Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 3/20/26: Bibi Demands Ground Troops, Hegseth Caught Lying, Iran War Master Plan w/ David Sirota

Episode Date: March 20, 2026

The BP team takes a look at Netanyahu demanding ground troops invade Iran, Hegseth caught lying about conversations with the families of dead U.S. service members, and then David Sirota of The Lever joins us to talk about season 2 of The Master Plan and how the oligarchs have constructed the current moment with Iran. David Sirota: https://the.levernews.com/master-plan/   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 I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Hi, it's Joe Interesting, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast, where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And today I'm talking with my dear friend, Krista Williams. It can change you in the best way possible. Dance with the change. Dance with the breakdowns.

The embodiment of Pisces' intuition with Capricorn power moves. So I'm, like, delusionally proud of my charge. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. Good people. What's up? What's up? It's Questlove. So recently, I had the incredible opportunity to have a real conversation with an actress and producer, Jamie Lee Curtis, from routines to recovery, true lies, and a certain Jermaine Jackson music video.

Jamie's real and raw. And it's something I really admire about her. I am so happy that I'm the head bitch in charge at 67, that I have the perspective that I have at my age to really be able to put all of this into context. Listen to the Questlove show on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than No Grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F-1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend,

the recent uptick in F-1 romance novels and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip 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 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. Folks, we have an amazing show for you this morning. How are we doing, Crystal and Emily? doing well. Ryan is, I think, on Route 2, Cuba is the idea. So just us this morning. Ryan is pursuing regime change in Cuba. I think Emily said he's going to be installed by the CIA. We don't know that he won't. It's too early to say.

That's true. That is true. We have no evidence that he will not be installed as the new Cuban puppet dictator of the United States. So wait and say. Comrade grim. He stopped in Miami to pick. pick up some expats. He picked up clavicular. Now they're heading over to Cuba. That's exciting. We also have some other housekeeping saga later today is interviewing former counterterrorism official Joe Kent. So stay tuned for that. Between the two of them, we've never gotten closer to a host being arrested. Sort of a Don Lemon-style situation. So I'm very excited for all that. But we've got a big show today. You know, you did just inspire a thought, though, Griffin. How amazing would a Ryan clavicular interview

actually be. Really, really good. I mean, I feel like that would be groundbreaking. I don't know. Did you guys just see that Andrew Callahan? I know you did because I sent it to the chat. Because you sent it. Because you sent it.

Yes. Am I kidding? You saw it. I also saw the moment where he met his biggest supporter on kick because you sent it. Oh my goodness. That was really, that was honestly just kind of heartbreaking and sad all the way around as clavicular often is, in my opinion. but the moment with Callahan where his clavigalor's like,

there's really nothing you would change about your face when you look in the mirror. And Callahan just like leans back, crosses his legs. And he's like, no, not a thing. And clavicular crashes out, major cortisol spike and ends the interview. It's kind of extraordinary. Male self-confidence is his kryptonite.

Mm-hmm. Good point. Which I think is also, I think Ryan would destroy him then, yeah. as someone who's tried to upgrade Ryan's appearance myself and, you know, hit a wall there. But yeah, you tried to look smacks for Ryan. Got shut down. The time he told Ryan to fix his hair and he just went. But folks, let's get to some far more serious topics here.

We have a lot going on in the show today. We have updates on possible ground deployment on or near the Iranian border with U.S. troops. We've got some oil updates and we've got some potential contradictions between what Hegset heard from the fallen soldiers family and what Hegset has been saying. And then we also have David Sorota coming on to tell us a little bit more about the updates or the phase two of the master plan. So we're excited to speak to him. Plus a whole bunch more. And that's focused on the unitary executive, like basically the way that previous administration's

over decades and previous operatives over decades have turned the presidency into effectively a monarchy just in time for Trump to come in and want to be king and have the powers to do so. Really great timing there. But let's start with our friend Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says can't do a revolution in Iran from the air. There needs to be a ground component as well. He says there are many possibilities for a ground component but won't share what they are. What do we make of that? Yeah. It certainly looks like that's the direction we're heading in and we can talk about some additional reporting about, you know, it's really coming down to the straight of four moves. It's also, we now have the Houthis Ansarala

who are saying they are going to join the fight, which means that one of the alternative pathways for oil will potentially also be shut down because they successfully shut down that pathway previously, just using, you know, drones and menacing ships in the area. So, you know, at this point, I think what Netanyahu is acknowledging here is that he has helped to get the U.S. to a point where there is going to be no more significant strategic success without some ground troop component, which he's happy to see our service members go in and fight and get slaughtered and us to be weakened in the region along with, of course, Iran and the GCC member states being weakened as well. And, you know, I'm always very clear that ultimately this is all Trump's fault. He's the one who

ultimately decided to go in. You know, I think a lot of the reporting about, oh, they have different aims and maybe there's going to be a blow up, blah, blah, blah. I put that in the same category as the repeated leaks to Barack Ravid during the Biden, the Brandon administration, where it was always very upset with Netanyahu, blah, blah, blah. I think they're similarly absurd that there's some significant break coming between the Trump regime and the Netanyahu regime. But, you know, one other thing that I'll mention here is in Netanyahu's comments, which we're going to play some others of that are very interesting than I want to hear Emily's take on for you in a moment. But he did a classic thing of in English, he was like, this thing could be over really quickly. I think in response to a question from Richard Engel, he was like, this could be over a lot quicker than people think. And then in Hebrew to the Israelis is like, this is going to go along as long as it needs to go. We're going to be in here as long as we need to be there. So, you know, very different messages to the English speaking world versus the domestic audience in Israel. And I think the two things that seem right now, fundamental things that seem to have been totally, what's the right word here, like I don't want to use the word that's too generous, but seem to have been underestimated on behalf of the United States is the Strait of Hermuz and what Iran would do, how far they would go with the Strait of Hermuz, and the ability of anti-regime coalition forces on the ground in Iran to stage some type of revolution. And, and,

that's where you do airstrikes. You see the president saying this is for the freedom of the Iranian people. We now know that they were overly confident about what would happen in the Strait of Hermuz. And with those two puzzle pieces being clearly, I mean, the administration, they probably weren't 100% certain about either of them. But clearly they thought the likelihood that they would be able to have a revolution. They would be able to create the conditions for a revolution that would topple the regime. if they kill the Ayatollah and struck all of these different places and created chaos,

the Israelis obviously have a different take on that than our government does. But if you have those two pieces wrong, you can see how you start getting closer and closer to ground troops, which is exactly what people were saying. It's exactly what we were saying on this show. It becomes a spiral. And it's so easy for it to happen. But when you have those two puzzle pieces, being incorrect.

That's how you get ground trips. It's exactly the recipe that people predicted. It is the escalation trap, as Professor Pape has laid out for us multiple times on our show, where now the only way that Trump could actually end this war at this point would be not only for him to walk away, but for there to be significant concessions given to Iran. I mean, he would have to not only walk away, but walk away with his tail between his legs saying, what would you like to make you feel safe and secure Iranian government that is still firmly in place and now also is directly controlling who comes and goes from the Strait of Hormuz.

So it's, you know, I mean, he's in a, he has created an absolute mess for himself. And, you know, here's some of the indications. This is, again, Barack Ravid, Mark Caputo, about what is being considered Trump-Mull's risky Karg Island takeover to force Iran to open straight. We also have news that more Marines are being rushed to the region. There's expected to be some overlap between this new deployment of Marines and the Marines that have already been rushed into the region. So that seems like it could be, you know, leading to some sort of boots on the ground. I did see, Emily, do you remember who it was or Griffin?

Do you remember who it was one of the Republican senators who was like, well, if the boots are only on an island, that's not the same as boots on the ground in like mainland or on. I liked that redefinition of boots on the ground. Yeah, I wish I could remember who it was. But in any case, Reveed reporting here, the Trump administration considering plans to occupy or blockade Iran's Karg Island to pressure Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Let me also show you this U.S. warplanes and helicopters is from the Wall Street Journal, kickoff battle to reopen Hormuz. So this battle is already started now. U.S. and its allies have intensified the battle to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, sending low-flying attack jets over the sea land. to blast Iranian naval vessels and Apache helicopters to shoot down Iran's deadly drones,

according to American military officials. The stepped up operation is part of a multi-stage Pentagon plan to reduce the danger from Iranian-armed boats mines and cruise missiles, which have halted ship traffic through the waterway. Not exactly. Iran is getting the ships through that they want to get through. But in any case, if the danger can be reduced, the U.S. could send U.S. warships through the straight and eventually escort vehicles in and out of the Persian Gulf, but it will still likely take weeks for the U.S. to clear out Iran's web of assets that have harassed traffic through a showpoint for 20% of the world's oil experts in a large amount of commercial

shipping traffic. And there is a quote in here. They're using these A10 whart hogs extensively in this operation, apparently for the military people out there to whom that means something. And there is a quote in here where someone, an analyst, as military analyst says, look, even here it is, lowering the threat to the point where ships can resume transiting the straight, is doable, but it takes time and you are probably never going to get to 100%. We could reach a stage where we're getting ships through and they could still get a lucky shot. So that is the landscape at this point. You know, the battle is already joined.

They have already escalated. They're now trying to, you know, restore control over the Strait of Hormuz, the ability of our ships and our allies ships to be able to pass through. And it will take a lot of time. it will be very risky and very dangerous. And even after all of that work, even in the most optimistic scenario, you are still going to have the possibility of an Iranian drone coming in and blowing something up with devastating consequences for, you know, for lives and treasure. You know, I saw an update this morning that the death toll right now in Lebanon is around 1,000 and Iran is around 1,300. And I don't know the breakdown. First of all, I mean, I don't know

how confident we are in those numbers or the reports are in those. those numbers, but, and I don't know what the breakdown is of civilians to militants, that's 2000 already in this war. That's 2000. I mean, we're in double digits of Americans. That's 2,000 people just in the time span of a couple of weeks. And we're so numb to people being bodies in the Middle East, in particular in the Middle East. That's, especially after Gaza, But that's, it's hard for me to believe how little conversation there is about how much death there's already been. Yeah. Well, and we had a major incident yesterday as well.

I can put this up on the screen where an F-35 aircraft was apparently struck by the Iranians. This marks a first. This is an extraordinary. This is like the highest tech of our high-tech fighter jets. It's supposed to be stealth. The fact that they were able to hit this plane, this jet was apparently very significant, says U.S. F-35 aircraft makes emergency landing after a combat mission over Iran. By the way, there is some, I think, appropriate skepticism about exactly the story that we're being told here that the F-35 fighter jet landed safely and the pilot is in stable condition.

I have seen some conjecture. They haven't said where or who or any of the specific. So there is some conjecture over whether that part of the. this is true or not. I also saw some conjecture that another F-35 may have also been struck, but this is all still very unconfirmed. What we do know is that Iran was at least able to hit this one jet. And the Iranians released some of the footage that they purported to be from that takedown. They said an F-35 fighter jet from the U.S. has made an emergency landing at an airbase in the Middle East. After carrying out a combat mission over Iran, aircraft landed safely. Pilot is in

stable condition. We are aware of reports that a U.S. F-35 aircraft conducted an emergency landing at a regional U.S. Air Base after flying a combat mission over Iran. Aircraft landed safely. Incident is under investigation. CNN reported two anonymous sources saying the plane, which costs up to $100 million, was likely hit by Iran. So the fact that they can take shots at these things, this, according to the military analysts, is very significant. because it makes it much more dangerous for the U.S. to just fly these sorties over Iran because now you're like, oh, they have a capability. We did not know that they had. So now we have to plan for that. And that is a, you know, that is a very clear risk for these pilots who are involved. We've already had a number of other aircraft, American aircraft. I saw, you know, upwards of somewhere around 16 that have been damaged or destroyed in a variety of circumstances. Some of the circumstances I continue to believe we're not getting the accurate. story about, including the three that just plummeted from the sky. And they're like, oh, oops, friendly fire. We didn't know, you know, something happened. The refueling one is also

big question marks there, too. They said it was like it wasn't offensive or defensive. It was like a neutral error that those three planes went down. Is this like the ghost of Kuwait or something? Like, I'm not really sure what's happening. Well, one of the theories, one of the theories, again, unconfirmed, but listen, I mean, we just can't believe anything this government says at this point. We'll tell you about some of the just insanely basic things that Pete Hegseth is out here lying about in a moment. But in any case, one of the theories is that it was actually like a GCC allied pilot that went rogue, a Kuwaiti pilot in particular, and intentionally shot down our fighter jets. That's one of the theories. And to me, that's much more plausible, at least, than the idea,

like, oopsies, we just had some sort of an unspecified incident. And all three of these happened to, you know, crash to the ground in the same day. Definitely doesn't make sense. Definitely does not head up. And this reporter from Newsmax shared some about the accelerated deployment of the Marines and sailors heading to the Middle East. Four officials tell Newsmax the Boxer,

amphibious ready group and the embarked 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit is deploying ahead of schedule. There are roughly 2,500 Marines, 4,000 total service members, seemingly to potentially take or block this Karg Island area, which essentially, you know, seems strategically kind of like a killbox for these U.S. soldiers.

Additionally, we have some sought here from Scott Besson talking about his ideas for Carg Island. Let's take a listen. Just laser focus on it. As I said, there was a bombing campaign last week. The military assets on Cargoy Island were destroyed. And the other thing I can tell you, if you're an oil worker, you don't want to work there. So all the oil workers are being coerced to stay there.

And we will see what happens with whether that eventually becomes a U.S. asset. All right. So it could eventually become a U.S. asset. Maybe the 51st state. You never know. The Republic of Karg. Yeah. And this is all amidst the fact that they tried to get other countries to come into the straight,

her moves to provide backup. They're all like, actually, we're going to hard pass on that. So I guess now we're like, okay, we'll just dump all of our servicemen in there. See how that goes. Well, and I was watching a BBC report last night. This probably sounds obvious to many people, but Iran has prepared for these possibilities for a long time, and they have other ports that aren't just going to, that Carg Island is not going to, a U.S. takeover of Carg Island is not going to prevent.

So prevent them from using. So it's just, it does look like escalation spiral. It does look like Trump might have some excuse to say this is limited operation, just like crystals that it's not boots on the ground. It's boots on the island as though the island isn't soil. And then you're from there, your boots on the ground. That's a we all know how that goes. We've all seen how that has gone over the last 20 years.

Well, and first from speaking of Professor Pape, you know, what he warns is, first of all, we were taking a look at the geography of this. area of these sheer cliffs, to Emily's point, you know, the Iranians have been gaming this out for literally decades thinking about this. They also learned a lot. Well, they learned a lot from the Iran-Iraq War, which we, of course, were, you know, backing Iraq in. And then we've learned a lot more recently from the 12-day war. And some of the speculation I've seen is actually this capacity to take down our F-35 fighter jets or potentially take them down was developed after the 12-day war. So that tells you they haven't just been sitting there like, I'm sure this diplomacy was

with Jared Kushner and Steve Wickoff's going to work out this time. No, they were clear-eyed. They knew that this was very likely, if not, you know, inevitable. And they've been thinking about how exactly to prepare. So taking Carg Island is one thing. Maybe you can, you could probably accomplish that, you know, with the U.S. military, you come in full force, bomb a bunch of shit, you know, kill a bunch of people and probably some of our service members die as well. But then you also have to hold Kark Island. And it's, you know, very close to the Iranian mainland. Would not be hard for Shahid drones, which have been apparently, you know, been able to fly at will basically wherever they want, damage whatever they want throughout this, throughout this war. So you are in a very,

very difficult position. And now what? Now you're entrenched on Karg Island and, you know, are you going to, now are we staying there forever? We're claiming this as a U.S. asset. Not clear that that's going to, certainly not going to topple the regime, as girlfriend and Emily, both of you guys are pointing out, they have other options, which again, they developed partly during the Iran-Iraq war, actually. It will definitely be damaging to their economic prospects. There's no doubt about that. But again, this is existential for them. So they're willing to take a lot more pain. And because we hold Karg Island also does not mean that we've cleared up the problems with the Strait of Hormuz, which is a separate and independent issue.

may help, but it's not going to solve that problem. So now a lot of the war focus is around this new problem that has been created in the war, where victories effectively being defined as just getting back to some semblance of the pre-war status quo, although even if you're able through some miraculous feed and Iranian-Klapped, military collapse, whatever, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, you have still created a situation where you have a more hardline government, in place in Iran, which is much more likely to pursue nuclear weapons and much less likely to engage in the future in any sort of diplomacy with you. And that is just sort of done and baked in at this point, which is part of why this escalation is very likely to continue. Because let's say

there is some miraculous off-ramp that is achieved right now. The Iranians rationally may very well begin pursuing, you know, a nuclear weapon or moving again in that direction. And Israel will be right here back in D.C., you know, Netanyahu himself and all of his allies saying, you're not going to let this happen. You said there can be no nuclear Iran. You can't let this happen on your watch. And we will be right back here all over again. So it is a very, very grim landscape in front of us. Yes. And it's not, it's sadly going, everything that you just laid out, Chris, I was struck by how this is what people were talking about, the likelihood of this happening, exactly what we're saying, like the outline of this is exactly what people were warning was going to happen. And being called panikins or whatever else, but like just three weeks ago, it was fairly clear that unless Trump did a quick cut and run midnight hammer thing, which he was not indicating is what he would do. Obviously, this was something at a larger scale. This, exactly. pattern pattern is probably the right word is what would reveal itself over the next couple of

weeks and i'm it's i don't think it gives anyone pleasure to be right about that but it's so it's going so closely to the script unfortunately yeah i want everyone to know yeah go ahead can you queue up the one uh where he's talking about number one state sponsor of terrorism and of course yeah yeah you got that ready to go for us so we got uh pete hexeth here talking about a little bit of the uh of the of the Iranian country. Let's take a listen here. That's why you had millions of Iranians protest because they felt like their condition quality of life didn't match what it could be or should be. And what was the Iranian state? There's a reason we call Iran the number one state monster of terrorism because they took the money they made and they invested in tunnels and they invested

in missiles and they invested in launchers and UAB. $200 billion. I think that number could move, obviously. It takes it takes money to kill bad guys. So we're going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we're properly funded for what's been done for what we may have to do in the future. Incredible. Incredible lack of self-awareness.

$200 billion. That tells you what they think is coming. That's exactly, that is your indication they are preparing for a long, drawn out war at this point, they're asking Congress right now for an additional $200 billion. Yes. And isn't, I think I saw some stats yesterday. That's more than we sent to Ukraine for years of that war, just for perspective. Like, this is a massive amount of money. And he says that that number could move. It's not moving down. The only direction it's going to move is up. I actually saw Lauren Bobrit this morning saying that she's a no on the additional

war funding. So, you know, she then got further pressed. Oh, well, do you you know, do you think that this war should continue? And she's like, that's up to Trump. So she kind of defers on that point, but at least is saying, ah, $200 billion, I don't think I'm voting for that. But the lack of self-awareness here of Hegset within minutes of each other saying that the reason Iran is the number one state sponsor of terror is because they take their money and they spend it on missiles. And then moments later asking Congress for $200 billion for missiles. taking our money and spending on missiles for starting World War III and bombing little girls in a great school. Pretty astonishing. And, you know, the American public is so propagandized that I think most people won't even won't even really notice that. It's like it's different when Iran does it than when we do it. You know, it's just it's not the same when they do it.

But, you know, that is the reality of what our state is becoming. They're asking for a $1.5 trillion dollar defense budget. They already have a $1 trillion defense budget. And now you're coming back and asking for $200 billion more for a war that we're told has already been a glorious victory. Trump told us we already won this thing, this little excursion, just so insane. And you can only imagine what good could actually be done with that money instead. I just want to say, I just pulled this up, Crystal. This is astounding. So as according to the Council of Foreign Relations, Council of Foreign Relations, as of December 31st, 2025, the U.S. Congress has made available.

$188 billion in spending related to the war in Ukraine, according to the U.S. Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve. So think about that. Think about that, everyone. Over several years of war in Ukraine, 188 billion, which is a lot of money, by the way, already a lot of money. We are two, three weeks into, I guess three weeks now into this war in Iran, and they're asking for $200 billion from Congress.

over a war, I mean, again, Donald Trump said he would end the war in Ukraine, he said end the war in Gaza, but he said he would not start new wars, not start new wars. And this entire question of whether there was an imminent threat, we're playing semantics with it right now. But I think everybody understands because the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House came out and said it when the war started was nudged, at least the timeline was nudged by the Israelis. And I agree with Crystal. I think our government has plenty of agency. If that's the case, we chose. We still made our decision. But the question of whether this is a war of choice or necessity has pretty much been answered. And $200 billion, $200 billion request three

weeks into it. I'm Bailey Taylor and this is it girl. You may know me from my it girl series I've done on the streets of New York over the years. Well, I've got good news. I am bringing those interviews and many more to this podcast. Yes, we will talk about the and the success, but we are also talking about the pressure, the expectations, and the real work with the women's shaping culture right now. As a woman in the industry, you're always underestimated. So you have to work extra hard and you have to push the narrative in a way that doesn't compromise who you are in your integrity.

You know, I like to say I was kind of like a silent ninja. Each week, I have unfiltered conversations with female founders, creatives, and leaders to talk about ambition, visibility, and what it really takes to build something meaningful in the public eye. Because being an it girl isn't about the spotlight, it's about owning it. I think the negatives need to be discussed

and they need to be told to people who maybe don't do this every day just so they know what's really going on. I feel like pulling the curtain back is important. Listen to It Girl with Bailey Taylor on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Why hasn't a woman formally participated

in a Formula One race weekend in over a decade? Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age. What can we learn from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly popping up every year? He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction. And how did a 2023 event called Wagageddon change the paddock forever? That day is just seared into my memory. I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman,

and these are just a few of the questions I'm tackling on no grip, a Formula One culture podcast that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport. In each episode, a different guests and I will go deeper into the wacky mishap, scandals and sagas, both on the track and far away from it, that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Good people. What's up? What's up? It's Questlove. So recently, I had the incredible opportunity to have a real conversation with actors and producer, Jamie Lee Curtis, ahead of the release of her new thriller series, Scarpetta.

I can honestly say I've never done an interview like that before. You know, at one point I shut my laptop down. And we just started chatting as old friends, recent Oscar recipient. So we have some commonality there. I predicted that, by the way. And you said these words to me, dust off your mantle. Yes. And I looked at you and I said, what?

and you said dust off your mantle. And then I left and that was it. And then when all of that happened, I remember the next morning, I think I wanted to like write you and go, how did you know? Listen to the Questlove show on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaking of Heg said having a hard time selling this war, we have a clip here where he did a little story from his son on why we have to keep fighting this war. My 13-year-old son popped into my office last night while I was editing these remarks. He asked about the war in the families I met at Cove. And I looked at him and I said, they died for you,

so that your generation doesn't have to deal with a nuclear Iran. Truth. It's the families who said, finished this. We will. And I say the same to every American who wants peace through. All right. So the families of the fallen soldiers, they told Pete, you know what, it's worth it.

Let's finish this. Finish the damn job. Except some of the families are disputing that conversation. Father of service member, Kildenai, Iran War, said he never told Pete Hegseth to finish the job. they go on to say in this article that they are just a little confused and unsure. You know, I mean, these are patriotic families, right? So, you know, this is not something that they want to believe that their son or daughter, you know, died for a reason.

But they're just, they just are not sure. And that was the conversations in this report that they were asking Pete about. I hope this is worth it. Just so senseless. And we actually had a video of another parents of fallen service member saying, you know, I'm actively wanting the war to stop. So to lie about something like this to me is just so incredibly low. Like to use these service members' families and then to put words in their mouths so that you can use them like a little puppet, you know, to get your talking points across is so disgusting to me. Not to mention, obviously, the story with his own son is completely and totally fake.

And even if it's not fake, I am driven completely insane by the gaslighting here about the timeline. Let us not forget. It was the first Trump administration that tore up the Iranian nuclear deal that was working. And it was this Trump administration that twice used diplomatic negotiations as a ruse to attack and start a war with Iran in that second set of negotiations. We now have multiple people who are involved. We have the Omanis. We actually have one of the British officials involved who said there were incredible concessions made here. This was a deal that was workable that went beyond. If you were concerned that the original deal with Obama wasn't strong enough, it went beyond that. And they didn't even bother

these clowns to send negotiators that even understood what was being discussed. So for him, for him to say, oh, we're doing the work to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon to make the world safe for our children. What total and complete bullshit. You have made it more likely that Iran, and by the way, a whole host of other countries around the world, pursue nuclear weapons because that is ultimately the only deterrence that may work to keep us from coming in and bombing their countries and murdering their children and their heads of state. And Doge also cut a bunch of the energy and nuclear scientists that would have been able to analyze and create like a new framework or a new deal for us. So thank you big balls for that as well. Emily, what were you saying? Well, I just said the idea that Iran's, that you're going to stop Iran from wanting a nuclear weapon so long as Israel has nuclear weapons. It's just not happening.

And like that is just in the Middle East, there are multiple countries with nuclear capacity. So if you're Iran, you can't bomb away the sentiment that they want to be, they want to have a nuclear weapon capacity. And you can try to, you could even try to change the regime. And it's not going to bomb away the sentiment among people in Iran that that's something that they should have that they need to have. And that, as Crystal was saying, in of itself, is the idea that we're not going to be dealing with this in another generation. unfortunately, tragically, not happening. And on that note, Emily, we needed your expertise for this next one before we get to Saroda. So we don't know why we're doing it.

We don't know who we're doing it for. Actually, we may now know who we're doing it for, the spirit of Gangus Khan. Let's take a listen to Netanyahu here. Most rule the lessons of history. Very brief, 100 page. In which he said, history proves. that unfortunately, I'm happy, Jesus Christ has no advantage of Virginia's honor.

Because if you are strong enough, ruthlessly, powerful, evil will overcome good. Aggression will overcome moderation. So you have no choice. If you look at the world as it is today, you have to be blind not to see. The democracy led by the United States, have to reassert their will to defend themselves and to oppose their enemies in time while

there's still time before the jarring gong of danger wakes them up and wakes them up too late. This is where we are now. The jarring gong of danger. All right. Yeah, that's my bad name. Bong. Emily, I know you're always asking yourself, what would Jenghis Khan do? Yeah, WWGKD, that's your bumper sticker.

I have the bracelet. I mean, apparently he's paraphrasing Durant, who was making a comment on human nature. Let me pull up that quote. I have it. Nature and history do not agree with our conceptions of good and bad. They define good as that which survives and bad as that which goes under. And the universe has no prejudice in favor of Christ as against Genghis Khan. And that's...

My perspective of that, him trotting out that paraphrased quote right now is that it does, it feels almost like taunting. And, you know, Nietzsche would, Nietzsche's perspective on Christ was that it was a sort of a slave morality, that the Christianity valorizes weakness. And that's been throughout history, a criticism of Christianity. And whether or not Netanyahu was intentionally trying to poke at Christians and, Christians in America, like Tucker Carlson, for example, who are making Christian arguments against you know, the war Gaza and the like, I don't know. I would recommend a couple of books, Dominion by Tom Holland, and Airway Breathe by Glenn Scribner is a really good one, too, about where there's the universalism in Christianity that, again, it feels like kind of taunting that Jesus comes along and says, go and baptize, go and make disciples of all. nations, all nations, which is historically somewhat unique. And he says there will be one shepherd and one flock, meaning everyone in the world is covered by sacrifice. And then Paul says there is no Jew

or Greek. That's in Galatians. And that Tom Holland rightly points out changes absolutely everything. And is it true that Christians have done a poor job throughout history honoring the egalitarianism of Christ's message? Yes, of course. But that's still, there's still a tension between Christianity and other religions because of that. And it does, Netanyahu trotting out that quote is, it feels like he might have been intentionally trying to poke a bear, whether it's Tucker or someone else. Well, they came out after the fact and were like, felt the need to issue a statement on the Twitter account, the official like Prime Minister of Israel Twitter account that was like, we met no offense to Christians. We were just quoting this thing. But, you know, the funny thing to me, like coming at this from a totally non-religious perspective is this, this dodge that I've seen, not just from him, but from plenty of other people who are not even like that sympathetic to him or like he's just quoting something. It's like, just because you're quoting someone else doesn't mean that that like original quote was also a good thing. You know, I mean, that's still a choice. You're like co-signing this idea. And to me, it was just very revealing of what I think is a dominant mindset, not just with Netanyahu, but within Israel. They see.

themselves as inherently moral, right? Not based on their actions, not based on what they do in the world, which, you know, to me is how you define morality. It's like, what do you do? Do you cause harm or do you cause peace? Like, what are you, are you genociding children in Gaza? Because that seems to have a real bearing to me on whether you are a moral actor. But the view here offered by Netanyahu is we are inherently the good side. So even if we could. evil acts. It's in service of our own inherent goodness. And this is a, you know, I mean, this is a supremacist ideology, which is what Israel, what Zionism is based on as a Jewish supremacist ideology. And a lot of times when he's speaking to, you know, an American audience or Western audience in

general, then he'll talk about Western values, talk about Judeo-Christian values. So then we get also brought in the fold of the inherently good. And so he's saying here, and again, very noteworthy, this is offered in in English. I think it could be seen as a as a taunt to Krisha. I think that's certainly the case, especially since there's been this, you know, this tension with the Tucker Carlson's of the world, et cetera. And the Pope has called for a ceasefire, by the way. So it's not, it's not just Protestant presence in America. There's a lot of religious backlash. That's a, that is, that's a great point. But so you have that angle of it. But you also have him projecting some American audience. You may be feeling a little squeamish about this like girls' school that

you just bombed and murder all these children, but trust me, you're still the good guys here. You're still, no matter what you do in this war, because if you don't act in barbaric ways, in evil ways, then the ultimate evil, the inherently evil, you know, and what's underneath the surface there is Muslims, Persians, Iranian, Arabs, you know, anybody who would oppose the Israelis, if you don't act against that inherent evil in this barbaric way, then those people will win out. It's a, you know, it's a kind of a rehash of his Children of the Light versus Children of the Darkness speech at the beginning of the, you know, the genocidal assault on Gaza, where again, it's like anything is justified in our attempts here to decimate and destroy the Palestinian people because we're the good ones, not because of what we do, just because of who we are. And they're the bad ones, not because of their age or who they are or what they do, but just inherently. And that is such an abhorrent, deeply abhorrent, destructive, disgusting worldview to me.

But that's what, you know, that is the ideology. That is the reigning ideology in Israel you have to say at this point. I think what turned people like Tucker Carlson and actually like Kerry Prejohn-Buller against what they were seeing in Gaza was precisely. the part of their faith, and it's emphasized all the time about the vulnerable. And again, this was Nietzsche's contention with Christianity, actually. And Tom Holland has done really great debates on this. People should just pop that into YouTube and watch his debates or read Dominion. It's fantastic. But I think when you see the powerful abuse civilians that are powerless, that's very, very moving to a lot of Christians, not everybody. But like Augustine had, or not Augustine Aquinas had is just war doctrine. And you can make a pretty good argument. And that's probably why Pope Leo has called for a ceasefire. If you look at the United States and Israel's decision to launch this particular war,

you could argue that it's violating the Christian tradition of what constitutes a just war. And so Netanyahu, who is secular, by the way, that's disputed. I mean, he's a political figure and I think has tried to, you know, send different signals at different times in his career. It feels like, to your point about the children of the light versus the children of the darkness, he's trying to make this argument that you can use strength. And that can be used against civilians because ultimately you're on the good side. And that's what's important is protecting your people. And I think that's attractive to a lot of people around the world. But the more you see like the girls' school, for example, or other civilians abuses of civilians, it doesn't fly with other people.

Yeah. I mean, being absolved for your crimes, I'm sure that does feel good to a lot of people like, oh, here's an excuse where you get to act with impunity and, you know, indulge your most barbaric and cruel instincts. But really, if you think hard enough about it, because you're good, it's all fine. thing. And, you know, I think there are others who could probably, who could probably lay this out more effectively and with more knowledge than me. But Jonathan Greenblatt recently, in addition to saying all kinds of other crazy crap, he said something about we are no longer the like weak-kneed Jews or the knock-mead Jews or something like that. And this is an idea that goes back to World War II, deeply anti-Semitic, but in a like sort of self-loathing anti-Semitic way, that the, there is like victim blaming of Holocaust victims that they weren't strong enough to stand up. And so part of the

founding of Israel was the idea that like we're going to create a state that is, it will stand up, that will, I mean, committed terrorist acts and ethnic cleansing in order to found the state. And we are going to be barbaric in a way, you know, and cruel and tough and strong in a way that, you know, our ancestors who were slaughtered in the Holocaust in a way that they weren't. Again, deeply disgusting view, but, you know, offered by someone like ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt, who supposedly is all against anti-Sembatism, it's supposed to be his whole thing. And it, it sort of reminds me of that as well, where it's like, you know, we can't afford to have to indulge in these little nice Christian values. We are the good guys. And we are going to use whatever means necessary to, even if those

things look evil to you, but underneath the surface, because we're the good guys. And we're, always and forever no matter what we do, you know, you just don't understand that we're actually fighting evil with evil. And we have to do that because we don't have the luxury of acting any other way. And just my quick point on that would be that is the story of human history. Like that is what tribalism, that is very historically normal. That is what tribalism predating nation states. That's what it is. And liberalism after World War II was precisely conceived to overcome that because it leads to atrocities. And Israel has never been able to because of the trauma that the Jewish people suffered through the Holocaust, the industrial scale genocide that's within

living memory of people. That's not, like, not everybody has been on board with that because there's this constant fear, and understandably so, of another genocide coming along. And, you know, we don't have to go, like, that's, that just, you know, took us to a totally different, deeper layer. That's liberalism was meant precisely to overcome those instincts, will to power style instincts. And that's why we have international groups and treaties and laws. So that's, I think, a fundamental source of tension and has been for the last 100 years. Well, and let me say one last thing before we've got David Serrota waiting here and I do want to get him in, which is that, you know, Hegstaff and Stephen Miller and the whole Trump regime, they like to frame the idea of like international law or respect for civilians. or rules of engagement as like weak and woke and pathetic and not realistic, blah, blah, blah.

Stephen Miller says it the most sort of like directly. Pete Hagseth does as well, though. And Pete Hagseth, you know, one of the things that he's famous for is going and trying to get pardons for war criminals. So that is his worldview. But I think we already see in the Iran war that when we blow up all of the rules of engagement and international norms and, you know, and law and any sort of care and concern for civilians, this puts our own service members at risk. It puts the world economy at risk. I mean, it puts everything on the table. So we're already living with the consequences of blowing up all of those, you know, what would be perceived as sort of like woke liberal niceties. It's not just that you get to do what you want to your enemies. Your enemies also get to do what they want to you. And in a world where

asymmetric power projection is more easily available than it ever has been before, that seems like a pretty foolish, pretty foolhardy, and ultimately destructive way to go outside of, you know, any sort of moral concerns and morality. Yeah, we should probably try to keep some of these planes in the air before we start acting like Jengis Khan. On that note, why don't we get over to the man uncovering the master plan, David Serota. Why hasn't a woman formerly participated in a Formula One race weekend in over a decade? Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age. What can we learn from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly popping up every year?

He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction. And how did a 2023 event called Wagageddon change the paddock forever? That day is just a. just seared into my memory. I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman, and these are just a few of the questions I'm tackling on No Grip, a Formula One culture podcast

that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport. In each episode, a different guest and I will go deeper into the wacky mishap, scandals and sagas, both on the track and far away from it, that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Bailey Taylor and this is it girl. You may know me from my It Girl series I've done on the streets of New York over the years. Well, I've got good news. I am bringing those interviews and many more to this podcast. Yes, we will talk about the style and the success, but we are also talking about the pressure, the expectations, and the real work with the women's shaping culture right now.

As a woman in the industry, you're always underestimated. So you have to work extra hard and you have to push the narrative in a way that doesn't compromise who you are in your integrity. You know, I like to say I was kind of like a silent ninja. Each week, I have unfiltered conversations with female founders, creatives, and leaders to talk about ambition, visibility, and what it really takes to build something meaningful in the public eye. Because being an it girl isn't about the spotlight, it's about owning it. I think the negatives need to be discussed and they need to be told to people who maybe don't do this every day just so they know what's really going on. I feel like pulling the curtain back is important.

Listen to It Girl with Bailey Taylor on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Good people. What's up? What's up? It's Questlove. So recently, I had the incredible opportunity to have a real conversation with actors and producer, Jamie Lee Curtis, ahead of the release of her new thriller series, Scarpetta. I can honestly say I've never done an interview like that before. At one point, I shut my laptop down. And we just started chatting as old friends. recent Oscar recipient. So we have some commonality there. I predicted that, by the way. And you said these words to me, dust off your mantle. Yes. And I looked at you and I said, what?

And you said, dust off your mantle. And then I left and that was it. And then when all of that happened, I remember the next morning, I think I wanted to, like, write you and go, how did you know? Listen to the Questlove show on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. David, are you there? I'm here, yes. Welcome, David. How are you today?

Good. Thanks for having me. Yeah, we're happy to have you. What's going on? You know, we're told that there is, it doesn't seem like there's a big plan with this war, but apparently you have uncovered the master plan. So update us on what's going on there. Well, I think the master plan.

is as it relates to the Iran War, it's like the president woke up one morning and decided to go to start World War III and there was no public justification for it. There was no congressional authorization for it. It was just like the king woke up on the wrong or I guess in his frame, maybe the right side of the bed, and decided to start World War III,

which is destabilizing the entire planet. And the point of our audio series is to ask the question, how is something like that even possible? And how is it that we've arrived at a place where a president has a constitution that says Congress declares war, and yet we're now where we are where a war was started, basically like a World War III-esque situation, right? That wasn't just like one bombing. We're now in like a World War III-esque situation without. any real authorization at all. And so it's this question of how did Donald Trump become a king, but it's not really only about Donald Trump. It's how did the presidency become a monarchy? And I think to answer that question, you have to answer the question of how it started really

over 50 years ago and how it's evolved over 50 years. We were at this place in our country's history or a similar place to it during and after Watergate. Watergate was seen as a scandal about an imperial presidency that had gotten out of control, not just out of control in terms of targeting Richard Nixon targeting his political opponents. But remember, that was a time when Richard Nixon had campaigned promising to end the Vietnam War and then secretly, months later, secretly expanded the Vietnam War. It was a time where Richard Nixon started cutting off spending that had been authorized and passed by Congress. Roads were in the process of being made, and then the road construction had to stop because Richard Nixon asserted the right to say he could

decide what spending moved forward and what spending did not move forward. So all of the fights that I think that we've gotten used to now and these examples of kind of an imperial presidency, We have been here before, but the thing is is that after Watergate, Congress really pushed back and took back some of that power. I mean, there was the War Powers Resolution. There was the Budget Impoundment Act, which was designed to stop presidents from doing what Nixon had done. But there was really a backlash to the backlash that started after Congress took back some of its power. And there has been an ideology on the, I wouldn't call it, the liberal. libertarian ripe and in sort of the center of the Republican Party, you know, sort of the Dick Cheney wing.

Dick Cheney, of course, was the chief of staff to Gerald Ford right after Watergate. This real idea that Congress should never encroach on the president's authority. And that's, I think, part of why we are here today, where we woke up a few weeks ago and the president decided, hey, I'm just going to start World War III. Yeah. Let me go ahead and play for people a little bit of, or we'll just play this whole trailer for the new season of Master Plan. First season was so incredible.

Such extraordinary journalism. I can't wait to dig into this one and see what you've uncovered here as well. Let's go ahead and play this for everyone so they can get a taste of what you guys have put together. Once upon a time, an imperial president was cast out of the palace. But all the president's men

refused to relinquish the throne's power. I must put the benefits of America first. So they went to work, rewiring the government. They didn't just take back the controls. They began building something new, something stronger. They gave the president the power to go around Congress to launch unauthorized wars. They ignored the law and cut secret arms deals. The Pentagon says millions of dollars worth of weapons were turned over to the CIA for shipment to Iran.

They manufactured vast new executive powers for a war on terror. I would characterize Montanamo Baked as the least worst place we could have selected. The Obama administration's continuing a Bush era policy, authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens abroad. The goal of this master plan was to create an all-powerful president, or as some called it, the unitary executive. You're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no, other than day one. So when a man longing to be a king took the throne, he inherited unprecedented powers to get his way.

And those powers are now turning our world upside down. Welcome to Master Plan Season 2, The Kingmakers. First of all, that animation is fantastic. Ben Clarkson, the artist is amazing. He's amazing. Yeah, this is a sort of thing. AI could never. AI could never.

No, no. Trust me, the number of screenshots and storyboards that he put up, I saw him draw. That was like, that's the kind of thing AI can never do. Yeah, that is extraordinary. And one of the pieces I've been thinking about is, you know, on the one hand, you've got these actors, you know, Bill Barr being another one of these is really pushing forward the idea of the unitary executive. But perhaps what also the founders didn't anticipate is the way that Congress would just be like, okay. Sure. We don't actually want any responsibility. Go ahead because the last time they took a vote on war, the Iraq war, it ended up coming back to bite, you know, the vast majority of them who voted for it, bite them in the ass. So they're like, we don't really want to take a vote on this war. We would rather just you do it. And then down the road, if it goes poorly, we can say it's his fault and not have to, you know, face any sort of political repercussions for it. Well, and that in and of itself was the AMF was such a broad delegation of power to the executive that Congress was complicit in that, to Crystal's point.

It's such a good, it's such a good point, right? Like, I think the founders, like, they didn't get everything right, right? Like, I think this idea that the founders got everything right is sort of this presumption and it's not actually true. It's like a religion. Yeah, religious kind of faith. Yeah. And where I think they got things right, okay, generally speaking, is that the Constitution, as a document is like afraid of concentrated power.

That's like the foundational baked in. Like it's the theory is we need to like disperse power a little bit because you literally do not want one dude having all the power. Okay, I think that's probably like good call. Like you got it right. Where they didn't get it right, at least for the modern era, is the presumption that the branches would protect their own power, that whether it's the courts or whether it's Congress,

that the presumption was that they would jealously, people in those institutions would jealously guard their power as an institution. And I think in the modern era what we've seen is that actually the institution, especially when it comes to the Republicans, the institution that is supreme for the Republicans is the Republican Party and not the presidency or the Congress or the courts. And so no matter where you are in any of those institutions, the Congress, the courts, the presidency,

you're serving the larger institution, which is the Republican Party. And so, yes, you're willing to, like, be a judge. The Supreme Court is constantly deferring to executive power when a Republican is in the executive office. Congress is constantly deferring to the Trump administration when the Republicans control it. And I do think your point, Crystal, is so important that after the Iraq war, the Congress kind of figured out, like, hey, instead of taking tough votes to stop anything, we can just not vote at all.

Like, it's actually easier for us to not vote at all because who knows when any kind of vote is going to come back to bite? Maybe it's the next election cycle, but maybe it's like three election cycles from now. So they haven't wanted to vote. And I think that's like a really dangerous situation. Like it, not everything was better in the past, but it was better, I think, when Congress felt an institutional prerogative to fight with the executive branch over who gets to decide things because that creates like power and countervailing power, which is supposed to create some kind of balance. Which is a really good argument for getting rid of the filibuster, to be honest. Totally. Happens with that. Totally.

Totally. And I wanted to ask the, because it war powers, the intelligence community, and even just thinking about Watergate, all of that goes into it, when you hear, like, as someone on the right, when you hear federal society world talk about unitary executive theory, a lot of what you hear is, it's about the growth of the federal bureaucracy. Yeah. The argument, I think charitably, their argument would be that the sprawling federal bureaucracy needs to. to come under the power of the democratically elected president. And the example I always use with Ryan when we kind of get into debates about this is you wouldn't want, given the revolving door, like an ExxonMobile executive or an Exxon Mobil just regular staffer coming into the EPA. And under a climate concerned president, making decisions that are undermining the decision of the president, or the will of the president or the policy of the president.

So I was going to ask David, like how you see the way that this has been intentionally set up and designed to tackle those kind of different arenas where executive power is concerned. There's war power, but there's also bureaucracy, but then there's also the intelligence community. It's kind of a tangled mess. I was curious to get your take on that. It's a great set of questions. And look, look, I think, let me preface this by saying, I think the Democrats, if they ever take back the presidency, I think one of the big questions. is, okay, all this power has been concentrated in the White House. Do you use that power?

Or do you use your power in office to not use it or relinquish it? And I don't think it's an acceptable outcome to have where we're in this pattern where Republicans use all the executive power that's there in an aggressive way and grab even more executive power. And then Democrats get in office and either spend their time not using that power or actually relinquishing it. Like that's a ratchet effect. That's bad.

I think when it comes to domestic policy, the example that you laid out, look, I think that the question over whether a president with a mandate has the power to do what they have promised voters to do is at the heart in part of the democracy crisis. Like when I hear that term democracy crisis, part of what I hear and what I think about is presidents get into office. I think the Democrats often get into office and then don't really make an effort to really deliver on their promises. That shreds the social contract. That harms people's belief that democracy matters and ultimately so's the kind of disillusionment that someone like Donald Trump takes advantage of and says, I will get in and I will use all the power to deliver everything I am promising. Now, I don't think Donald Trump's actually done that. I think he's betrayed a lot of what he promised. The war is a good example of that.

But I think that's like the dynamic we're in. And I think, but I guess I would say this. I think there's like a middle ground between the Democrats not really using executive power and being deferential to the, to quote unquote, norms. And Donald Trump so aggressively using executive power that it's like sort of completely unprecedented. And I think in some cases, you know, extra judicial, extra constitutional, right? Like I'll give you, let me give you like one rank. example. Like, I think of the Obama presidency, and I think, okay, here's a person who used aggressively in an unprecedented way, executive power to prosecute the drone war, to assert the right

to put American citizens on a kill list, right? Like, that's a really, really, really extreme view of executive authority, right, to extrajudicially execute American citizens, right? Okay. I also think of the Obama administration not using existing, unchallenged executive authority to change IRS regulations to close one of the biggest and most egregious tax loopholes on the books, the private equity tax loophole. I think of the Obama administration not using executive authority to require Fortune 500 SEC regulated companies to disclose their dark money spending, something that the Obama administration could have done. So my point is, is that I, I, I think there's like a middle ground here where Democrats get into office and use the existing

unchallenged executive authority in ways that don't have to go beyond the Constitution, but are there for the taking. Now, one asterisk on this very quickly, which is, I do think actually Joe Biden tried to do some of this at the agency level, like the FTC, the CFPB. And I think what's important to remember is that the opposition to that agenda, you know, antitrust enforcement, et cetera, et cetera, will very quickly switch sides on their views of executive power when it's not their executive, right?

I mean, it was like the concert, like the Chamber of Commerce, some Republicans were marching into court saying, you know, Joe Biden has no right to use the FTC or the CFPB and the way he's using it. And you're like, you guys are like the unitary executive party. And I think this gets to the core of a problem here. It was like, you know, we're talking on the eve of the no Kings protest. My question for everyone is, okay, do you not want a king or do you just not want the king

that's not your king? Right? Like, let's really get to the issue here and let's really be honest about what each side actually wants. Do you not want kings or do you only not like the fact that it's not your king? I mean, I'm like, to be honest, I mean, I don't want a king, but like I'm torn on this question of like what ultimately. needs to be done. I do think that at the center of this, again, I go back to it, the democracy crisis. You're totally right. If a president gets elected promising climate policy and then is stuck with an EPA that's implementing ExxonMobil's agenda, right? Like that is a, that's not just an executive power, executive branch problem. That's a democracy problem because the president has promised and gotten elected

on those issues. Yeah. Well, I mean, FDR is a great example here. I mean, in some ways, it's kind of unavoidable to not just view the tools in like in the theoretical terms of like, this tool's good and that one's bad, I think it's kind of unavoidable to look at the content, you know, is the content of what is being done here good or bad, right? Some of FDR's things were really bad actually, but a lot of them on the economic front were very good and they were very popular. And they were in accordance with the will of the people, which the Supreme Court, up until he threatened And, you know, them with court packing was effectively blocking. So, you know, it's, it is a little bit tricky when you get down to it. And also, of course, you raise the prospect very much of like, okay, well, if Republicans are, you know, throwing out the rules doing whatever they want.

And then Democrats are like, we're just going to, you know, stay within these boundaries. Then that's an asymmetric fight. So, you know, I'm glad. And let me, let me add. Yeah, go ahead. There's an interesting question about the independent agencies that's coming down the pike right now in the Supreme Court. Yes. And for those who don't know, there are a set of agencies that aren't just like other executive branch.

Like the Department of Homeland Security, HHS, those are normal, regular, non-independent executive branch agencies. The president has total hiring and firing power over them. There are certain regulatory agencies like the Federal Trade Commission that were designed to be slightly more insulated from the political cycles, where the commissioners have, you know, five-year terms. it's harder to fire them. And the Trump administration is trying to say that Trump can fire members of these independent agencies. And there's really like a constitutional question, right? They're trying to use the Constitution to supersede the idea that such, these kinds of agencies can even exist.

And this is where I, like, I get the idea that the president gets elected and wants to implement policy and therefore needs to the higher and fire. But I also think, like, what's dangerous here is that the Congress and previous presidents have set up these particular agencies deliberately to be independent. And my point is, if you want to argue that that's bad, right? You want to argue, okay, an independent FTC is bad, pass new legislation to change the independence of the FTC. Don't start making constitutional arguments that say the Congress is not allowed to create independent agencies. That's where I think we get into like when we're talking about a king. It's like if you want to make the small D democratic argument that the SEC or the FTC are out of control and not letting presidents implement policies that they campaigned on,

then pass legislation to change the structure of those agencies. don't start making a unitary executive argument that says one line in the Constitution Article 2 means Congress is simply never allowed to create these kinds of agencies. I mean, I kind of think in a lot of ways those independent agencies, their independence has served the purpose that they were laid out, that they're supposed to be slightly insulated from the whims of this or that election because they are, they're supposed to be more sort of empirical in their application. But let's have that debate rather than saying these are not allowed. These are basically illegal.

I mean, if we're going to have an authoritarian leader, I want one that's a lot better than the ones we've been getting lately. I'm looking at, you know, I'm looking at China. Like, oh, they seem pretty smart over there. I mean, if we're going to have no freedom of speech here either, I don't know. Maybe. Well, yeah, I mean, that's a problem, right? It's like, well, we got a good king who makes good decisions.

And, you know, four years later, you're not going to, you probably aren't going to get. Like, I think that's the theory of the constitution. Like for every good king you're going to have, you're going to have a really, a bunch of really bad ones. Well, let me ask you about this. And this is some new news that is pretty interesting. Trump, according to the Wall Street Journal, told inner circle some mass deportation policies went too far. President directs a new approach. As some advisors believe immigration is no longer as strong a political issue for him,

he's seeking to lower the profile of his mass deportation effort, has done. directed his top advisors should adopt a new approach on one of the central campaign promises. They go on to say in conversations with top advisors and his wife, Melania, Trump has become convinced that some of his administration's deportation policies went too far. Voters don't like the term mass deportation. And he's told them he wants to see more attention on arresting bad guys and less chaos in American cities, according to people familiar with the matter. Now, I think a lot of caveats, right?

We'll see what the actual actions are. We will say there hasn't been another like city invasion. like we saw in Minneapolis. And to bring this back to, you know, to your reporting here in Master Plan, you know, it looks very clearly like the mass protests and mass resistance in Chicago and Minneapolis and other states and countries in L.A. and other states and cities across the country. This succeeded. You know, it worked as a check. So Congress may have laid down.

The Supreme Court laid out the red carpet for this, you know, bullshit, cruel and unusual bullshit. and but the people really, you know, rose up and made it very, made it very difficult and created a lot of public awareness where they're right that the politics of this have completely shifted since Trump came back in office. So even as they've consolidated in all this power in the executive branch, and even as this president and his cronies seem to act like they're never going to have to face voters again, which is kind of scary, how much of a check do the people still serve, you know, for democratic accountability on the unit. executive. It's a great question. I am heartened by the news this morning. I will say,

I do think that it's not a coincidence that Trump initially pulled the deployment in Minneapolis back when Democrats finally started talking about cutting off funding. I do think that's a little part of this. That's a great point. You know, I do think that like Congress's power of the purse. But why did Congress do that? Exactly. Because they were under pressure from the base. Exactly. It wasn't just, you know, nowhere.

They didn't want to do it. That's right. You're totally right. So it's like public pressure on Congress to use its actual power, its unchallenged power of the power of the purse. Ultimately, all of that colludes to back a president office, at least momentarily. I should mention, I think this is important, another important lesson when it comes to the power of the purse for the Iran war. that public pressure on Congress to not just pass resolutions of, or try to pass resolutions of disapproval of the war,

but to actually defund the war is going to be incredibly, incredibly important. Like this idea that the Democrats can say, I'm against the war, but I'm going to vote for the $200 billion supplemental for the war is a lot of nonsense, and everyone should be focused really on that specific thing. The Democrats trying to carve out this like middle ground, like, you know, I can be against the war, but I don't want to, quote, unquote, undermine the troops

by defunding the war. That is a nonsense position. So I guess it's to say, the more pressure there is in public, the more it will create a more fortified opposition in Congress, and the more I think Donald Trump will be constrained. Now, I do think, ultimately, if Trump wants to continue,

seriously illegal, unconstitutional, and wildly unpopular policies, he can, and ultimately, we have to mention it, like, the question of impeachment should be real. Like, I think this, ultimately, we are, I think we're headed towards this question, especially on the Iran war, of if he never comes to Congress for a declaration of war, there is, is no explicit authorization, and this war drags beyond the War Powers Act's 60 to 90-day time threshold, there is a big question of, like, what to do. And what I worry about is like, if the Congress actually passes the war supplemental bill, is that interpreted legally and certainly within the administration as the authorization they need? In other words,

is just a funding bill explicitly for the war, does that become the Iran War's Gulf of Tonkin resolution? And if it does, then you've taken a legal tool off the table. Yeah. I don't know if you guys saw Scott Jennings doing his thing on CNN yesterday. And I can't remember who he was fighting with. But they got into this fight over whether this was a war or not. And he said, America hasn't fought a war since World War II. Oh my gosh.

Yeah. I mean, that's where we are. Like, we're still, it's a military incursion, a military. I mean, and Iraq was and Afghanistan was. And Vietnam was. I mean, it's like, you've got to be kidding. And whoever was, I wish I could give credit to him because off the top of my head, I'm forgetting who it was.

But he was like, I think the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan would have something to say about whether they were sent to fight and die in a war or not. So it also allows this Orwellian abuse of language. It's so interesting that you bring this up. There was a debate inside of the Reagan administration that we uncovered in our reporting for Master Plan in which it was John Roberts as a young lawyer. It was over whether to classify the Lebanon military operation

and the Grenada military operation, both initially conducted without congressional authorization, whether to allow it to be classified as a war for purposes of providing veterans, veterans benefits and the like war combat war service benefits to the to the soldiers who were in that and it was a debate over well if we if we say they were wars and we didn't get a congressional authorization for a war how to like it's sort of a legal gray area and I think what's what's I bring it up only to to to say look these issues have been debated before inside of the executive

branch at least in like a serious way like It was interesting to see John Roberts taking the idea that Congress has war-making authority. Like, that was a serious thing. I think we're so far away from that now, where it's just presumed that Congress doesn't really have in any real way war-making authority. And I just go back to this idea that really, ultimately, what we're learning is the only real power that Congress has, there may be a line in the Constitution to declare war. The only real power it has here is the power of the purse. Like I just, I know it's like it's, it's so important to underscore. David, so if you're saying that democracy is the antidote to these, this, this master plan,

well, that seems like something that we have to solve them. We got to get rid of democracy. Where does the Save Act fall into this master plan in terms of, you know, depressing votes, making it more difficult to vote. What is your reaction to the current save plan? Do you think it will pass? If Congress, actually, the democratically elected representatives of Congress

actually pass it is the question too. I know, I know. Well, look, I think the, when we use the term master plan, what we're really talking about is there's a handful of powerful interests, oligarchs, billionaires, et cetera, corporations for very long time.

If you're one of those powers, you look at democracy as the problem, right? Demock, because you need increasingly unpopular policies to maintain your wealth and power, to maintain a concentration of wealth and power in a small handful of, a small group of players. One way you do that, that was season one of Master Plan. You legalize corruption so that the elections can be bought, so that it is less a one-person, one-vote democracy, and more a $1-1-vote democracy, so that the election choices, no matter what they are,

deliver the unpopular policies you need. The second thing you do is you try to concentrate power in one person's hands, the president, so that the president, so you don't have to deal with a Congress. You don't really have to deal with the courts. Like, that's hard to do. Congress members have to go back to their districts every two years and deal with actual people.

So part of the way to subvert democracy is to concentrate power. The final part of this is to simply make it harder, if not impossible, for people to actually even vote, right? I think, and I think that's, you know, what the SAVE Act represents. And I think it's easy to, like, presume that the motive here is just like, you know, Dr. Evil motives, right? Like, it's just people, like, the people pushing this just are. evil because they want to be evil. No, it's actually a motive of self-interest. We want to maintain power

knowing that the policies that maintain our power are unpopular. So we have to do all of these things to essentially keep that power because if we allow, you know, an actually flourishing democracy to operate, we're not going to get the unpopular policies that we want. I mean, Louis Powell in the Powell memo, in season one a master plan. I mean, he lays this out. I mean, literally, like, the problem that the conservative movement saw at the time was the government has become too responsive to the people.

Like, the government is passing all the. Ralph Nader is getting all these things passed that we, the oligarchy, do not like. And the problem is that the government has become too responsive to what the public wants. And I think ultimately this question of, of, we originally struck a balance. Like the Constitution was supposed to strike a balance

like you don't want the hot passions of every whim that the public wants to be legislated at any time because that can get out of, you know, that's mob rule. So there needs to be like some, you know, small are Republican checks on that problem, you know, representative democracy. But I think we've swung so far to the other side

that we're now at the stage of talking about making it harder for people just to cast votes. I mean, that's really how far this plan has gone. David, where can people find Masterplan season two, and where can they support you guys over at Lever News? Thanks for asking. Go on to your phone right now. Pull up your podcast app, whichever one is your favorite app. Just type in Masterplan. Subscribe. Go listen to episode one. If you don't have a podcast app, just go to Masterplanpodcast.com. All the episodes will be there.

And we are the lever so you can find all of our reporting at levernews.com. And just a huge thank you to breaking points and breaking points as audience for always being such great supporters of our work and letting your audience know about our work. We are independent investigative journalist. It's not easy to get our work out there. But you guys are a huge help and we really appreciate it. Well, we appreciate you. Your master podcaster, Serrata. Your podcasts are incredible narratives.

They are really excellent. This storytelling is so good. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Great to see you, as always, David. Great to see you guys. Thanks again. Mm-hmm.

All right. That'll do it for us here in the first half of the show. If you want to see the second half, you all know the deal. Emily, where do they go? Breaking Points.com. Of course. Where else? We've already freed the breaking points 26, though.

So sorry, guys. They've been liberated. They're taking Cuba with Ryan. That's right. One last thing before we get over to the premium section, though, thank you to everybody who submitted questions for Sager for the Jo Ken interview. I know he was going over them, Griffin, I'm sure you dug into them as well. And he was saying, like, there's actually a lot of really good questions here.

So I really appreciate that input. And if you want to be able to, you know, contribute to such things in the future, breakingpoints.com. That's how you do it. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Start doing our job for us. Really good stuff.

Yes. Please. Pay us money and then also do our job for us. In fairness, Soger created... How is this pitch going? Yes, it's going perfect. And all credit to Sager, he created a massive list of his own questions for Joe Kent, and then he got great audience questions, and now there's a great synergy happening behind

the scenes. Yes, indeed, yes. All right, we'll see y'all in the second half. Hey, if you like that video, hit the like button or leave a comment below. It really helps get the show to more people. And if you'd like to get the full show, add free, and in your inbox every morning, you can sign up at breakingpoints.com. That's right, get the full show, help support the future of independent media at breakingpoints.com.

Hi, it's Joe Interesting, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And today I'm talking with my dear friend, Krista Williams. It can change you in the best way possible. Dance with the change. Dance with the breakdowns. The embodiment of Pisces intuition with Capricorn power moves. So I'm like delusional proud of.

my chart. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. Good people. What's up? What's up? It's Questlove. So recently, I had the incredible opportunity to have a real conversation with an actress and producer, Jamie Lee Curtis, from routines to recovery, true lies, and a certain Jermaine Jackson music video. Jamie's real and raw. And it's something I really admire about her. I am so happy that I'm the head bitch in charge at 67, that I have the perspective that I have at my age to really be able to put all of this into context. Listen to the Questlove show on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your

podcasts. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than no grip. A new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend, the recent uptick in F1 romance novels, and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful,

decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.