in Minneapolis, check some of the tactics, absolutely insane tactics that they are using. And you saw judges in Chicago who aggressively check some of their tactics to such an extent that they basically,

were forced to leave because they could not operate in the same manner in Chicago. But at the same time you see that, you also see that they are not even going to investigate Jonathan Ross. There's certainly not going to be any charges, but they're not even going to do the pretense of an investigation. Instead, they want to investigate Renee Good's wife for domestic terrorism. So, yes, when these things get to the courts, there have been some areas where there's been pushback, although it happens too slow, and then they ignore aspects of it, etc. But then you also have this, you know, this sort of carve out where you've got J.D. Vant saying, hey, these ICE officers and other federal agents, they operate with quote unquote absolute immunity. That is the way that they view it. And I actually, I talked to Pisco last week for Crystal Coy and Friends. And he put some pieces together for me that I hadn't thought. I sort of thought Jady Vance was just like it was like a rhetorical flourish. This absolute immunity thing. I mean, that's what does he think? So his view is, and I think that this makes some sense. sense that that is their actual, because recall J.D. Vance Yale trained lawyer, right? So he understands the law.

That they are putting together the Supreme Court decision that granted Trump immunity in the exercise of his duties. They're putting that together with the unitary executive theory, which says all power in the executive is vested in Trump. Therefore, when these ice agents are out, you know, pepper spraying, assaulting people, etc., that, They are, their power comes directly from Trump, from that unitary executive. And therefore, if he is immune, they are also immune. And so when J.D. Vance has absolute immunity, that that is actually their legal theory of the case, that these guys can literally do anything in the context of the exercise of their duties. And because of this extreme legal rationale, they actually believe that they have complete and total, quote unquote, absolute immunity. I hadn't heard that before.

Yeah, I hadn't either, but it does make some kind of, it does make some sense to me. I had taken it as rhetorical. I mean, look, look, I mean, can I ignore that? No. Do you know why? Because if we think to, you know, in the aftermath of like bombing the boats and all that, there was an effective adoption of this Bush style John Wu memo legalism of the unitary executive theory. So it is potentially possible. I saw it as, look, I mean, this was one of those where the lesson that right-wing politicians have learned is you never throw a cop under the bus in one of these. We give no inches to the left, period, because if we do, it will turn into a George Floyd BLM situation where nothing is enough and they're going to riot and defund the police and do all this stuff anyway. I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, considering the last like 15 years and the way that the entire movement has gone. However, I do think that this one was a living. bit different because some sense of normalcy. Actually, I don't think it would have really been some sort of like left-wing giveaway. But I mean, look, they operate under a don't give an inch philosophy. And that is one where you also see this in the potential troop deployment. I will say, I do think part of the reason, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, isn't one of the reasons that the National Guard was mobilized by the governor is specifically to preempt federal action,

to say or to show. Right, but I don't think we know. It was specifically activated to quell protest activity and potential violence, which, by the way, I think is the responsible thing to do. That's what you're supposed to do when you're a state. And many of them did not operate that way back in 2020, which, again, leads to kind of the moment where we are now. I don't have a lot of sympathy for any of the characters who are currently kind of involved

here. And I don't think that that should kind of be a surprise. But, yeah, I was just thinking and kind of like, room. It's illuminating it over the last couple of days as to like, what does this all mean? And I think it operates under a theory of division. And I think that that has been used and was to tremendous political benefit. I do wonder, though, if it's just like what I referenced in our discussion on Greenland. It works until it doesn't work.

Right. It seems to me that it's not working right now. I could be totally wrong. But they have a totally different theory, Crystal. When I talk to them, they think I'm an idiot. I think that connection is absolutely correct. They've lost, I mean, they've lost the public. Trump's approval rating is very low.

The midterms are going to be a bloodbath. And so what do you do when you're losing the popularity, the public support, you crack down, right? You make people afraid. You try to crush the opposition. And this is, you know, this has been happening to varying degrees throughout all of Trump 2.0. they're sort of trying to wage this like win this final battle against any sort of political opposition as if that's a thing that can occur in anything that has a semblance of democracy. There is no final victory against the opposition. But that's what they're trying to achieve. And this is the latest escalation of that. And it's becoming more and more difficult to avoid an actual direct confrontation. And that's, you know, you see that parallel in the foreign policy as well. That's why the defense budget is so. That's why the ice budget is so large. That's where they're investing rather than trying to, you know, make life better and actually appeal to people and have popular support. It's like,

no, we're going to use the hammer because that's what, you know, that's the tool that they- Isn't that one of the great ironies of all this? Because, you know, you and I have talked about if when people are rich and they're fat and happy, they don't, it wouldn't care nearly as much. But I think that's part of what is galling. I think to, I'm not saying it should still happen. I'm just saying, though, that, you know, when the economy and all of that is going very well, People will tolerate a lot of the worditarianism if life is good. They will. Look at Guangzhou.

Look at life in Guangzhou and in Shanghai and in Beijing. They're living the high life compared to where they were 15 years ago. Yeah, you get your face scanned a lot. You have a social credit score system. And if you tweet or say anything bad, you're going to get your ass dragged to a police station. They tolerate it quite well. In Singapore, you literally can't chew gum. I was recently talking to a Singaporean who was amazed that I was chewing gum.

he's like, oh my God, right? So like they literally can't chew gum because people will spit it out and they have caninges as part of their judicial system, which they justify. But they live a sweet life. Everybody there is basically rich. They have free health care. It's incredibly clean. And they have complete and total public order as well as a very powerful passport and financial banking system. So there is genuine tradeoff here that a lot of people are willing to accept. We, however, you know, if you look at the last year, our quality and standard of living for the vast majority of our population seems more untenable while all of this is happening. And that's part of why, I mean, again, you know, we're getting to heightening the contradictions. Like, part of what you want is to heighten the contradiction between blue state governance and a Trump vision of America. Why do you do that? Because then people are not talking about or they were talking or looking at something very different. It becomes a question around immigration instead of the economy. I mean, I do think that the two are linked, but here then becomes a question of like state power or not. I don't know. I think, uh, I do think it is dangerous. And it's unfortunate. I mean, part of this was fundamentally like baked in with Trump and like inevitable

to a certain extent. But I do think that this is something where as things start to shift away from them politically, and look, these are not stupid people. They know what's happening. So like whenever it comes to, let's say the polls or some of their bigger political problems, regardless of what they may say in public, I can promise you that they see this. They can see very clearly what is happening. They just have a fundamentally different theory than you and I do about the way that politics and all of this works. They're like the confrontation is good. It heightens the contradiction. It shows order versus chaos. It keeps the salience of the issue of immigration. It gives, you know, the poverty, you know, the power or whatever of the federal government. And it demonstrates that like we're not going to tolerate what happened back in 2020 to ever happen again and rely. Yeah, go ahead. They have literally made abolish ICE the moderate position. A majority of moderates and independent support of Democrats. Of Democrats. No, no, no, no, no. Moderates and independence. Majority support abolish ICE. A year ago, people supported deported all illegal immigrants, yes?

Ruben Gallego, who started this administration, co-sponsoring the Lake and Riley Act, just came out yesterday and said, I think that he said it needs to be, he didn't say abolished. It was either dismantled or taken apart or destroyed or something of that nature. And, you know, that's, that is. So, and the polling on. Are you creating more order or chaos? I mean, I know you agree with this, that what people are overwhelmingly getting is like Minneapolis was okay. And then these people showed up and it's completely insane.

The amount of lies, like the way they will just lie brazenly is, I see it all the time. And it still is so wild to me. So the ICE account came after me for sharing a Washington Post story about a detainee who died in ICE detention. And here's my original tweet where I just said it appears that I strangled a detainee to death, but based on this Washington Post report, breaking news and employee of El Paso County's office of the medical examiner said it was likely to classify the death of Geraldo Lunas Campos at an ICE detention center as a homicide. A detainee says he witnessed Campos being choked to death by guards. Okay. So you have both the autopsy and the eyewitness accounts that lead to this conclusion that this was a homicide.

that the detainee was choked to death by guards. Then you have ICE say, to me, why lie for clicks when I'm just literally citing this report? Also, what clicks? Sorry, I was just like, what clicks? Yeah, exactly. Completely. Yes. And like anyone, we've never seen a government, by the way, more interested in clicks, like at a world historic level than this one, which is why they are going back and forth with me, a podcaster. Anyway, they go on to say that he violently resisted the security staff and continued to attempt to take his own life. Again, this is totally contrary to the eyewitness reports. During the ensuing struggle, Campos stopped breathing and lost consciousness.

So apparently their story is, in attempting to keep him from taking his own life, they accidentally killed him. They have now, Sagar, they are moving to deport the eyewitnesses that spoke to the Washington Post. they are moving to rapidly deport them, presumably, so that they can no longer share their view and their eyewitness testimony of what happened here. And this is just the latest in, you know, there was another incident where I'm sure you saw this. A family was on their way home from a basketball game, mom, dad, and I think four kids in the car. And they came upon, you know, there's like protest and ice and whatever. Ice pepper sprays into their vehicle. Again, they're not, they are trying to get home.

That's it. Pepper sprays into their vehicle. The six-month-old who's in the car, because this stuff is extremely dangerous for children, stops breathing, foaming at the mouth. The parents think that this child is going to die. It has to be rushed to the hospital. DHS originally, again, completely lies about this, says none of this happened. We have the family, we have eyewitness testimony, we have video from the scene, etc. That was so egregious they had to delete it.

it and take it down. And then you still have so many people who are out there saying, well, why did you bring a six-month-old baby to a protest? They didn't. They were just trying to get home. That's it. So, you know, the level of, you can't even call it GATT is just out and out fabrication that they're willing to engage in is absolutely crazy. Of course, we all saw it in the wake of the killing of Renee Good, where the story that came out from Christy Noem and others immediately is just completely contradicted by what the video shows, and they've never walked that back. Kristyneul continues to insist that everything she said was completely factual. Yeah, it's such a difficult, you know, for me.

Because, I mean, listen, unlike I think some of the liberals, too, I don't believe many of the activists either. A lot of the reports are at Renee Good were also bullshit and completely wrong initially about what was happening. So let's make sure we put that on the table. But the government does generally have a bigger responsibility. They're not the president of the United States or that's not to say. The government has a better responsibility to try to retain some sort of level of credibility, you know, with the American public. And that is what makes talking about all of these incidents incredibly difficult because unless it's on video, I'm like, I don't believe it from either side. Literally.

Like if they're like, if ICE is like, this is what happened, I'm like, prove it. You know, release the video. If the liberal activists are like, oh, I mean, look, let's not deny. They exaggerate everything. They're like, you know, they're constantly lying about this, that, and then or whatever has happened. And unless it's on video from them, I'm not believing in it either, which is part of the difficulty of kind of sussing out many of these types of situations. You know, the detainee death. First of all, I mean, it's like you just said, why are they even engaging with you on Twitter?

It's preposterous, you know, for saying, for quoting an article, you know, look, I would happily be like, oh, that's irresponsible speculation if it was. like it was based on a Washington Post report, which was, you know, based on test. Look, who knows? Maybe the guy was lying, right? That's why they generally are supposed to have an investigation. I even used in that tweet. I like modify. I was like, it appears.

Right. Yeah, exactly. I mean. I know. That's why it's so crazy the way that they operate. But I will say it does show how it's starting to get under their skin. Their skin. Yeah, that's true.

And their rapid response is so divorced from reality that, or at least has been divorced from reality that they have created this total crisis of confidence where and giving ground, I think, to much, like you were just talking about the abolish ice, you know, community. Can I say that? Or I guess the anti-immigration enforcement left has well within reason now to be able to just say everything that they say is not credible, right? And that creates this space for them, you know, to advance a lot of theirs. And so that's why the credibility question is always going to rely on the government.

I mean, and as we've seen so many of their stuff, you know, fall apart here over the last couple of, I guess, over the last like year or so, that I think is actually, look, I'm not naive. The government's lied to us for 50s since, you know, 1945, okay, and way before even then. However, you know, in this current age, especially with Twitter information and then, you know, deep fakes, AI. and all of that, et cetera, it actually means we're living in like a genuine post-truth environment. Yeah. And that is actually like the scariest part of it. Very disturbing. Yeah.

Very disturbing. All right. Let's go ahead and talk a little bit about Gavin Newsom and Ben Shapiro. All right, guys. I wanted to make sure to get this into the show. Gavin Newsom, California governor and very likely 28 aspirant on the Democratic side, seen in a lot of circles as the frontrunner, decided to have. Ben Shapiro onto his own podcast, and Ben challenged him on Israel.

And specifically, whether or not Gavin Newsom thought they were committing a genocide, let me go ahead and pull this up because it was pretty extraordinary exchange, I would say. Let me go ahead and play this. Democrats have now been dragged into this conversation, some drag, some run with, you know, flags waving, into the conversation. This notion of genocide. Yes. Yeah.

I mean, look, Israel did not commit a genocide. in Gaza. There is no standard by which Israel committed to genocide in Gaza just on a factual level. Just as illegal and factual level. Yes. Yeah. What is your opinion of this? My opinion is I understand the tendency for people to make that, to assert that. Why? On the basis of the images and the proportionality as it relates to- genocide. No, no, and by the way, I agree with you. And international and-proportionality. doesn't mean that if you kill my child and I then kill seven criminals that I've been disproportionate. I'm not disagreeing with you. But I think the, but I understand that tendency on the basis

of trying to reconcile the proportionate nature of how the war was ultimately conducted and the devastation. I have a question. Why do you, why do you feel the need to create a permission structure for that sort of stuff? I mean, meaning it's not true. Why not just say it's not true? Yeah, look, I don't know the definition or I don't know the legal threshold. That's not my opinion. So I don't, I don't share that opinion as relates to genocide. I do not agree with that notion that. Right. But you do understand that if you accuse Israel of committing a genocide, that now puts Israel in the position of it should be a pariah state because states that commit genocide, because states that's the committed genocide, because it's terrible. No, but, but I think it's also important. I'm not granted legitimacy. I'm just saying the, the, the devastation in Gaza that the, at the human level, you're, you've got four kids. Of course it's terrible. No, but, but I think it's also important. important to absorb that a little bit more, just as it was sick and we were clear in our condemnation, these people like me, as it relates to what Hamas did in that act of barbarism and terrorism. So that gives you a sense of it. It goes on from there. But I mean, just the lamest thing imaginable. Honestly, I would have more respect for him if he was just like, pulled a fetterman.

I agree. I support Israel 100%. I mean, he's trying to be all things to all people. Obviously, Ben Shapiro has a very clear and very strong and very, in my opinion, immoral and incorrect view. I mean, when he says, like, by what standard, it's, okay, we'll look at every international body, including some Israeli human rights organizations that have said it's a genocide. Clearly, this is the international consensus. But Gavin Newsom understands this is the problem for him in the Democratic primary. So sort of like Kamala Harris-esque, wants to sound some notes about his deep concern. for humanity and how much empathy he feels. But ultimately, he doesn't really share a different opinion from Ben Shapiro.

So not only, he satisfies no one and just comes off looking absolutely weak and pathetic. And like he got smacked around by this guy in this exchange. I really don't understand his decision to do this, to be honest, because you got absolutely nothing out of it. Nothing that he would say would satisfy Ben Shapiro or Republicans to vote for him because he's still, you know, against, he's still a Democrat. And then he also is not buying himself any favors with the Democratic base at this moment. So look, I mean, I'm not sure yet still what the salience of Israel or Gaza will be in three years. But more broadly, it's about why put yourself in a position

where you're going to have to be oppositional at a moment where everything seems to be like a coalescing of the liberal left and the democratic base and wanting to just fight. Trump. And so, like, that's where strategically, it doesn't make a lot of sense, you know, this idea of branching out. I mean, the irony, too, here is by picking Shapiro, I'm assuming his thought process is like, I'm going to reach out to Republicans. But like, as you know, they're more animated younger Republicans. Again, I'm assuming this is the choice for Gavin to try to reach out to are not energized by Ben Shapiro. I mean, look, I'm not going to deny his large audience and all that. But the idea, though, that he is like the most influential, let's say, you know, thought leader or this is

really going to change hearts and minds. It didn't, it didn't make sense to me. And that this is my, my problem with Gavin, it's like on paper, it should all be there. And he is a wily operator. And he's the governor of the most populous state. And, you know, initially he was doing the whole Steve Bannon thing with his podcast. But he seemed to pivot away from that immediately. And he did well, I think on the Sean Ryan show, he held his own, you know, with Sean Ryan and went back and forth. And he came off like relatively likable. But here, it really seemed like Ben was in charge. And so, look, I mean, I do think the 2024 election was very vibe based. And I do think that that's something that the Trump campaign very successfully used on their side. And so, you know, if we're just going off of that, it was very incongruent with somebody who I would. would expect to be more wily as an operator on the Democratic side. It just seemed, it just didn't make any sense. It's not the first time that he's had this like major tactical stumble. And I think it's just very simple. Like he's out of touch. He's on a touch with the country. He's

out of touch with the Democratic base. The people he's surrounded with is mostly like he owes his power to donors. Right. That's where his source of strength comes from. And so there is this other moment where, you know, Ben challenged him on one of the things that the Newsom press office account had tweeted out, saying that ICE is committing state-sponsored terrorism. And Newsom ended up agreeing with Shapiro. So it also showed you that, like, the thing that you are actually getting love from from the Democratic base, it's not actually you. I mean, we all know he doesn't run that account. It's some staffer. But you don't even agree with the direction of that account. That's actually a reflection of who you are as a politician whatsoever. So anytime

you're challenged on anything there that's a bit edgy, you apparently capitually. Not to mention to the point about vibes, like the vibes here are just weakness and capitulation outside of the ideological content, which is appealing to absolutely no one. So, you know, I at the beginning of the Trump 2.0, he was having Steve Bannon on, he had Charlie Kirk on. And it was very similar. thing. Gavin is good at debating, but he wasn't debating these guys. He was letting them push their points of view and he was coming towards them. It seemed like he got the message that this was not where the Democratic base was, that they were sort of disgusted with this. He pivots to this confrontational approach, at least with his Twitter presence. But when he's challenged on it at all,

he immediately retreats. In terms of the specific issue, I mean, I do think for a large part of the Democratic base, it is this sort of moral dividing line. litmus test issue because it tells you which type of Democrat you are. Are you the type of Democrat who's going to cave, who's going to go with where the money is, going to go with like the, you know, political powers that be, are you going to be that type of Democrat or are you going to be the type that's going to rock the boat and challenge the status quo? He has failed this test on this issue multiple times. And that's the other thing where I'm like on political strategy. You know this is Ben Shapiro's number one issue. Like, how did you not anticipate that?

this was going to come up in the conversation and that you're going to have to have something to say about it. But the truth of the matter is, I mean, there's really nowhere good that he can land because he wants to maintain, you know, his good standing with whatever, you know, whatever other elements of the Israel lobby or individual donors this is important to while trying to signal to the Democratic base. And that's just no, it's, it's not the kind of issue that you can word weasel your way out of. You're either on the side of. the Zionists or you're not. Like it's just cut and dry. And so for him to not anticipate that that was going to be a thing in this conversation is really just astonishing. And that's the funny thing. You know, with a lot of the Zionist donors, they're going to be like the fact that you even said you understood is a bridge too far. So it's like, yeah, it's like, and you and I know this because, you know, we know some of these people. And it is just ironic, just the way that he's acting. I really am genuinely mystified by his performance. I don't know. Some days, I'm like, it seems inevitable,

Gavin. And then some days, like this one, you're like, dude, like, what are you doing? And I think, you know, your point about out of touch, it just seems, look, I guess I should just never underestimate the ability of a politician to be out of touch because that's just very clearly what this is. I mean, for a person who purports, you know, to have this staff and, and to, you know, again, to be a young and up-and-comer and a fighter. It's like it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense more. And you know, it kind of reminds me what you were saying. And I do think this is important because this is how I think about the Epstein stuff. Hillary, if you'll recall, back in 2016, there was that whole debate around radical Islamic terrorism. And Hillary just wouldn't say it. And it was one of those where it was

kind of like this. She's like, well, it's not technically the definition and all that. But the reason why Trump hammered it is to show your point. is that what they wanted to show was a Hillary was this mealy-mouthed person who was more concerned about the, you know, identity politics than like trying to solve the problem. And look, as you will recall at 2016, like we were literally in the middle of like the counter-is camp, the San Bernardino attack. Like it was, if you're young, like, you don't really fully comprehend how crazy kind of that discussion was really at the time.

And I remember those moments in the debates where we were like, man, she's just so weak on this answer. She would be like, I call it radical jihadism or something. I'm like, but just fucking say Islamic terrorism at this point. Like, because you're just wasting a bunch of your time. And this, this begets like all of like any legalistic, uh, type of stuff where it being like trying to have sympathy, uh, but then also try to retain who you are. You know, Trump's superpower. I think the Republican superpower, uh, really of the last 10 years has been, uh, the ability to just back everything and to never retreat from a fight. Yeah. Like, ultimately that was his. And he's clearly his great political strategy.

Not learned that lesson of the modern political era. Well, especially your staff. I mean, throwing your staff under the bus is insane, right? Like, that's one of those where because now why should we believe a single one of your tweets? And your whole political, like, lane in the Democratic primary is like, I'm the guy who's going to fight Trump. I've got the resistance swag stylistically. And so if you don't have that, you've got, you've got nothing. And your donors are not going to be.

nearly enough. All right, guys, well, that does it for the show today. Saga and I will both be back in studio tomorrow. So, and I'm sure there will be many things to discuss. In fact, there were many things we were not able to get into the show today because things are so crazy. Yes, that's right. All right. We'll see you all tomorrow.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human.