Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 1/23/26: Don Lemon Charges REJECTED, Gavin’s Davos Knee Pad STUNT, Gaza Whistleblower Runs for Congress

Episode Date: January 23, 2026

The BP team looks at the Whole Milk health push, Gavin Newsom's speech at Davos, and the FACE act that could be used to prosecute Minnesota church protestors with streamer/lawyer Pisco. Then we speak to veteran and whistleblower Anthony Aguilar who is announcing a run for Congress. Pisco: https://www.youtube.com/@PiscoLittyAnthony Aguilar: https://www.aguilarforuscongress.com/Interview with GHF Spox: https://youtu.be/prUpDMxFaDU?si=XcVvtrkzy3IDkUug 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, it's Joel and Matt from How to Money. If your New Year's resolution is to finally get your finances in shape, we've got your back. Prices, they're still high. And the economy is all over the place. But 2026 is the year for you to get intentional and make real progress. That's right.

Yeah, each week we break down what's happening with your money, the most important issues to focus on. And the small moves that make a big difference. Kick off the year with confidence. Listen to How to Money on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hello, hello, all my people, what's up? It's Questlove. Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with the one and only ASAP Rocky. He reflects on his journey from Harlem Roots to global icon status and discovering the hip-hop origin of his name. The ledge was on the TV.

Rakim had the bucket hat can go join on. That's Rakim. That's who you named after. I just, damn, that f***, I sweat. Listen to the Questlove show on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. This season on Dear Chelsea with me, Chelsea Handler, we've got some incredible guests like Kamail Nanjiani. Let's start with your cat. How is she? She is not with us.

She. Great, great, great way to start. Maybe you will cry. Ross Matthews. You know what kids always say to me? Are you a boy or girl? Oh my God. That's so funny. I love it. So I try to butcher it up for kids so they're not confused. Yeah, but you're butching it up is basically like Doris Day. Right. No, I turn into Be Arthur.

Listen to these episodes of Dear Chelsea on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. 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. It 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. Hello, hello, good morning, everybody. Happy Friday. How are you guys doing? Happy Friday. Happy Friday.

I hope everyone here has their cup of milk ready to go. Whole milk. Whole milk. That's right. Emily, I feel like we use you too much. It's like, can you explain this to me? But I do need, I don't get it. The milk whisperer.

What happened here? With whole milk? With the whole milk campaign. Yeah, because they're acting like this is some like edgy, countercultural thing to drink whole milk. And I did not know that whole milk was in any way lib-coded or like not drinking whole milk was lip-coded. I don't know. I don't get it. Yeah, is that the idea?

I guess soy milk is. Soy. Yeah. The original soy. Well, I think it's about, like, they have this big campaign to have people have whole fats and high protein foods. So that's my best guess here. I'm sticking with 2%. I'm not a whole milk person, but that's my, like, that's my best guess.

Yeah, I find milk to be kind of disgusting in general. So I'm a, I am a bit of a milk hater. I am, I am an oat milk drinker. I will own it. Many such cases. I will own it. Well, let's give people a taste here. a literal taste here at the top of the show.

Griffin. I said, ooh, come on maybe to turn the lights. If you're listening to this, it's AI, RFK Jr. Like at the sphere with a

cup of whole milk. I just, I think, it's probably not, but it just kind of looks spherical. Is that an AI song too? Is that a real song? That's a real,

that's a real song and a real partier right here. If you see a guy partying with milk at the club, elect him. Elect him. Make him HHS secretary immediately. Put him in charge. Give him the vaccine schedule right away. I think that they was clearly a raw milk push that they had to pivot at the last moment to hole.

I feel like they're not pivoting. I feel like they're still all in on the raw milk. Well, then why aren't they promoting raw milk in these epic? Yeah. That would own me so much harder. If it's not that raw milk. We'd be owned right now. I think you just can't persuade people to drink raw milk.

I feel like it's going to be in the, like, the, what is the hippie slash homeschool, middle of that Venn diagram? Yeah. They're still going to have their raw milk, but nobody else is going to be persuaded. My favorite raw milk story is they passed in West Virginia State Legislature some like raw milk, pro- raw milk legislation. And to celebrate, they, like, drank raw milk and then a bunch of them got violently ill. Really?

Yes, really. Here's what a raw milk party actually looks like for anyone curious. Why do you have these at such easy access? I know he was ready to go with this. Because I'm a producer. I come prepared. But this is what real... Do you have the one with the kids, with the scary, like, creepy kids?

No, you caught me lacking. You can't even tell anymore who's a hippie and who's homeschooled. That's right. Yeah, it's melded together. Yeah. No difference, really. Much love to both, by the way. Well, we're all at home, ready to school y'all on the news today.

I'm going to be home school in my kids next week, so apparently with the storm coming in, so I can't talk. I'd love to be homeschooled by you. But Crystal, that'd be actually awesome. Kind of like a mis-frizzle. You would have come out way differently, Emily. Here's your Howard Zinn. Right. And here, yeah, soy milk.

Literally. And we've got Ryan here. He heard that we were talking about raw milk. So he had to attend. And homeschooling. And hippies. And hippies, most appropriately hippies. Yeah.

I had raw milk in Ireland this summer at Petty Cosgraves. How did that go? Oh, County Donegal. It was delicious. Was it? Yeah. Did it take different than? It was also from, like, fancier cows.

Okay. Gotcha. So it was incredible. I just find, I mean, it's not that I, like I have plenty of dairy products, but I just find the idea of drinking glass of milk to be revolting, any kind of milk. Well, you're a grown-up, so. Well, milk is good. Milk is good.

Mm-hmm. All right. Well, let's get to something actually important. This is what we do on the show. We have different opinions and we all get along. Come together and we're able to, you know, agree to disagree. So we got Ryan. Ryan, we wanted to talk to you about the new Kushner Gaza plan, but that's a hard pivot

from raw milk. So why don't we start with a little bit of Gavin here at Davos, trying to clean up some of the Trump energies happening here. Let's take a listen to what Gavin has to say. This is a rupture. This isn't an anomaly. And there's no going back. And do you think that, I mean, do you think it's always going to be a different American leader

can bring? I think. I think these relationships are in dormancy. They're not dead. I don't use those binary terms. Don't don't fall prey to that. That's a bit hyperbolic, and I'm prone to a little that at times. Dormancy.

He can, he's an invasive species, Donald Trump. He's not. He is. He took over the Republican Party. They're just, I mean, you know, a few of them, Lindsey Graham, I mean, my, speaking of the knee-patch, I'm sorry. This is tough stuff.

It's tough stuff. I don't recognize these people any longer. I used to respect Lindsay. I mean, Lindsey, you think what? Yeah, what? But what Lindsey Graham said about Trump? How about the Secretary of State?

Marco Rubio. Do you think? I mean, these are the same people. And this is why we, for things to change, we need to change. And that's why I'm changing my people. And again, I'm grateful. I mean, I suppose do you think post-Trump there's a path back?

Because you see this everywhere to kind of insult politics that you're doing here. But you said you don't really enjoy it. You kind of seem to. I just putting a mirror up. I was doing my 10-point plans before. And I don't think any of you would have been here this morning had I done that. They would have been here. No.

It just wasn't working. Everyone's trying to figure this guy out. Like a Mark Carney crowd. Yeah. No, but it's how do you communicate? How do you respond? to this moment. And for me, it's about iteration.

It's an entrepreneurial spirit. It's a very California mindset. On the part about Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. Poetry. What he's saying there is that what he liked about them was that they were critical of Donald Trump. Yep. And that they were polite.

They had the same politics back then. Yes. I mean, they were warmongers then. they're warmongers now. And so they're actually just more effective at getting their way now. Right. That they, you know, figured out instead of criticizing Trump to suck up to Trump. And that's allowed them to get their like neocon warmongering goals accomplished.

It epitomizes the elite democratic objection to Trump, which is so much around style. Yeah. When we're seeing the substance of it in our face, like the. you know, three threatened or carried out wars like in a week plus ice rampaging around the country. And the beef he has is that, you know, these guys are now obsequious to Trump rather than objecting to him. On his broader point, I don't know. I feel like, yes, like Trump represents a rupture, but could it be healed with, you know, the world is becoming these kind of transnational camps.

of, you know, center-left, corporatist types that you have running the EU and that are, and that are, you know, pretty dominant in one faction of the Democratic Party. So if that, if they came back to power, it could they link up again? Yeah. I think they could stitch it up somewhat together. But, you know, the rise of Russia and China are real things that have changed, that changed the calculus over the last decade, too. I think that Biden was the attempt to stitch it back up in your words, Ryan.

And I like it failed, right? And there it's not just Trump. Well, it's stitched. It's not just Trump, though. I think the other thing that has destroyed, I mean, there's a variety of factors, but one of the other things that has destroyed the previous era of international relations is Gaza. You know, you cannot put back in the box. the fact that all of these countries, and including, you know, I mean, Gavin Newsom is the governor of California, but there's no sign that he objected to our role in perpetuating a genocide, which you won't even call a genocide, in Gaza.

You can't just put that back in the box and then pretend like, oh, no, we believe in human rights and freedom and democracy, blah, blah, blah. So Trump is very effective at demolishing things. And I think he is, this is what Tucker Carlson and his infamous, like, leaked messages said. He is a destroyer. That is what he has done. And I don't think that there is any stitching the liberal, you know, international world order, such as it was back together. And that's really what Mark Carney's speech was about, right? Like, I'm going to say out loud the thing that we all knew and that we did not say out.

I'm going to single-handedly destroy what remains of this illusion. So that doesn't mean that, you know, the U.S. and France couldn't go back to having better relations or, you know, Germany. whatever. But in terms of the overall structure of how this thing was held together and the understanding that underpinned it, I do think that that is over, dead, gone, much as Gavin Newsom would love to just sort of let's pretend none of this happen. Let's continue to imagine that Donald Trump, who now has been the dominant figure in public life for a decade, let's just pretend that was an aberration and see if we can rewind and get the good old Lindsay Graham back. I think it's no longer viable, but the Mark Carney metaphor of signs that he talked about in his speech, like the signs.

The green grocer. Right. Yeah. The sign that the green grocer would put out. I think they will, like they will, whatever happens, likely find a way to put the signs back outside and tell themselves the signs are back outside. And what did Carney referred to it as like a convenient fiction, something like that. I think they will, you can just hear it in Gavin Newsom. Like there's a desperation to like reestablish that when he's saying it's dormant.

So I think they will at some point do that. Like maybe it's post-Trump. They'll do that. But it's never going to be the viable coalition. And that fiction is going to fall on deaf ears among the like normal people in their populations. It's just not as persuasive or efficacious anymore. Yeah. And you can't make bets on us either.

Because like is he even if you get AOC or Gavin for four years, you only have them for four years. And then God only knows what you get after that. So like if. Well, you're going to do another deal with us? Do you really want to spend three years, right? Three years negotiating some deal that the other party comes in and rips up just because it's your deal? Mm-hmm. When they don't have control over media channels like they used to, like they just don't have control over narrative like they used to.

there's some decentralization that they're coping with and they're trying to find a way back to having more power. But I mean, I guess that's the good news in some sense. This is responsive to people being furious. But on the other hand, I don't think they clearly, like Gavin Newsom, this is the entire point of playing the clip, I think, is like he doesn't get that you can't tell people everything is fine. just by aping Donald Trump and what did he say, putting a mirror up to Donald Trump. The one thing Trump would never do is explain that what he's doing is a grand strategy and is totally fake. And that's where it'll continue to fall flat. Well, Trump does actually a little bit of that.

Yeah, but he doesn't do it like Gavin Newsom earnestly at Davos. But also intensely uncomfortable, which I'll play. I have another 20 second clip right here talking about, you know, it seems like they're comfortable doing the post. but whenever he talks about the post IRL, it becomes a little different. This is the kneepad moment. Signature series, knee pads. Yeah, and they are available online. I told you the last one sold out.

And I just thought it's a serious moment. We left. Anyway, these are available and in bulk, too. The kneepad moment. Yeah, I don't know. Emily, was that poetry? seem to do okay there. You can't hawk your own merch.

You should never hawk your own merch. Well, Trump can do it. That's true. I don't know. There's just something very weird about him like trying to compete with Trump in this domain. And sometimes it works on X,

but in person you can tell he just, it's awkward. I don't know. Sometimes it's funny. It's inauthentic to him. I mean, to me, the most revealing moment wasn't there. It was when he was interviewing Ben Shapiro.

And Shapiro was like, your press account said that ICE is committing state sponsor terrorism. And Newsom immediately backs down. So it's like, okay, well, you're letting these staffers do this thing because you think it's cool and it's getting you attention. But this is not actually reflective of who you are as a politician. And the thing about Trump, I mean, the thing about any effective politician is to your point, Emily, he wouldn't just expose like, oh, this whole persona is a fraud and a phony. he will sometimes give you a little bit of, you know, the true thinking going on behind the scenes that will contradict things that he said in public. But Trump is authentically like a brash ego maniacal asshole. And he wears that.

And that is who he is. Who is Gavin? Like, I mean, actually, we know. Gavin is a very ambitious guy who found his way up through politics by being in good with like, especially the donors in California where there's plenty of money to. support him. He's been smart about positioning on certain political issues, like when he was coming up and being at the forefront of pushing forward gay marriage at a time when that was, you know, that was really challenging on a national level, but good politics in terms of San Francisco. So he's made some savvy moves. He's an operator. Like, that's who he is. He is not the guy who's going

to be the bomb throwing, you know, he doesn't, that persona online is purely that. It's not even him that's running the account. And so that's the part of it. where it is a little uncomfortable him with the kneepad thing because it's like, this is not really who you. You're playing this character because you understand that's the reason. Playing that character is the reason why you're on this stage. But this is not actually really who you are. Yeah, I agree with that.

If there is a who he is, right. Yeah, I mean, that's the other thing. I mean, yeah. But that's what he's, he's play acting. But he's play acting as someone with intense moral convictions. And that's also very. inauthentic because that's not who Gavin Newsom is. 100% correct.

Do you guys think he's peaked a little early? Like, do you think he's going to burn bright and burn fast? I am very, I have always, I want to go on the record, been very bearish on the Gavan Newsom hype because of moments like, you know, what we saw when he got asked about APEC, right? Additionally. And he's like, oh, interesting question. Because he is too disconnected from where the base is to.

today. And in another moment, a couple years ago, could have worked. Now the base is much more clear-eyed about what they want on policy issues. They have no patience for this like mealy mouth. Let me weasel my way through, you know, 10,000 words out of answering your question. They have very clear-cut ideas on Israel, on ice, where they want you to be. And so if you can't come forward and give a yes or no answer on some of these things, you immediately are, look squirly to them. You look like the Democratic leaders who are failing them right now in this moment that they are so disgusted with. So even as Gavin has some talents that he brings to the table, there's no doubt about that. He has been so consistently out of touch with the base that I am very, I am bearish on his prospects.

Yeah. But then there's, it's like who else is there. So he benefits from that possibility. That's his best hope is that he just like, who's, who's waiting? And it's like, well, he's the last guy here. I mean, that lane is going to be, I mean, that lane is going to be crowded, though, for the like empty, ambitious politician. You're going to have Pete. You're going to have Shapiro.

You're going to have him. You're going to have, you know, people think Pritzker is a bit better. I'm not sure I'm really convinced of that. But they occupy roughly the same, you know, the same space ideologically. So there's going to be a lot of people in that lane, which is a real detriment to him. Okay. New Year, Fresh Start. And honestly, I'm starting with dinner. This year, I'm being smarter about where my energy goes, and dinner was taking way too much of it. I just signed up for Hello Fresh,

and they take Fresh Start to a whole new level. Fresh high-quality ingredients delivered right to my door, locally sourced whenever possible. Everything pre-portioned, nothing wasted. Now, I'm not dragging myself through weekend grocery runs, or panic staring at the fridge at 5.30, trying to make something out of random leftovers. And I'm definitely not tossing out food I never used or falling back on expensive takeout apps because I ran out of ideas. Yeah, that happened a lot. Just simple, stress-free recipes and meals that help me save more, waste less. And for the first time in a long time, I actually look forward to dinner. Get your fresh start right now and get 50% off your first box plus free sides for life with HelloFresh. That's right, free sides for life. Go to hellofresh.c.c.c.

That's Hellofresh.ca. Code Dinner 50. Hey, what's up, y'all? This is Questlove recently. I had the opportunity to sit down with Aesap Rocky ahead of his album release. Don't be dumb. He reflects on his journey

from his Harlem roots to global icon status discovering the hip-hop origin of his name. The ledge was on the TV. Raqim had the bucket hat cane gold join on. My boss was like, that's Raqim.

That's who you named after. I just was like, damn, that my fucking got swag. Rocky offers a window into not only a boundary-breaking artist, but as a man committed to fusing creative ideas, community, and remaining unapologetically himself. Have you ever gotten roasted for any of your outfits? For sure.

Some people don't be getting the vision. Look, they could roast me, they could cook me, they could defraib, they could saute, whatever they want. There's nobody who can be with my fashion sense and my taste is impeccable. I'm just like, I impress myself a lot. It's an amazing conversation. One, you definitely don't want to miss.

So listen to the Questlove show on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. New Year, new goals, and in this economy, a better money plan is more necessary than ever. I am Matt. And I'm Joel. We are from the How to Money podcast. And every week, we help you to spend smarter, save more, and make sense of what's going on out there. If you want 2026 to be the year you finally feel in control of your money, we're here to give you. you the tools and advice to help you make it happen.

Listen to How to Money on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. That was Gavin at Davos. We now have our first guest of the Friday show here. Let's welcome him in. Crystal, who do we got here today? Friend Pisco, YouTuber, a legal analyst, all the good things. Great streamer. You guys should be checking him out.

Great to see you, Pisco. How are you guys doing? Glad to be here. Good. So let me throw this tear sheet up. Do I have it up? Yes. So we wanted to get Piscoe's legal analysis of this whole church protest and now the charges that have been filed against several of the protesters who've been arrested just to get a breakdown of like what is the face act? What is the standard they're going to be judged by, etc. So here are the details. Three arrested in St. Paul church protests as judge rejects charges against Don Lemon. A judge in Minnesota rejected federal prosecutors attempt to criminally charged journalist Donald. Lemon in relation to his presence this week during a protest at a St. Paul Church, extraordinary rebuke of a Justice Department that has drawn criticism for its forceful response

to demonstrations. So they start with the Don Lemon part. But there were three other protesters who were, in fact, charged under the Face Act. They say among those charged are an Akima Levy Armstrong, a civil rights attorney, former head of the Minneapolis branch of the NAACP, Chantal Louisa Allen, a member of St. Paul's School Board, and William Kelly, a protester who had dared authorities to try to arrest him in a video he posted to TikTok after he was identified online as one of the demonstrators present that day. Bondi said in a statement on the arrest, our nation was settled and founded by people fleeing religious prosecution. Religious freedom is the bedrock of this country will protect our pastors. We will protect our churches.

We will protect Americans of faith. So first of all, Pisco, before we get into the specifics on the Face Act and what the sort of legal bar, the government is going to have to meet here is. How significant is it that the magistrate judge refused to sign off on the charges against Don Lemon? It's significant. I mean, it doesn't happen very often that a magistrate judge will refuse to sign off on those charges. And it shows that perhaps the government is overreaching by going after Don Lemon as opposed to the other potential defendants. And so it is significant. And legal commentators have noted it as a show in a weak case with respect to the FACE Act on Don Lemon specifically. So go ahead then and break down for us what the FACE Act is and what is the legal standard that the government will have to meet here with regard to the other three that have been charged.

Yeah. So the FACE Act was a law that was passed in the 90s by Clinton after a big sweep of attacks at abortion centers and people trying to get reproductive health care. And it was passed with an intent to try to stop that. well as certain religious freedoms and going after individuals who target the exercise of religious freedoms in the aftermath of another law as well that Bill Clinton passed called RFRA. And the act criminalizes three kinds of conduct with specific purposes. That is to say, using force, threats, or physical obstruction to achieve one purpose, which in the case of reproductive health centers is to try to, like, injure, impair or intimidate someone in attempting to get those services or in the context of religious freedoms,

the same thing, but them exercising the religious freedoms. And so that's like the conduct is either physical obstruction threats or use of force. And that's the intent they have to prove. But there's some nuances we can get into. And for people who are coming in new to this, can you just describe briefly, like what, what precisely did these activists do and like what and to what kind of institution? Yes. Those facts are going to be super important. As far as we know, this is a private church, and they entered into the church and started yelling and made it kind of difficult for them to continue with the proceeding. And the reason, the purported reason for why this happened was because the pastor has some affiliation, in fact, potentially employment with ICE, has done a declaration before for ICE. And so that was what they did. They went in there. Is some lack of clarity on, on the amount of time, but apparently they left before police arrived. And so it doesn't sound like they were there for hours and hours. But those are the facts, as best we know of them,

Don Lemon was traveling with them and interviewed some individuals on his live stream. And a couple of facts that I think are relevant to that is Lemon's live stream. I went back and watched this portion of it. It's like six hours long. But I went back and watched this portion of it last night. When he's interviewing Nakima Armstrong, wrong. She's very clear that what they're about to do is, quote, disrupt. So that's going to be that that will be raised by the prosecution that she explicitly said that part of this operation was

to disrupt. Don Lemon said when he was in the church, I am here as a journalist. I'm not here with the activist, which is going to be, I mean, that's probably one of the reasons the charge was not signed off on. So there's all kinds of stuff in the live stream that people can go and watch for themselves. But I think those having just gone back and watched it last night, I think those two moments are pretty important. They're very important. Oh, go ahead, sorry. What would be the difference between a private and a quote-unquote public church?

Like, like doors are swung open and it says all are welcome. Yeah. So then it'd be harder to charge them. This is more like, hey, like we're doing our thing in here. Be quiet. Like, don't mess with us. Yeah, I was referencing more sort of like the fact that the space is owned privately. And it's not like a sort of open forum where they're doing.

some kind of service where the, you know, the First Amendment turns on such that, you know, those additional standards relating to traditional public fora apply. But presumably they asked the people to leave if this was like a church that was open to people to generally come and they asked them to leave. And so that would be relevant to the analysis under the FACE Act. There have been cases that have been sustained under the FACE Act for conduct that happens within a location. And so the fact that it's private might.

way into that determination of how much obstruction was it and is the First Amendment implicated in any respect as applied. Every court to deal with the FACE Act on its constitutionality has upheld it as constitutional because you're really not targeting speech. You're targeting these kinds of conducts. The intent portion is super important what Emily just brought up. And it's unclear. A lot of courts have construed the statute as requiring dual intent. That is to say, you're not just trying to do the actions that disrupt, but for the purpose, either to restrict some kind of reproductive service or to restrict people's First Amendment rights with respect to religious freedoms. And so one argument you could see the protesters making is, well, we're not here to disrupt religious services or religious freedoms.

This is us trying to like whistleblow on the pastor with respect to his dealings with ICE has nothing to do with their religious expression. And now whether our core ultimately will buy that as a distinction for the dual intent purposes unclear. But you can see the kind of arguments. We didn't physically obstruct. We didn't use force. We didn't use threats. And, you know, we don't have that intent. Right.

Interesting. So say again, Piscoe, what are the, there were three. It's either obstruct, intimidate, or actual violence. So those are the three? It's force, threat, or physical obstruction. You need to show one of them. And so and when you say threat, threat of what? Threat of force.

And threat is interpreted by courts in the context of true threats. These are a First Amendment standard that are like they're not protected by First Amendment jurisprudence. And they usually require some like reasonable person to apprehend that they're actually trying to put you in fear of bodily harm of some kind. And so if you're not seeing these, these protesters shouting things like we're going to hurt you. we're going to kill you or something like that or, you know, wielding some kind of weapon to put them in fear, probably less likely for the threat prong. The physical obstruction, that's where like the more complicated analysis is. And there are tons of decisions that try to interpret what physical obstruction means. Can it be constructive obstruction? Most courts say, no, not constructive obstruction. But can it include. What does that mean? So a kind of. That's what Sager does.

Yeah, where you're kind of making it like more difficult and you're not actually physically blocking at all, but you're making it like difficult for for them to go into the, into the given area, either the reproductive health service center or into the church. You can imagine someone on the street yelling and saying something that's very emotionally resonant, but not necessarily physically obstructing. That said, there have been cases where it seems kind of trivial the obstruction, where people are walking up to the individuals in their. path with like flyers and leaflets. And that's treated differently than someone giving a leaflet from the side because you're, you're trying to like stop there. Exactly. So the physical.

Yeah. So well, I was just going to say. So in this instance, people were, you know, were leaving the church as the protesters are there. Like they weren't obstructing, at least from what I watched the stream as well. They weren't obstructing people's like physical ingress or egress to the church. They were obviously obstructing the ability of the pastor to continue his sermon. So is it like physically obstructing into the actual building that is the legal standard?

Or is it obstructing their, you know, ability to continue what they were doing in the building? Yeah. It's not just ingress and egress. The statute defines physical obstruction and it contains ingress and egress. And so I think they're not seemingly trying to block ingress or egress. but it also includes kind of conduct that makes it like unreasonably unsafe or difficult to get into the service place. Now, the question is there have been some cases where protesters were, for example, in an abortion clinic or something. And they're sticking around because they know the cops are going to be there.

And they kind of are anticipating that they're going to stop the services. and you can see the kind of proximate cause of chain that they pretty much knew it was foreseeable that people are going to be asked not to enter. So the question is like in terms of that actus reus component, the physical obstruction, how much are we getting into constructive obstruction by their conduct within? There have been some cases where just conduct within has been enough, but not always. Let me ask you this. This was a saga requested question, but I think it's a good one.

So this was an article from the Washington Free Beacon about Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison who's been defending the protesters inside the church. And they are alleging that he is hypocritical because in some other instances, he supported the use of the face act. Specifically, one of the cases they talk about here was involving a mosque. There was an activist who was filming the members of the mosque and their children over the course of, I believe it was years over the course of years. they were sort of recording people going into and coming out of this mosque outside of Minneapolis. It says as Minnesota Attorney General submitted a brief in a 2020 federal lawsuit that accused in Minneapolis woman of violating the First Amendment rights of parishioners at Dar al-Ferouk mosque, Mosque outside of Minneapolis by filming them without their permission. Go on to say in 2015 as a House member, Ellison urged Obama Civil Rights Chief Vanita Gupta to investigate whether a group of protesters in Phoenix violated the Face Act by holding firearms during protests,

outside a Phoenix mosque. Quote, these demonstrators argue they are exercising their First Amendment rights. What they fail to understand is that First Amendment rights are not absolute. They are limited to protect the safety and rights of others. So does, do they have a point here, Piscoe, is this effective hypocrisy burn on Attorney General Ellison? I think it is. Yeah. I'm going to be honest about that. And listen, I'm a liberal Democrat.

And I, so I put my cards on my chest. But yeah, I kind of don't like these bad arguments from Democrats that, oh, this law is just about reproductive services and then you just go back and look at their track record. And they're happy to use them to protect the religious liberties of other people when it suits them. And there are some things that A.G. Ellison has done that I've that I've liked. But in general, yeah, I think that that's like a bit of hypocrisy on that. And additionally, what that article I think details is his unwillingness to do anything about this specifically. putting aside the FAS Act violations, there are potentially like, you know, trespass satches that could be applied here and other state analogs.

And it doesn't seem like he has any willingness to do that. I'm not saying that he should, but it's just something that people should take into consideration when sort of judging that conduct. If you think that that's acceptable, you're essentially saying that the law breaking in this context, which probably was some form of trespass, is justified given the interest. Now, I'm somewhat sympathetic to certain arguments to that effect, given what ICE is doing and the overwhelming illegality there, but it is a determination that you're going to have to make

if you want to defend the actions or inaction. I just want to jump in there and say, one of the reasons that people on the right, like Mike Lee, have long called for the repeal of the Face Act is that actually a lot of what is covered in the Face Act, if not all of what's covered in the Face Act, is already illegal for other reasons, and trespassing is a really good example of that,

and it's a really good example from last Sunday as well. So it's in Piscoe, you can speak to this, but from my perspective, it's always been, since it was going back to 1994 when it was signed, it's been a serious threat to free speech. I mean, the way the law is written, you were pointing out just the question about leaflets. If you're on a public sidewalk handing out leaflets, are you implicated under the Face Act? That's crazy. We have laws about trespassing on the books. And that applies to, you know, there are a lot of pro-life life.

who will intentionally go up and violate the FACE Act as an act of civil disobedience. And they know that they're going to be charged under the FACE Act. But then it can be used to build conspiracy against rights cases and all of that. So it's just whether it's a church or an abortion clinic, you can speak to this piece go. But I think it's almost a bipartisan. If you catch people in honest moments on the left and the right, they will tell you that the FACE Act has serious. speech concerns baked into the law itself. Yeah, no doubt about that.

And you put a bunch of great points there. I want to hit them all. The first is the legislative basis for the law in the first place. Putting aside the First Amendment issues, like, where does Congress derive that authority to even legislate in this domain? It's the government of limited powers. That has been sustained under the Congress's Commerce Clause abilities. And I know a lot of Congress or sorry, conservatives have a lot of things to say about that

specifically. And whether or not that it's gone too far and how much Congress is legislative. legislated in that domain. So I understand that totally. I think people would have less of a problem if it were just the force or threat part and the physical obstruction to the extent that it existed was ingress or egress only. Then it seems like, okay, maybe there's something there if it's a really important interest. And you raise something, a nuance that is super, super important, the conspiracy against rights part, which the administration is talking about incorporating. The KKK Act has a criminal part of it.

And Trump was actually charged with this as part of the Jack Smith indictments. If you, he just went up to Congress as well. That requires some sort of federal right in it. And you can use the KKK Act, a conspiracy against rights, and incorporate underlying face act violation, or at least some courts have held that. And so, yes, the face act being there, it's been sustained. for its First Amendment on facially, at least, there could be a NASDA applied challenge. It gives a lot of powers for the federal government to get involved

and then hits you with that conspiracy against rights if they can show that there's like more than one person agreeing to do this stuff, which often you can. Yeah. So then they'll go ahead, right? Then they'll try to roll up an entire like activist organization or everybody in a WhatsApp group or everybody on Facebook. Exactly.

Yeah, that's disturbing. Yeah. Piscoe, bottom line this one for us, you know, what would be your estimate of how likely the government is to succeed on these charges against these three activists? Oh, boy, hard to say. I think they're going to try to do the conspiracy against rights and incorporate an underlying face act violation. I think if I were to judge the arguments just based on the evidence so far of what I've seen of the facts, I think they're going to have an easier time on the intent prong of it than potentially the prong of physical obstruction.

It seems that courts have been quite liberal in applying the physical obstruction. Not totally and 100%. I'm not saying that every disruption at a proceeding or something constitutes a physical obstruction. But here you have, what is it, like 40 people. The numbers involved here, the pre-planning, I think it can be analogized to some of these cases in reproductive health care centers with like two, three, four people where they cause a disruption, sort of anticipating police to be involved. but, you know, here you have a difference where they didn't necessarily stay as long. But, yeah, so I think there's a lot of room for courts to judge that this was the physical obstruction. The harder part is, like, are they really trying to interfere specifically with the expression of civil liberties regarding religion?

I'm not sure. An example I would think about, and you guys tell me what you think of it. Suppose that we had a priest who was, like, accused of being inappropriate with altar boys. And someone, a group of five people come in and say, he's, you know, having inappropriate relations with altar boys, would we consider that purpose, the intent there to be to interfere with the expression of religious liberties just because as a consequence of trying to expose a crime or some kind of corruption that it entails stopping the service? That seems a little bit more far-fetched to me that the mere disruption constitutes the intent prong. But who knows, we'll see what the courts will decide. And as of now, without any court documents or any kind of complaints or indictments, I'm not comfortable doing it.

estimate. And how much, so this would be, this would be a jury trial in Minneapolis? Presumably, yeah. This would be in the federal court because it's a federal cause of action. And yeah, so it would be, you have a right to a jury trial there and to do the determinations. I will note that I think the case against Don Lemon is significantly weaker. To the extent that there's a weakness on the intent prong for the protesters, there's an even harder case for Don Lemon. And so I think it's kind of absurd, frankly. But, specifically the Don Lemon one, I think, is offensive. Yeah.

With regard to, you know, the fact it would be a jury trial. I mean, we've seen, we just saw yesterday a jury almost instantly find this guy not guilty in Chicago who had been charged with supposedly putting a $10,000 bounty on the head of Greg Bevino. And in Chicago, as part of the reporting on that, they were pointing out that of the, I think, 31 non-immigration charges that were filed. the context of what was that one, Operation Midway Blitz or whatever, that none of them have been found guilty yet. And 15 of them have either the charges have been dropped or they've been found not guilty. And we've seen a bunch of instances where juries are, grand juries are not indicting, where juries are finding, you know, are finding people not guilty. This was another example of that. So how much does that also play into the possibility of how they'll view the actions of these protesters? You really have to, at times,

doubt the seriousness of this Department of Justice, not just on some of these cases like the sandwich thrower case. Really? The binders. Devastating. Recently, for example, Lindsay Halligan, did you see the news where she's like, she's not actually appointed lawfully under the acts providing for interim officers for the Eastern District or for the Virginia District Court or the district district, U.S. Attorney's Office?

And go for it. Oh, go ahead. Eastern District in Virginia. Yeah. And the officers in the Department of Justice, when they were, when they're trying to, like, justify her using the title, the title of U.S. attorney, they're basically using the court filings as another forum to air their grievances as though they were on a news media. The judge specifically called them out for being too like polemical and being too weird.

And the court's like, we're not going to stoop to your level. Weird. Yeah. It's so weird. It's honestly boggling sometimes. And say nothing about James Comey indictments. So their failure rate is not usual given the track record of the Department of Justice. Department of Justice is known for having like very good case rates and usually being able to convict on all their stuff.

So this is abnormal. And the department is going through some things. That's well said. Well, Piscoe, thank you so much for teaching us about the law today. where can people find you? And, you know, guys, I love Piscoe. He's a debate gladiator, okay? I've seen him in the ring.

I saw him on a Tim Poolecast. He debated five people on stage and the crowd. So got any big debates or any big streams coming up soon, Piscoe. We have some people that are lined up, some people from the right, some people from the farther left. But yeah, we're trying to work stuff out. I just had a conversation with Drew Pavlou. Do you guys know who this person is?

He's like an online Australian. Yeah. Deeply. Yeah. And so he actually came to New York City and he's like, hey, do you want to put on like a show or something? Like a week before he's supposed to arrive. He wanted me to do a ticketed event so he could cover the Pisco Drew hour or something.

Totally wasn't going to happen. But he at least came and we filmed the thing together. And that was a fun debate about the Venice Wales strikes and about whether or not Trump is doing a good job. But you can find me at Pisco Liddy on all the platforms, YouTube, Twitter, whatever. We're always doing debates. And thank you again, guys. Appreciate your cover.

It's always really excellent. And yeah, looking forward to seeing what you guys. Yeah, of course. Piscoe also did one of the World War. Word War. Which also, Piscoe had a very interesting logo, very similar to the logo of our old breaking points logo. Yeah.

Some interesting AI happening at that event. Yeah. You guys tell me if you want to file like a trademark thing or something. Maybe we can work something out. But no, we don't do lawsuits, okay? We just talk to lawyers. That's right. But yeah, the World War debate, that was the one where Anna and Hannah Pearl Davis had this discussion about feminism was a total blowout.

But I was actually like the undercard. They're trying to do it like UFC. And so if you want to learn about birthright citizenship, we had a very interesting debate between me and another lawyer regarding Trump's executive action on birthright citizenship. Amazing. Awesome. We'll check all that out. Peaceco, Liddy. It will be in the description of this video.

And we'll see you later, Pisco. Thanks, Pisco. Thank you so much. Have a going, guys. Okay, new year, fresh start. And honestly, I'm starting with dinner. This year, I'm being smarter about where my energy goes, and dinner was taking way too much of it. I just signed up for HelloFresh, and they take fresh start to a whole new level. Fresh high-quality ingredients delivered right to my door, locally sourced whenever possible. Everything pre-portioned, nothing wasted. Now, I'm not

dragging myself through weekend grocery runs or panic staring at the fridge at 5.30 trying to make something out of random leftovers. And I'm definitely not tossing out food I never used or falling back on expensive takeout apps because I ran out of ideas. Yeah, that happened a lot. Just simple, stress-free recipes and meals that help me save more, waste less. And for the first time in a long time, I actually look forward to dinner. Get your fresh start right now and get 50% off your first box plus free sides for life with HelloFresh. That's right, free sides for life. Go to hellofresh.c.c. and use code dinner 50. That's hellofresh.ca.

Code Dinner50. Hey, what's up, y'all? This is Questlove recently. I had the opportunity to sit down with ASEAP Rocky ahead of his album release. Don't be dumb. He reflects on his journey

from his Harlem roots to global icon status, discovering the hip-hop origin of his name. The ledge was on the TV. Rakim had the bucket hat came gold during the past. That's Rakim. That's who you named after.

I just was like, damn that my f***. I got swag. Rocky offers a window into not only a boundary-breaking artist, but as a man committed to fusing creative ideas, community, and remaining unapologetically himself. Have you ever gotten roasted for any of your outfits? For sure.

Some people don't be getting the vision. Look, they could roast me, they could cook me, they could deep-fribe meat, they could saute, whatever they want. It's nobody who can be with my fashion sense and my taste is impeccable. I'm just like, I impress myself. a lot. It's an amazing conversation. One, you definitely don't want to miss. So listen to the Questlove show on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

Hey there, this is Dr. Jesse Mills, director of the men's clinic at UCLA Health and host of the Mailroom podcast. Each January guys everywhere make the same resolutions. Get stronger, work harder, fix, what's broken? But what if the real work isn't physical at all? To kick off the new year, I sat down with Dr. Steve Polter, a psychologist with over 30 years experience, helping men unpack shame, anxiety, and emotional pain they were never taught the name. In a powerful two-part conversation, we discuss why men aren't emotionally bulletproof, why shame hides in plain sight, and how real strength comes from listening to yourself and to others. Guys who are toxic, they're immature, or they've got something they just haven't resolved. Once that gets resolved, then there comes empathy, as in compassion. If you want this to be the year you stop powering through pain and start understanding what's underneath, listen to the mailroom on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your favorite shows.

Okay, Ryan, we've got another guest in the mix here that we're going to bring in right now. Why don't you introduce him for us, Ryan? Oh, yeah, so sometimes on the Friday show, we invite candidates on. Other times we speak with Anthony Aguilar today. We're doing both in the same segment. Turns out you are crazy enough, not just to blow the whistle on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, but also to now run for Congress in the 13th District of North Carolina, which covers what, Raleigh and some of Fort Bragg.

Anthony, what are you thinking? Well, great question, fair question. And you know, this district covers all the way up to the North Carolina, Virginia border because of the gerrymandering last year to separate district two. It wraps around Raleigh and down south to where I live, where I have lived for the last 13 years where my children are raised, where they go to school, where we live and where I retired. So why, right? Like, why would I do this to myself?

You know, after 25 years of serving in the United States Army and retiring, I was looking very much forward to a retired life, a quiet life. And then I went to Gaza and the things that I saw and the things that I witnessed and what our government was complicit in forced me to take a hard look at what our government is doing, what our government is doing abroad and domestically. And as we've seen the course that we're on, tough questions need to be asked that aren't being answered. So since I returned from Gaza, from July until now, I was just in D.C. last week talking to members of Congress. And last week, by coincidence with doctors against genocide, we talked to Brad Knott, who is the incumbent in the current holder of this district. And in speaking to his staff, his staff was not a way. of any of the House resolution legislation for block the bombs, allowing aid into Gaza, the reference to what's happening in Gaza as a genocide, any of the War Powers Act's votes,

which we've seen go twice now in a dead tie broken by the vice president. If his staff isn't aware of those things, it's because he doesn't care about those things. But of all the members that we talk to, senators and representatives, both sides of the House, bipartisan, they have excuses for hard questions. And it's led me to believe that our traditional party system and those in power right now are compromised and they do not have American interests in mind. So once again, I feel that I need to step up and answer the call and, you know, dust off my boots, so to speak, and go back into serving the nation. And I find it as a calling. I don't see it as a, as necessarily any type of, um, political move in terms of me wanting to be a

lifelong politician. This is not what I had on my bingo card going into the new year, but I'm doing it because I care about our country. I care about the trajectory that our country is on. And I care about all of you. I care about our fellow citizens. I care about my children and how they're going to grow up in this world. Anthony, I was going to ask, you referenced it there that you feel frustrated with the two-party system. You feel let down by both parties and you've decided to run as an independent. I love for you to just speak more about what led you to make that choice. So a couple things in reflecting on my own political views and where I fell and kind of how I felt coming out of the military seemingly in a very apolitical type of mindset and then becoming very.

political, I would say, in my viewpoints and where I stood on certain issues. But if you look at the landscape of America right now, most millennials and Gen Z are identifying as independent. 40 to 50% of adults are identifying as independent. I'm a millennial, and I understand why we're identifying as independent. The problem is, is that there isn't really a good choice. This menu of two options between Republican or Democrat is a anemic menu with no fortitude and no character and no sustainment and nourishment to the American people. It's not a choice. It's a dilemma. The least bad of two bads. So looking into the parties to run with, I felt I cannot under good conscience morally and ethically run with Democrats or Republicans. I cannot align myself

to not only what they have been doing in action, but what their actions over the last, frankly, the last decade have been. Same for the Republican Party. I mean, even worse. So I looked at this and I'm like, what is the history of American politics and why do we just hold so tightly

onto this two-party system? And you know, it wasn't until our 18th president, Grant, before we broke into this two-party system. And since then, we've had 19 Republicans and 11 Democrats, and where has it gotten us? We're at war with the world. We're in debt through our eyeballs. We're selling off our children's future. We're destroying the planet.

We have people in America that can't afford health care or put food on the table. Before we had this two-party option, whether you could choose a Democrat or Republican, you know, George Washington himself ran unaffiliated. Then we had the Federalist Party. Then we had the Democratic Republican Party. then we had the National Republican Party, and then we had the Whig Party. And it wasn't until Andrew Jackson came along

as the first Democratic runner. And when he ran against John Quincy Adams, they called him the same thing. Oh, you're going to ruin, you're going to spoil the race. And he won. He won because of the principles he stood out as a candidate, not the party.

And then the Republican Party didn't come around until Abraham Lincoln. And then in Abraham Lincoln's second term, he didn't run as a Republican. He ran as a National Union Party. So this idea of this two-party system is a lie. It's a lie to keep America entrenched in corporatization and make Americans feel that your vote has to go one way or another,

and if you don't, you're wasting your vote. I believe that's why we have seen a greater number of voters not turning out to vote, of voters feeling like they don't have an option, and voters feeling more and more that they identify as independent or third party, but still voting for a Democrat or Republican because they feel they don't have a choice. I don't feel that in this race, I'm a spoiler. I feel that I'm enriching it. Who in this race, who is in the district and many in Congress, have the experience I have in

foreign policy at the tip of the spear for the last quarter century or have felt the repercussions of domestic policy back home after returning from combat? I have. Well, talk to us about your domestic policy, Tony, because we've talked to you in the context of foreign policy, but what does your domestic policy agenda look like? Do you, how would you describe it? Well, so first of all right now, and I just as an anecdote to my overall view, if you look at the Department of Homeland Security's strategy for the next five years, 2023 to

27, so we're about halfway through that strategy, $169 billion to continue to fund specifically ICE within the program of DHS. to increase ICE agents from 400 field agents to 10,000. Why? We can be putting money into healthcare, into education, into better jobs and a living wage where Americans don't have to spend,

unlib off a credit card. Where here in my own district where we have fracking and we have AI installations or AI, sites going up, sucking our water and our power. So when I look at these policies and how they're being employed and why, I'm not someone that thinks in this, in this hyperbole of abolish ice or, you know, or in this bombastic sense. We need reform. We absolutely do need reform. I don't believe that our system is broken. I believe that the people running the system and the people that have set the rules that we all have to abide by over the last decade plus don't have our

interest in mind. So I would look at domestic policy from a standpoint of the programs that we fund. Looking at the National Defense Authorization Act, looking at the National Defense Strategy, why are we funding the National Defense strategy to the Department of Defense with a $1.7 trillion budget next year. After this year, we just gave them $981 billion. That's not what the American people signed up for. That's not what the American people want. We do not want to be entrenched in endless war or war in our own hemisphere or making enemies of our closest partners, you know, between Canada and Mexico, where we can take advantage of the prosperity of what we have in this nation and not selling it to foreign lobbyists. I think that our domestic policy

has been sold to foreign interest. I want to sever that. As a candidate, I will take no money from political action committees to include, yes, A-PAC. I will take no money from large lobbyist groups or special interests, nor the military industrial complex. I have seen firsthand how the military industrial complex stretches its tentacles deep into our domestic policy, where we move weapons facilities, where we move space command headquarters, whether it should be in Alabama or Colorado, Colorado, back to Alabama,

simply because the president has a friend in Alabama. wasting American dollars. I know that I could look through the NDAA, just in that one piece of legislation, document earmarks and save the American taxpayer billions, but also put that money back into things that Americans want in our country. Anthony, on the reforming ICE position, now abolish ICE has become a very popular position

within the Democratic side of the party. You know, ICE has the incredibly large funding, larger than the GDPs of many countries. A lot of people are fixated on this killing of Renee Good. Yes. So what does, what does reforming ICE look like, especially because ice has only been around for about two decades. We didn't have ICE before.

Why do we need ICE now? And what, like, what are the specific reforms you're suggesting? First of all, as a, as a, you know, as a candidate in Congress that one of the first things I would get to work on is drafting a resolution to bring to my constituents and caucus on, on disbanding the bird program under the Department of Homeland Security. And that's the binational industrial research and development program. That is the program that attaches ICE to training with foreign entities such as the Israeli Ministry of National Security.

I would sever that program. That program is nothing more than a program to put Israel in the forefront of our domestic agencies. it serves no purpose. They are not trained well. We've seen the result of the training. Now, when someone says abolish ICE or abolish the border patrol

or abolish the police, under the current leadership and the current personalities that run those organizations, Christine Ome, Greg Bovino, yeah, it's pretty easy to want to say that. But in this country, do we want a border patrol?

Yes, we do. We share a large border with Canada and Mexico. do we want an immigration control element for illegal immigrants and so that we have a responsible immigration policy? We do. Not under the current way that it's funded. Where we have turned the Border Patrol and we have turned ICE and we have turned the TSA

and we have heard other components of the DHS into an internal policing security mechanism against American people funded, as you said, more than the GDP. of some nations and we're turning them into an army. 400 right now, what we're seeing on the streets of our country, Minneapolis, Washington, all around the country. That's only 400 ICE agents. Imagine 10,000. That's what the current budget, this budget that was just passed that was pushed through

to get us to this 1.7 trillion, you know, where we were supposed to thank Congress for doing their job, approved DHS Security Strategy, FY26, which we've now started in October, into 27 for that funding that I just described to you for $169 billion to field 10,000 ICE agents. We don't need that. We should abolish that. Abolish the entire agency? No.

I have been in the military long enough, and I have lived through budget cuts and military expenditures and spending cuts that when you take a cut to the bone through programs, you make things worse. We should be surgical in our approach to what we cut. We should be surgical in our approach to what we fund because that's what the American people deserve. Every single penny that goes into these programs comes out of our pocket, comes out of the food on our table, the college fund for our children. And that penny should be spent responsibly. And it's not. So I am not an advocate of saying abolish this or abolish that. But I think that we need some serious, deep reform in those agencies from the top down, all the way down to the field agent. The behavior and the

tactics that we saw in the streets of Minneapolis, that's not a coincidence. We, the American taxpayer, paid for that training through the funding of the binational industrial research and development program outlined in the DHS, funded under the NDAA and written off by this Congress to continue to pay for into 20. And what comes in 2026? Midterm elections. Next election coming up. Presidential election. We're going to have 10,000 ICE agents on the streets of America. That's scary. So, Anthony, the reason why myself and others who support Abolish ICE do so is not because, I mean, I'll speak for myself, not for everybody, but not because I want to completely end immigration enforcement, but because I believe this particular agency is a rogue agency. And I'll tell you what I mean by that. So you're obviously retired. military highly decorated. And even though I think the Trump administration is doing things to try to turn the military into just their personal foot soldiers, I have confidence that if you elected a Democratic president, that the military command would follow the leadership of the commander in chief,

that they would obey the orders, the lawful orders of whoever the commander in chief was, whether they be Democrat or Republican. I believe ICE is different in that they are, especially this surge of recruits are being brought in specifically to be the foot soldiers of this administration and to pursue this particular policy, not to be loyal to the country regardless of who is in charge. That's the reason why, while I support, you know, having some immigration enforcement, why I think this particular agency is so rotten and so rogue, it needs to be eliminated entirely and that we could go back to the system that we had prior to the war on terror where immigration enforcement was housed in, you know, in a different agency. INS.

Yes. Yeah, being from South Texas and living in a border city, I'm very familiar with the previous policies that INS and why ICE was created, very much a product of the global war on terror and the Patriot Act and looking at Americans as the enemy. So in the sense of abolishing the agency. So what I would say to clarify my position is, we should not abolish the function. Abolish the agency and its current operations and its current agency and the people that are in it. Yes, I do not want to abolish the function.

If you look at the function prior under Immigration and Naturalization Services or INS in that function, we didn't have militarized federal agents storming the streets of America, kicking indoors without warrants and arresting five-year-olds. We have that now because of the agency and what it has become. So to that point, I agree with you wholeheartedly. And to the point of who they're recruiting, true story. Many of those infidels motorcycle club bikers that served in the GHF because it was the hottest thing going, guess where they're working now?

ice. You know that for a fact? I know that for a fact. Not only have I seen them on videos, I have identified them, and I have seen some of them that have celebrated it. Some of the same individuals

that were in Gaza, shooting people in the face with tear gas, shooting at people with machine guns, billy clubbing people and spraying them with the entire can of mace in the face. Palestinians, unarmed Palestinians, are now working in the field as ICE agents. That's a fact.

We should also note that we spoke with the Chapin-F spokesperson for the GHF, and refer people to that interview to hear their perspective on all of those. We can link to it in the bottom here. Sure. Yeah, when I look at things like that, that demographic is what ICE is recruiting. individuals that are already prone to an extremist viewpoint against immigrants or Arabs or any type of minority or quote unquote foreigner who already have a propensity for violence.

Those are the people that they're hiring. And how much are they paying ICE agents now? Around 200 grand. How much were they paying us while we were in Gaza? In Gaza, about two grand a day. It's about the same. That's the price of freedom. That's the price of truth.

That's the price of integrity. Give someone two grand a day. and they will turn their back on all American values and they will be the extremist gestapo that you want them to be. And that is what ICE has become. So to the notion of abolishing the agency as it is, yes, I do not want to abolish the function.

So therefore, when you talk about abolishing the agency, you have to be very careful when it comes to fiscal year and calendar year spending and earmarks in the Congress. You have to plan ahead for that. So if you abolish the agency, you then do not have an agency to build within that for the function. So abolish it, yes, but do not abolish the function.

The function should be reinforced in a way that promotes immigration in our country, because after all, we are a nation of immigrants. You could send them all a fork in the road email, too. There you go. We're going to actually follow the Constitution now, fork in the road. Like, if you want to do that. I find it to be a very, a very simple notion, very clear set of guidelines that if we follow the Constitution and what it was designed to be as a document for our nation, right now, if, you know, the Constitution is in left field of Wrigley Stadium, we're somewhere in Barcelona. We're nowhere near it. We're not even in the same sport.

So on the horse race, what's the, what's this newly drawn district like when it comes to the composition of registered Republican? Democrats and independents and third party? And Brad not, as he was running for re-election, I haven't even called. So here in this district, the incumbent, Brad not, this is his first office holding right now. He will run as an incumbent. The incumbent Republican typically sweeps in the primary, which will be in March. And then when he goes into the general, he'll have to face me. He is an APAC recipient, big time APAC recipient.

And he'll have to answer for that. I think Americans are tired of that. The other piece with District 13, District 13 encompasses eight counties, Wake County being one of them where Raleigh is, which is the capital of North Carolina. And now District 2, Deborah Ross, a Democrat who also takes A PAC money, it cuts Wake County in half. And as I was looking at where to run in North Carolina 13, I didn't want to be a carpetbagger and run out of district or run just to run like a Randy Fine or someone to that nature. I want to run where I live, where my children go to school, where I pay my trash bill, where I pay my electric bill, where the school bus picks up my kid and drives them to school on public roads, where I live, where my wife lives, where we live and work and raise our family. That's where I want to represent because I live here. It's a self-interest in a way, but I also, I deeply care about the people in this district because a lot of them in the four counties that surround Fort Bragg,

are veterans and military, and they're getting screwed over. And part of my platform is advocating for veterans, for veterans benefits, for mental health. As an example, to yesterday, I had a VA appointment. And because funding was cut

to build the VA hospital in Sanford where I live, which cuts the distance in half for people that live between the two, wasn't funded. It wasn't funded because we're spending money on ice. So whenever I have to go for a VA appointment, free health care offered by the government,

I have to drive an hour and 15 minutes away. That's not putting veterans first. That's not putting Americans first. And it was in the funding and it was cut. Where did that money go? That money went to a ballroom. That money went to ICE. That money went to war in Venezuela and secret sonic weapons.

Apparently Trump is paying for the ballroom himself. But I think the other ones, yeah. Well, he took donors to pay for the first $130 million. The price tag is now $300,000. 19 million and that is coming out of our pockets because it's going to fund the national registry of historic sites through the national parks. That money is going there. What I always say, follow the money.

So you're with a saga on demolishing the ballroom. What's that? Sauger wants to demolish the ballroom once Trump is out. Would you support that? You know, I was in the army when we went through this kerfuffle of naming all the bases. And I thought, okay, well, if we're going to name all the bases, we're never going to make everybody happy. So let's just name the base for the city it's in.

Let's just do like the Navy does or what the Air Force does, like Mountain Home or let's just name it for the city it's in. But we went to this whole kerfuffle of changing the name, which cost the American taxpire for military bases that were named after Confederate generals, which I agree with the notion of, that cost over $30 million,

signage, funding, ridiculous. And within the first week of Donald Trump coming back into office, one of his first executive decisions was to change it back. So now I watched it. I literally watched at Fort Bragg on the road that I drive on every day coming home from my son's school, where that sign went from Fort Bragg to Fort Liberty to Fort Bragg. And the same dude that worked for the Department of Public Works was the one out there changing the sign because I took a picture with him.

I'm like, don't you think this is ridiculous? And he was like, yeah, man. And he's like, I just took this sign down last week. I was going to take it home and put it in my garage. But before I could even leave work today, they were telling us to put this new one back on. So $60 million down the drain because of some pedantic, petty job creation. Yeah. You know, and it's just you had, you know, when they're like, oh, it's going back to Fort Bragg.

You know, you had all the old timers that have been working on Fort Bragg since before I was born, like have to go race back to their garage to get some. stuff at it like, you know, they were, they were, they were historic items. So yeah, it's, it's a waste. So when you look at this ballroom piece, it's, it's disgraceful. It's absolutely disgraceful that when you look throughout our country, you have hardworking Americans, hardworking Americans, not Americans taking handouts. And in most cases, we refuse even a hand up because they want to work hard and they want to provide for their family. And they make ends meet by working two, sometimes three jobs, both in the household work. I know that because where I go to school in the neighborhood that I live in, we're very close. And we sometimes have the neighborhood

kids over when their parents are at work and we kind of help with that communal aspect of, you know, caring for the neighborhood kids. And I see people having to work incredibly hard just to put food on the table and pay the bills. Well, our president is building a lavish ballroom in front of our eyes where the price tag was lied to us and is tripled. He's not a good builder, as he says he is, or the real estate magnate. He is not those. He's horrible at it. He just has endless money and he's entitled.

And when I look at that, the scene that goes through my head is like, if Great Gatsby was written in 1984 in a third world country. Anthony, thank you so much for choosing us to break the news of your candidacy. We're very honored. We're grateful for you, you know, stepping up to serve in a new way. Once again, tell people where they can find more about your campaign and support you if they're inclined. Aguilar for us congress.com. You can find all the information and links to the social media associated to the platform. And then also, when I saw you last, I myself was not on social media. I am now. Oh boy. I've become part of the new generation. So look out America. I'm learning how to do tick-tack and Instagram. It's crazy.

But the reason I specifically wanted to ask Emily, Ryan, Crystal, is because you've always been a strong voice. You've always stood on the principles of truth, regardless of the consequence, and you're strong and you're courageous. I follow everything that y'all do. And when I first came back from Gaza, you were one of the first that wanted to hear the story, and that amidst the lies and the slander that were just incredulous, you stood strong against that with truth and integrity. And whether or not we agree on everything,

I know that I can trust you because you're a platform of integrity. And that's what's important to me, integrity. And you represent that. And you are warriors, that you are warriors out there asking hard questions, asking hard kidding questions. I've watched your platform. And when someone's in the hot seat and you ask them a hard question and they're BSing you, you do not let them off the hook. I love that. Well, that means. a lot coming from you, Anthony. So thank you so much for all of those kind words. And also, like I said, I ran for Congress once. I know it is a major sacrifice, the level of scrutiny you're going to get. It's not always a fun thing. So thank you so much for putting yourself in the hot seat once again.

I think the mudslinging with the GHF prep me well. I'm ready. Yeah, that's true. You are ready. Well, thank you very much. And have a great day and have a safe weekend. I know we're going to get some winter weather. So be safe. Indeed, yeah, be safe, Anthony. Thank you. Good luck. Anthony Aguilar, independent for Congress. Thank you.

Carolina's 13th district. All right. Perfect, perfect. That was Anthony, and that's going to be the end of the first half of the show, folks. We're going to be talking about a lot of stuff here in the second half. We're going to be looking at Jared Kushner's plan for New Gaza. We might be looking at Elon's promise that we're all going to have a personal robot in the next two to four years. look excited of that.

And maybe we will take some intensive looks at Trump's hand that has not been looking at lately. Definitely got to do that. He clipped it on a table. He clipped it. Many such cases. Crystal, it has to go to a gymnastics meet. Is that what's going on?

Yeah, we had some, she was supposed to be this weekend because of the snow. They moved it up. So now it's today. So, yeah. But you guys better do excellent medical analysis on this hand. situation. Okay, I'll be checking in. If you want to see the rest of the show, the second half of the show, you can go to breakingpoints.com to sign up,

become a member, and support breaking points. And we'll see you all there in just a moment. Bye, bye. Hey, it's Joel and Matt from Howto Money. If your New Year's resolution is to finally get your finances in shape, we've got your back. Prices, they're still high. And the economy is all over the place. But 2026 is the year. for you to get intentional and make real progress. That's right.

Yeah, each week we break down what's happening with your money, the most important issues to focus on, and the small moves that make a big difference. Kick off the year with confidence. Listen to How to Money on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hello, hello, all my people, what's up? It's Questlove.

Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with the one and only ASAP Rocky. He reflects on his journey from Harlem Roots to global icon status. And discovering the hip-hop origin of his name. The ledge was on the TV. Raq Kim had the bucket hat can go join on. My post is like, that's Raqim. That's who you named after.

I just like, damn, that fucking I swear. But listen to the Questlove show on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. This season on Dear Chelsea with me, Chelsea Handler, we've got some incredible guests like Kumail Nanjiani. Let's start with your cast. How is she? She is not with us.

Okay, great, great, great way to start. Maybe you will cry. Ross Matthews. You know what kids always say to me? Are you a boy or girl? Oh my God. All the time. That's so funny.

I know. So I try to butcher it up for kids so they're not confused. Yeah, but you're butching it up is basically like Doris Day. Right? No, I turn into Be Arthur. Listen to these episodes of Dear Chelsea on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.