Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 6/2/25: Jamie Dimon Dire Warning, Israel Aid Massacre, Ukraine Drone Attack & MORE!

Episode Date: June 2, 2025

Krystal and Emily discuss boulder Colorado attack, Jamie Dimon dire warning, Israel aid massacre, Jeremy Scahill flames Tapper, Ukraine drone attack, Elon tweaks out in Oval Office, Rogan reacts to USAID cuts, GOP Senator goes full death cult on Medicaid cuts. Jeremy Scahill: https://x.com/jeremyscahill Jeff Stein: https://x.com/JStein_WaPo      To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. 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 BreakingPoints.com. Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. Welcome to Breaking Points. Emily, pleasure. It's a pleasure to be here, and especially today, Crystal, because we have great news. Yes, we have great show news. We have a lot of big news in the show. We have a lot of bad news. A lot of bad news. About the world in general, but the show.

I mean, that's kind of typical to be expected at this point in all of our lives, I would assume. But we do have good news with regard to the show. By popular demand, we are bringing back the monthly membership. Let's go. So that is exciting. And here are the benefits you get as a premium Breaking Points member. You get full uncut episodes in your inbox every morning. You get ad free shows. You get the live streamed AMAs. You get the second half of the Friday show. You get the full complete Friday show, which you definitely don't want to miss. And it says interact with the hosts. Yeah, we do. Yeah, sure. I don't say why not go for it.

On the Friday show, we also take some free room questions. So and we're looking for more opportunities to do that sort of engagement. And not only are we bringing back the monthly membership, put the next piece up on the screen. We are doing a free monthly trial promotion right now. The promo code there is BP free. So listen, we realize the economy is on a little bit precarious ground. People are feeling a little leery of putting out the like big upfront costs. So we get that. So that's why we wanted to do this and do the promotion. And you know, if you guys are able to support us, it has allowed us to expand to five days a week. You know, we've got a lot of ideas for how we want to continue to expand and grow the show.

So thank you all so much already for your support. And if you're able to subscribe, BreakingPoints.com, that's where you go. You put in that BP free code, you get a free month. See if you find it worth your money. Yeah, just give it a try. Yeah. Can't hurt. Yeah, there you go.

All right, so go ahead and throw up the show bar. We can go through quickly. What is in the show? We've got a bunch of big economic news that we'll go through. Jeff Stein is actually going to join us. Wall Street concerned about the bond market. We've got new tariffs. We've got new escalation with China, so a lot to get into there. We also are going to have Jeremy Scahill to join us with the latest with regards to those ceasefire talks and also a horrific massacre of Palestinians who were seeking aid in that new mercenary-led scheme. So Scahill will break all of that down for us. Also want to get his reaction to some Jake Tapper comments about the college student protests that I think will be interesting. Yeah, which means that we have to watch the video again. We've already watched it once this morning, and I don't know that I can do it again. Are you sure it's a pleasure to be here this morning?

No, I've changed my mind. Also, got to get to news with regard to Ukraine and Russia. They were able to effectuate this quite dramatic attack on Russian warplanes deep inside of Russia. This happens as peace talks are, you know, ongoing there. So that is incredibly significant. We've got more Elon news for you. A bunch of news articles coming out about some inside details about his drug use and Trump sort of losing confidence in him, asking at one point, wait a second, were the cuts, was this all bullshit? Which is kind of surprising that he didn't know that it was all bullshit going in. But anyway, so we've got a lot going on there. Joni Ernst, senator, Republican senator, defending the proposed Medicaid cuts by saying, hey, we're all going

to die at some point. Incredible. Fact check that, Crystal. I dare you. No lies detected, I guess. Is she wrong? Yeah, no lies detected. We do have the AMA live. Well, I was going to say, she put an even better apology video out, so stay tuned for that, too. Literally walking through a graveyard. It's something else, so make sure you stay tuned for that one. Yeah. Before we get to any of that, though, we are tracking developments out of Boulder, Colorado. We can put this terror sheet up on the screen. There was an attack that's being described as a terror attack. Eight people injured, set on fire, actually, in Boulder, Colorado. And they say after man allegedly targets rally for Israeli hostages. So this is a group of protesters who's been gathering,

my understanding is on a weekly basis, calling for the release and the return of Israeli hostages. And they have a suspect in custody already, 45-year-old man identified as Mohammed Sabri Solomon, alleged to have thrown device into a group of people who had assembled in this pedestrianized zone for a peaceful protest for Israeli hostages. And like I said, eight people injured. I believe two had to be airlifted to a special burn unit. So that was kind of the nature of their injuries. And there's a video coming out from the scene. Emily, obviously, it's just

absolutely horrific. And he was, you know, he seemed, frankly, quite unwell, but was sort of ranting and raving, saying free Palestine. And of course, this comes on the heels of that horrific attack here in D.C. as well, in which the two Israeli embassy staffers were murdered by someone else who also said free Palestine. So this is certainly going to heighten interest in what is going on here. Yeah, and local news is reporting that one of the victims actually was a Holocaust survivor. Yeah, elderly woman, right? Yeah, elderly woman. I think almost everybody who was being burned.

So you can see in the videos of the suspect, he's walking around with Molotov cocktails and his shirt off. So reportedly, according to local news, I think it's Channel 9 out there in Boulder at least, one of the victims was, and they all are suffering from burns. If you look up the videos, be careful looking up the videos. They're pretty rough. But if you look up the videos, people were burning. It's a really awful scene. I want to add, Crystal, Bill Malugin is reporting that three senior DHS sources have told Fox that the Boulder terror suspect is an Egyptian national in the U.S. illegally as a visa overstay who entered the U.S. during the Biden administration. Bill says, I'm told he arrived at LAX in August of 2022 on a B1,

B2 non-immigrant visa with an authorized stay through 2023, but he overstayed and never left. He filed some sort of claim with USCIS, potentially an asylum claim back in 2022, but in 2023 under the Biden-U.S. CIS gave him work authorization. That though expired in 2022. But in 2023, under the Biden-U.S. CIS, gave him work authorization. That, though, expired in March. So this is coming. It expired March 28th. So it's coming the last couple of months after his work authorization expired. Yeah. So it looks like a visa overstay, Egyptian national. So, yeah, I mean, you have a horrific attack here and you have, you know, free Palestine being yelled, protests for Israeli hostages. You have someone who's an immigrant, Egyptian national visa overstay. So there are a lot of obviously incendiary political issues that are swirling

inside of this. And, you know, I would just say that similar to the attack that we covered here, you know, this is obviously not going to benefit in any way if you care about the cause of freedom, humanity, peace, and civilization. This is directly at odds with, you know, any movement to free Palestine or free any human beings around the world. So, you know, one other thing that I'll say, and this is a point that Shia Ben-Ephraim was making on Twitter, you know, rather controversially, obviously the attackers in both of these attacks are responsible for their horrific actions. As I said before, this man seemed sort of unwell. But in any case, they're responsible for their actions. But it is

also true that if you're concerned about anti-Semitism and hate and violence around the world, you know, Israel intentionally conflating all Jewish people with their own atrocities that they're committing is going to lead to an increase in anti-Semitism. And so if you care about the safety of Jewish people, as you certainly should, the actions that are being taken, the genocide that is being committed in Gaza is making Jewish peoples unsafe everywhere. It is contributing to that horrific climate, especially, as I said, when there is such an overt effort to conflate all Jewish people with the actions of this, at this point, completely rogue state. So, you know, that's, I guess, my perspective on some of what is unfolding here.

Just want to underscore the point you made about peace and this not helping anyone anywhere towards the cause of peace. I should add, Kash Patel has said they are investigating this as a targeted terror attack. So much more details to come from that vantage point, what they turn up in the investigation. We will obviously continue to follow that story. Indeed. All right. Let's turn to the latest with regard to economic news. And we have Jeff Stein joining us. We are lucky to be joined this morning by the chief economics reporter for The Washington Post, the one and only Jeff Stein. Great to see you, sir. Hey, thanks for having me back. Yeah, of course. Anytime. Let's go and put your latest reporting up here on the screen about Wall Street's concerns with regard to Trump's big, beautiful bill. Your headline is Wall Street warns Trump aides the GOP tax bill could jolt bond markets.

And if there's one thing we've seen in this Trump administration, it is the significance and importance and power that the bond markets wield. So tell us what you're hearing here. So the core of the problem here is that, you know, U.S. interest rates are already very high. And the tax bill could add between, you know, estimates vary two to five trillion dollars to the deficit. And what that means is the U.S. Treasury Department will have to go out and auction more bonds, auction more debt to cover up the gap between what the U.S. government spends and what it brings in in revenue. The problem is that we've already seen that there's a question about the demand among investors worldwide for these U.S. assets. And the big problem potentially, and it's really hard to know exactly what could happen, but what Wall Street is concerned about, what they're telling us and

what they're telling the Trump administration, is that if demand for new treasury debt, these new bond issuances, is insufficient, you could see basically the U.S. government have to increase the premium, the yield it's called, on what investors recoup in return. So if there's insufficient demand, the price goes up, basically what the U.S. government has to pay to get people to buy this debt goes up. And then you can get a really dangerous spike or spiral where borrowing costs rise because the premium that the government has to offer continues to increase. And so that's the core concern here. And just to, I know it sounds probably not that relevant for people's day-to-day lives, but mortgages, auto loans, things throughout the economy are tied very

fundamentally to the price of the bond. And as the yield prices of the new bond goes up, the prices of old bonds collapses. So that means if you are someone who has put a lot of money in your portfolio into bonds, that part of your portfolio could significantly lose its value. And that's traditionally considered a very safe investment, right?

Like equity is stocks, that's the risky thing. Crypto is the riskiest. Bonds are supposed to be what's safe. And that's the reason that bonds are sort of the core pillar of the global financial system. $30 trillion in U.S. debt is used to borrow against, trade against, to have millions of people, retirees, safeguard their retirements and their assets. And so Wall Street is very worried about a potential destabilization in that market, in that sector. And Jeff, I want to get your reaction to this clip of Jamie Dimon. We can go ahead and roll the second element and we'll get Jeff's reaction on the backside of it.

I guess one underlying both that is the enemy within. I'm not as worried about China. China is a potential adversary. They're doing a lot of things well. They have a lot of problems. What I really worry about is us. Can we get our own act together, our own values, our own capability, our own management? What you heard today on stage was the amount of mismanagement is extraordinary by state, by city, for pensions, for, and that stuff is gonna kill us. And you know, I always get asked this question,

are we gonna be the reserve currency? No, you know, if we are not the preeminent military and the preeminent economy in 40 years, we will not be the reserve currency. That's a fact, just read history. You know, now I think we will be, you know, Warren Buffett here would tell you we're enormously resilient, I agree with that. I think we will be. You know, Warren Buffett here would tell you we're enormously resilient.

I agree with that. I think this time is different. This time where, you know, we have to get our act together and we have to do it very quickly. And so, Jeff, I want to actually, that last sentence he just made, that last statement he just made where he says, this time I think is different, that's really interesting with your reporting. So that was Diamond on Friday at the Reagan National Economic Forum. And Jeff, why is it that people like Jamie Diamond still, even after weeks of the taco conversation,

feel like this time truly is different? Is it because they see people like Scott Besson and Donald Trump as wanting, continuing to want to remove the dollar as the world currency? Is that what's really going on behind all of this? Yes, just I'll get back to that question in one second. I couldn't go without pausing for a second to comment on Jamie Dimon and someone from Wall Street saying, you know, criticizing mismanagement of state and local governments when it's been what, you know, a little less than two decades since Wall Street literally crashed the global economy in the worst crisis since the great depression i mean the guy the guys um on wall street have you know their their uh their willingness to say what they think uh and be uh heedless of their own reputations is kind of speaking of speaking of enemies from

within yeah yeah he takes one to know one he was worried about pensions yeah it's it's to go back to your question um there has been i think a very interesting shift from the core locus of concern on wall street being the tariffs which are still um i wrote it down here the effective tariff rate is still eight times what it was before Trump took office. We've seen a huge spike in trade tensions, but he has backed off due to the taco trade. This is the Trump always chickens out joke that's spread on Wall Street. But despite how big that disruption is, people are now more concerned about the tax bill and what it could mean, especially when coupled with the trade bill. You know, one thing I think is very

clear in that clip, or as clear to me at least, there's a lot of people on Wall Street who want to tell reporters and tell others that they're very worried about the impact of the tax bill on the bond market. What they don't want to do is go out in public and say, hey, Trump administration, we have concerns with your top economic policy priority because they don't want to be in the Trump administration's crosshairs. So you're seeing Diamond and others go around saying, oh, we got to be really careful about the bond market. Also, you know, the tax bill has some good stuff, has some bad stuff. We need to be careful with bonds. But that's kind of how they're trying to square the circle here. They're issuing increasingly vocal warnings about the bond market as, you know,

the Senate is taking up this bill. But they're not out in front of criticizing the Trump administration and the Republican Party about it because, you know, for obvious political reasons. Yeah, well, and the bond market is what got Trump to move off of his most maximalist tariff position. So I think they've also identified like a potential weakness, an area where, you know, they just come out and bash Donald Trump. Yeah, I'm not like defending these people and their cowardice, but they're thinking, OK, strategically, if we just go out and bash Donald Trump, that's probably not going to get us where we want to go. But he clearly has an interest in what happens with the bond market. So maybe if we can make him nervous about that, maybe that will change the landscape. But I mean, the other irony here, Jeff, is like the $4 trillion that's being added to the

deficit is by and large tax cuts for guys like Jamie Dimon. So when they're even like, I don't know, I don't know, this may go a little too far. That also, to me, is quite stunning. Now, my suspicion is that they would like to still get their tax cut, but just have much more aggressive cuts in the social safety net in order to pay for them. But what do you make of that particular dynamic? I think that's really the right question, Crystal. You know, this bill does not have the large sort of, I mean, it has some, it has, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars, but in a $4 trillion or $5 trillion bill, unlike the first tax bill in 2017, which really was centered on massively reducing the corporate rate from 35 to 21%, which the first bill did.

This bill really showers cash on households, primarily or disproportionately, I would argue, households with the highest incomes. We did a story recently, about 30% of the tax cuts go to those with over, I think it was three or four hundred thousand dollars per year in income. It is slightly a different constituency than, you know, the Jamie Dimon, you know, it's not necessarily for those businesses on Wall Street themselves. So I'm not sure that this tax cut is as attractive of a package to them. I mean, they do have the rate cuts in there. There are cuts for, you know, pass through businesses, which, you know, these are people who often have over a million dollars a year in income. There are there's a massive reduction in the

estate tax. So there are things for very rich people. But it's a little less, I think, of a of a grab bag for Wall Street businesses and people like Diamond, then the first round of tax cuts was, I think you really hit the nail on the head that they want more spending cuts. So obviously, right, if we're talking about the debt being too big from the tax bill, there's a few options that can spare, they can reduce the amount of tax cuts, but that would require them to either, you know, pare back the amount that people at the top are getting or really like try to do, you know, even less of the Trump campaign promises on, you know, no taxes on tips, no taxes on social security. I don't think given how much of this

is already for upper income people, I think it's very unlikely that they move to pare back what is in there for lower and middle income households. And that would also be an admission that their tax cuts aren't going to get the growth, that they're now saying the CBO is underestimating the growth that would come from it. That's right. That's a very good point. They now have been saying, like, this bill will cut the deficit because it will lead to so much growth in sort of a Lafayette curve way. Yes. I think on the spending cuts, they do have cuts in there on Medicaid and food stamps,

but they're already pretty large. And my sense from talking to Republicans on the Hill is that they fear the politics of an even bigger cut to health care than they do the politics of the bond market, which could be dicey. But, you know, the U.S. has added trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars to its debt over and over and over again. And there haven't we haven't seen the bond market freak out that, you know, people like, you know, the deficit hawks have been warning about for a long time. So, you know, maybe there's still more that they can do without without triggering this sort of panic. So the other thing that we've written about is that they've entertained,

I mean, Steve Bannon has talked to the president directly, we've reported, about raising taxes on millionaires, or at least raising is a bit of an overstatement, about basically letting the tax cut that they originally approved for the top income bracket to expire in 2025. That would basically really get them out of a lot of this bond market chaos they're dealing with. But they don't want to go there because they don't want to raise taxes on the rich and because Republicans hate that. So it is a kind of fascinating thing to look at how they're trying to get out of this box. All right, let's talk a little bit about China because it's the other big thing that's happening. Put guys first, A5 up on the screen. This was Trump's truth social about China in which he said, two weeks ago, China was in grave economic danger. The very high tariffs I set made it

virtually impossible for China to trade into the U.S. marketplace, which is by far number one in the world. We went in effect cold turkey China, and it was devastating for them. Many factories closed. There was, to put it mildly, civil unrest. I saw what was happening and didn't like it for them, not for us. I made a fast deal with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation. I didn't want to see that happen. Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized. China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy. That was the good news. The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, has totally violated its agreement with us so much for being Mr. Nice Guy. Can you break down for us, Jeff, what is going on here with Trump and China, what the reality is?

Yeah, so I had a story about a week ago about what really led Trump to back down on China. And people inside the White House were explaining that basically what happened was it was increasingly clear that the 145 percent tariffs on China were not just hitting guys on Wall Street. We're not just hitting sort of people who work at the ports and sort of coastal types, but that they were really affecting Trump's base, that truckers and, you know, sort of like shippers and people who Trump considers his people were getting sort of clobbered by these tariffs. And that fact, we reported, created the space for White House officials who didn't like these tariffs to go to Trump and say, hey, your own people, your own base is getting hit by this. So you need to figure out a way to get these things lowered. And that was what led to the talks in Geneva that led to the accord

agreed to by Treasury Secretary Harry Scott Besson. The thing that Trump is complaining about is that even beyond the tariffs themselves, China retaliated by restricting what are called rare earth metals, which are confusingly not actually that rare, but they are essential. And basically 80% of production or facilitation synthesis of these rare earth metals is in China. So basically most of the vast majority of the world's production is there, and they control that supply chain. That's critical for the U.S. defense industry, for the U.S. healthcare sector, for all kinds of really critical economic functions. And I don't know enough personally to weigh in on this, but the Trump administration feels that China has not really removed those

restrictions that they agreed to in the Switzerland Accords and that they're still continuing to restrict those essential metals and that that, you know, might not show up in the macroeconomic data, but could severely sort of weaken the U.S. defense industrial capacity for a long time. And, you know, the president thinks that thought that he had an agreement to get that off the books and doesn't feel like that has been violated. Yeah. And Jeff, this also gets to this tension that you started by mentioning at the beginning. On the one hand, there's this Trump always chickens out narrative. On the other hand, as you said, you wrote down the level of tariff, but like the increase of tariffs that we're actually at from the baseline before Donald Trump took over. And, you know, maybe he's

chickening out on some of those points or him sure he would just say it was negotiation. But on the other hand, he actually still has a pretty high level of tariffs relative to everything that came before him. And that's actually another really big part of the tax bond market discussion, because if spending cuts of a huge magnitude are politically unpalatable and they feel like they can't really reduce the size of the tax cut itself anymore,

tariffs, I mean, it's been ridiculed, but it is true that the U.S. government has quadrupled or more the amount of revenue it's bringing in through tariffs, and that can offset the fears in the bond market. So, you know, we've seen kind of a stalling of the deals that Trump said he was going to make with the Europeans and the Japanese and the Indians. All of that talk has really slowed down. And I think there's a legitimate question about whether part of that is due to

the desire to bring in revenue via these high import duties, which is kind of an obvious point, but those fall quite heavily on lower income Americans who rely, who a disproportionate share of their spending is on imports of food and other sort of critical necessities, whereas the tax bill disproportionately hurts them with the spending cuts. So they're really potentially getting pinched on both sides here. Jeff, last question for you. We had a court last week say, OK, these Liberation Day tariffs, they vastly exceed the authority that you're invoking here. We had another court say, OK, the appeals court said, OK, well, while we're figuring

this out, you can still keep the tariffs in place. The Trump administration has been very aggressive in going out and saying that regardless of first of all, they're really mad about the court decision, but also second of all, they're saying it doesn't change anything. We have other powers we can use. So what is your expectation of where we are with regard to Trump and his desire and ability to, you know, to levy massive tariffs in whatever way he chooses to. So I don't want to bore your listeners anymore than I already have, and especially with like a long-winded explanation of like the different laws at play here. But to try to give you a quick summary, Trump imposed tariffs immediately under a law called IEPA, which is a sort of national

security emergency. And that's the one that the courts have targeted as being, you know, beyond the ability of the president. That said, there are other tariff authorities, they're called Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs that basically require, at first, an administrative, you know, investigation. The administration has to go out, do a bunch of work, and then say, because of that work, now we can do these tariffs. And that work is currently ongoing. It just takes a little bit of time. But there's really, I think, very, very little doubt that those tariffs can be slowed down by the courts. So even if the courts take off the emergency powers tariffs, which they have, you know, slowed down, but then were put back in, even if that happens, there's still these other tariff authorities that I don't think really anyone questions their ability to do. And I think those are going to stay and actually could be even bigger in some ways than the national security tariffs, because those are tariffs on sectors.

So like every car, every bit of steel, every part of a computer. So that's kind of where this is heading. It could circumscribe some of the flexibility he has, but it doesn't change sort of like the economic fundamentals of what he wants to do. Gotcha. All right, Jeff Stein, thank you so much. And you are never boring, sir.

We always appreciate your insights. My pleasure. Thanks for having me on. Great to see you. We are very fortunate to be rejoined this morning with Jeremy Scahill, who, of course, is co-founder of Dropsite News alongside our very own Ryan Grimm. Great to see you, Jeremy. Great to be back.

So there's a lot of developments to go through with you. Let's first of all put these horrific images up on the screen of, I hate even calling it aid distribution, but whatever you want to call this, what you see here first is the dynamic they've set up where Palestinians are, you know, just running in survival of the fittest Hunger Games style to grab whatever quote-unquote aid is available. But it turns even more horrific as Israelis began firing on this crowd, killing dozens of people. And you can see them fleeing. You can see them taking cover here. Jeremy, what do we know about what exactly unfolded here? Because I know the Israelis are completely denying that any of this actually occurred.

I mean, I think it's important to remember what Netanyahu and other members of his war cabinet said at the beginning when we started to learn about this so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, and that is that it was never meant to be an actual aid distribution program, that this was meant to offer the veneer of giving humanitarian aid to Palestinians to sort of quiet down some of the critics from within the pro-Israel camp internationally. Netanyahu specifically said that he had been approached by Republican senators saying that they didn't want the appearance of starvation of the Palestinians of Gaza to affect the ability of the United States to continue funding and arming this war of annihilation.

And so we just have to put that out there front and center. From the moment that this launched early last week, there have been dozens of Palestinians killed because Israelis have fired on them either on their way to get aid or after they've retrieved aid. I personally know a Palestinian family, four members were killed last week after they had gone to retrieve one of these small boxes that barely has enough food for their family. Four members were killed last week after they had gone to retrieve one of these small boxes that barely has enough food for their family. They were killed by tank ordnance, according to survivors of the hit against them. And what we saw unfold over the weekend, many Palestinians are calling it the Witkoff massacre, named after Steve Witkoff, the special envoy, because anger

is mounting inside of Gaza toward Trump and his administration because they feel like they are just completely taking Israel's side and trying to set the Palestinians up with a so-called truce or ceasefire deal that would enable Netanyahu to resume the intensity of the full genocide after either seven days or 60 days. So what we witnessed here was the Israelis unleash gunfire and other attacks on this crowd. And as videos and reports start coming out of Gaza depicting this, and we start hearing international doctors that are on the ground there describing the injuries that they're treating, Israel then puts out a video that it says actually shows Hamas was firing

on people retrieving aid. Well, that video that the Israelis put out has now been geolocated, and it wasn't near Rafah, where this Witkoff massacre, as the Palestinians are calling it, occurred, but actually had occurred at a different time. And it wasn't Hamas that was actually firing on Palestinians. It was a private gang that there's significant evidence to suggest is being bankrolled or backed by the Israelis to operate as kind of an armed thug force that is selling aid to Palestinians. David Satterfield, who was President Biden's top humanitarian aid official and a very, very militantly pro-Israel guy, recently said on a national interview on CNN that there's no evidence whatsoever that he saw during his entire time when he was a senior Biden administration official that Hamas is hoarding any significant quantities of aid or is engaged in any of the kinds of activities

that the Israelis are accusing them of. So clearly here, what we've seen is a massacre of Palestinians who were lured into this so-called aid trap, where the actual point of it ultimately was set out in the open by Netanyahu, force Palestinians into an ever small shrinking killing cage, and then force them to depend on that on the food inside of that killing cage so that you can either kill more of them or ultimately implement what they keep calling Trump's plan, which is to forcibly deport Palestinians from Gaza. And Jeremy, can I get your reaction? Help us parse B2. This is Ryan's tweet. He actually said the statement from the IDF about last night's massacre was distributed to journalists.

And because Ryan didn't agree to be off the record and this wasn't sent directly to him from the IDF, he actually just posted what the IDF distribution site and outside the operating hours of the humanitarian aid distribution site, IDF troops acted to prevent several suspects from approaching the troops. During the activity, warning shots were fired towards several suspects who advanced toward the troops. There's no connection between this incident and the false claims made against the IDF. So, Jeremy, on the one hand, what we're seeing there is an admission of military action from the IDF, right? That's part of the statement. So can you help us understand how Israel is explaining what happened? Well, I'm really glad that Ryan posted this because it sort of opens this window into what happens behind the scenes that most of the public in the world is never allowed access to.

And that is that Israel will send out official statements that make a certain claim in a very clear way. And then they'll sort of brief journalists off the record, not on background, off the record, as a way of trying to ensure that this narrative, as false as it may be, penetrates into the coverage. And you see these claims repeated all the time by journalists. I mean, the track record now is a 19-month track record where Palestinians videotape, witness, and then tell the world what has happened. They're smeared as being Hamas. Fake or fabricated videos or out-of-context videos or mistranslated documents are then presented to the public. And then it sort of seems like it's a,

well, Hamas says this and the good guys say that. And you even see Israeli officials saying, who do you want to believe, Hamas or an American-run aid organization and the Israeli military? So, you know, what Ryan did was sort of allow people to see just for a moment the way that the propaganda is manufactured. And the reality is,

Emily, that all throughout this genocide, we've seen this repeated over and over and over about massive tunnels under hospitals, Hamas using protected facilities as military bases. Israel has never been able to produce evidence for the most incendiary claims that it's made. And they're relying on the fact that many media outlets will take the testimony of Palestinians and accept that that's Hamas's narrative. You know, many people in Palestine are from different political factions. Hamas did not win 100% of the vote the last time that they had a democratic election. You know, many of the people that Israel is killing in its war aren't even members of Hamas, not to mention military members.

Palestine is a diverse society, and I think it really speaks to the effect of the dehumanization campaign that the Israeli military can put out a video that has nothing to do with a massacre that it committed, and so many news outlets and just people on social media accept Israel's word for it when 19 months of context and history indicate that you should never believe the first draft ever of what Israel says unless they provide indisputable evidence, which they never do. Yeah, and the hope is just to push off, to make the conversation and the telling of facts contested. And by the time there's any conclusive investigation, everybody's moved on. I mean, that's really the goal here, is that I don't think that they believe that if there was actually an investigation here by the

New York Times or whoever, with the limited ability they have to penetrate into Gaza, that they would come to the conclusion that, oh, yes, Israel was correct. I don't think they believe that. They just want to push that reckoning off into the future. And then it's contested. And by the time, you know, any sort of actual like definitive conclusion is reached by the sanctioned official outlets, everyone's moved on to the next thing. I want to go ahead and get you to walk us through what's going on with these ceasefire negotiations and put the tear sheet up on the screen here, guys, of Jeremy's report. Your headline here is how Israel and Witkoff are trying to strong arm Hamas into a deal that does not end the genocide.

And you go point by point through what it was that Witkoff or Hamas and the administration had agreed to, and then what the Israelis are pushing for in this quote unquote deal. And it seems like there's a number of things here that are meant to be poison pills. So just walk us through the dynamics and some of the critical differences between these two drafts. Well, first of all, starting a month or so ago, you had direct talks between Hamas and an unusual envoy for the Trump administration, a Palestinian-American academic named Bashar Ababa, who was a lifelong Democrat that broke with the Democratic Party even before Kamala Harris became the nominee and had denounced Joe Biden as Genocide Joe and said that he felt that Palestinians would

have a better chance of ending the war under Donald Trump. And he's actually been very critical of Trump publicly, which is unusual in the sort of, you know, Trump world. But he started an open channel with Hamas to try to work on the Edan Alexander deal. The American citizen who had been in the Israeli military was taken on October 7th, and they successfully did make a deal to release him. And there was supposed to be a lifting of Israel's siege as a result of that, Trump publicly calling for a ceasefire. That didn't happen, but the discussions continued. And basically what happened is that the Americans worked with Hamas, and they said, why don't

you lay out for us what your terms would be for a ceasefire? But it has to fit within this category. And Witkoff and Bhabha made clear to Hamas what the kind of bottom lines were. Hamas then delivers a 13-point proposal that fit in line with what the Americans said. This was last Sunday on May 25th. Hamas then announced that it has made an agreement with the United States for a framework for negotiating a ceasefire. Now, in a mediation process or a negotiation process, this is very common. One side drafts something, the mediators look at it, they say, okay, we're going to go now back to the other side. So they

were told, yes, this is acceptable. This fits within the American requirements. Now we're going to go to Israel. And my sources within Hamas have said that the Americans said, we're going to try to push Israel on these terms. So then Hamas waits. Two days later, Donald Trump is in the Oval Office. He summons Steve Witkoff to come up in front of the press. And Witkoff had denounced Hamas, saying that what they had given as a proposal was unacceptable, which, you know, from Hamas's perspective was crazy because this wasn't meant to be an ultimatum. It was sort of a starting point from what Hamas's position would be. So Witkoff then says, oh, we're on the precipice of sending out a new term sheet, he called it, to use like a business term instead of a framework for a ceasefire. And what then happens two days later is they then come up

with what was a draft that was primarily written by Ron Dermer, Netanyahu's top advisor and lead official doing these negotiations. And what they basically did was return to all of Israel's ultimatums. The bottom line on this is that Hamas has made many concessions in this back and forth, but they've identified as minimal red lines that they want a clear path to an end to the genocide. They've said in their own proposal that the moment a ceasefire agreement is signed, Hamas will totally relinquish governing authority and all power in Gaza. This is extraordinary to see this in the document because it's Hamas on the record saying we will relinquish power in favor of an independent Palestinian committee of technocrats. When we then obtained all three versions of these proposals that we published in full last week,

and what's extraordinary is that the Israeli proposal took that out. It took out of the ceasefire framework, Hamas agreeing to immediately relinquish governing authority of Gaza the moment a ceasefire is signed. And, you know, there's some theories that, you know, that have been floating around for some time that Netanyahu wants Hamas to remain in power because he can easily demonize them as a terrorist organization. I mean, hasn't he effectively said exactly that in the past? It's complicated. Netanyahu has, for certain strategic reasons, said that the only way to thwart a unified Palestinian state is to keep Hamas in power in Gaza. But there are many other layers to the context of what happened at the time that we could go into if you want. But yes, there certainly are benefits to having a party in power that you

have effectively dehumanized, demonized, that is listed on the State Department list of terrorist organizations, the British designation as a terrorist organization. But I think it's much deeper. They even are saying it's unacceptable for Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, to be in charge in Gaza. And he has basically acted as an agent of the occupation. That's how he's widely seen among Palestinians. So it's not just about Hamas. It's that Israel doesn't want Palestinians in control of Palestine at all. And that's really what I think the game is here. It's not just about Hamas. It's that we don't want a Palestinian committee. They want probably a puppet sort of

coalition of certain Arab nations that have normalized relations with Israel to be the ones that come in as an outside force. They don't want Palestinians in charge of their own political destiny or to continue forward with a path of a national liberation struggle. And from the U.S., the perspective of U.S. interests, the deal that you just laid out, Jeremy, if you're the Trump administration, if you're Steve Witkoff and you're continuing to get pushed by Israel as they remove the provision that you just mentioned,

it seems like U.S. interests are actually being thwarted. And that's separate from what all the disagreements that the three of us have with the Trump administration's position throughout this entire process. But it just seems like U.S. interests are sort of obviously being sidelined or harmed here in this entire process. But it just seems like U.S. interests are sort of obviously being sidelined or harmed here in this negotiation process. Yeah, I mean, there were indications going back to Trump's first term and the way he

interacted with Mahmoud Abbas from the Palestinian Authority, things that Trump has said also to Arab Americans. There are indications that Trump understands that the Palestinian struggle for liberation or statehood has very clearly not identified the United States as a party it wants to be at war with. It's why Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are not conducting any attacks outside of the boundaries of historic Palestine. And, you know, I think objectively speaking, it would be in the U.S. interest to have a stable, independent Palestinian state that has good relations with the United States. As you know, Emily, as well as any journalist covering this, there are multiple camps in Trump world. And I think what we're seeing here is that the most militant, hardline kind of Zionist camp within Trump's political network, his administration, and his financiers of his

campaign, they don't want any Palestinian state. You know, people like Mariam Adelson and Mike Huckabee don't believe there's a such thing as Palestinians. But, you know, Ryan Grimm and I have also heard from sources within the administration that are in a different camp, that are in an anti-interventionist camp, that believe that the United States should not be entangled in foreign wars, that are growing increasingly concerned about Witkoff's conduct. You know, the idea that he's morphing into an Antony Blinken-type figure, when at the beginning he seemed to have some spine.

He seemed to be willing to summon Netanyahu and make him understand, America has limits with you. Now, there is still some hope, I think, not just among the Palestinians that are negotiating this, but more broadly, that eventually Trump is going to understand that allowing Netanyahu to be in control of agreements that clearly the United States can have the final word on is counter to American interest. It is not actually in the U.S. interest to have someone setting fires all over the Middle East. I mean, really fascinating. When Trump was asked about Iran

at that press conference in the Oval Office last week where he had summoned Witkoff to make the Gaza comments, he was asked by reporters about what did he say to Netanyahu? And Trump basically said it out loud. I told him to back off. So again, people often attack me and they say, oh, why are you believing what Trump says? Or why are you believing what Wyckoff says? I'm not believing anything.

I'm reporting accurately on it. And I'm sorry that you think that reporting factually on Donald Trump and an issue of massive consequence somehow means that I'm like getting tricked by the Trump administration. This is called basic journalism and we're going to continue doing it. Speaking of basic journalism, I think that's a good transition to Jake Tapper and his appearance on Bill Maher's show over the weekend. And he asked, he got asked about the student protests, the pro-Palestine student protests that have been happening on college campuses since the outbreak of this genocide. And he gave an answer that has elicited a lot of interest. So let's go ahead and take a listen to what he had to say. It has to do with an academic theology of oppressor

and oppressed. If you only look at the world as oppressor versus oppressed, you then have to choose in a conflict, this group is the oppressor, this group is the oppressed. It's also why, for example, there have been conflicts on other college campuses where gay students have protested things that are going on in Muslim countries having to do with the LGBTQ community in those countries. And the gay students are made to be the oppressor because a lot of them are white. And that's also what's going on when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israelis are made to be the oppressor, the Palestinians the oppressed, and on and on and on. And that's part of what's going on at Harvard, that theology, that way of looking at the world. What do you make of that explanation for the motivation behind these protests?

Yeah, I mean, look, part of the reason why we're seeing such vibrant activism on college campuses, such uncompromising principled positions, is that young people's brains are not contaminated by the likes of people like Jake Tapper, who have just been conveyor belts for propaganda from the very moment that this genocidal war began. Their brains are not poisoned by this dogmatic adherence to the conventions of imperial foreign policy, which unfortunately Jake Tapper has totally morphed in to a spokesperson for the greatest excesses of imperialism during the past 19 months. And also sometimes the truth is just true. No one with a brain in their head can look objectively at what has happened over the past 19 months and come to any conclusion but that Israel is the oppressor in this case.

They are burning children alive. They are tricking people to come to aid, to get aid, and then drone striking them, hitting them with tanks, firing bullets upon them. They're bombing hospitals. They're shredding children. This morning, I saw a girl who looked like she was about six or seven years old. Her body was completely severed in half.

Every single day, we are watching Palestinian children burned alive with American weapons. And Jake Tapper has the audacity to use the phrase academic theology. The theology that Jake Tapper and people like him subscribe to is this deference to the lie-filled agenda of the most powerful and violent forces on earth. It's shameful, but their day is over. Their day is over because shows like this are spreading,

because independent news outlets refuse to be conveyor belts for the lies of the powerful. Jake Tapper is grasping at straws because his era is done. It's just galling, especially as somebody on the right to listen to Jake Tapper is grasping at straws because his era is done. It's just galling, especially as somebody on the right to listen to Jake Tapper make that argument at this point after years of just horrible, horrible coverage. I mean, the point of the oppressed-oppressor dichotomy, Jeremy, and this is Andrew, the problem is that you have these blanket applications of it. And Tapper there, he doesn't quite understand what he's saying because he brings in this idea that the gay students are being condemned as oppressors because they're white and then says that's the same lens that's being applied in Israel, Palestine. And it's like, dude, you don't even understand this idea that you are now condemning as the source of the poison, the source of the

all bad things happening here. The point is sometimes people actually are oppressors and sometimes people actually are oppressed, not all of the time, but sometimes. And yes, some people take it too far and apply it universally, but sometimes it's actually true. And he seems to just be unable to understand that a lot of young people aren't, like, this is a great point that you made, Jeremy, a lot of young people aren't even paying attention to CNN. They have no idea what he's saying. Yeah, and I think, you know, we're in a moment where political alignments have shifted.

And I think that there's, you know, also the issues around cancel culture and around speech. I think that anyone that genuinely believes in this doesn't believe in censoring the speech of people who are on the far right that they disagree with. I think that people who genuinely believe in free speech aren't against censoring those on the far left. And I think that genuinely people who are in support of free speech should be on the front lines right now of this vicious attack on speech related to

Palestine. You know, one of the things that I always have held on to, I have many criticisms of the United States. We have what I believe is the best speech laws on the books of any country in the world, and they are worth fighting for. The idea that the notion of free speech was not only enshrined in the Constitution, but has been upheld by conservative and liberal justices throughout history, that's worth protecting with everything that we have. People like Jake Tapper are actually much more in alignment in many ways with people on the far right or in the Trump administration that are trying to demonize or criminalize

the speech of people that are speaking out against Israel's genocidal war. I think people from all factions should realize that the time when your principle is shown is not when speech is being curbed against people you agree with, that it's being curbed or attacked against people with whom you have vehement disagreements. That's what actually shows what your principles are. Yes. The other irony here is that, okay, not only if you're applying the oppressor-oppressed lens here, like, and you are pro-Palestine, you were applying it correctly, but it's also ironic to me because people like Tapper and, you know, Israelis and defenders of Israel, they are the most abusive of the oppressor-oppressed narrative because basically

the paradigm that they use to try, especially with like, you know, to keep liberals on side, is to say, remember what happened to Jews in the Holocaust, which of course was absolutely atrocious and nobody wants to see, like, never again should be real. But then they just keep this one group of people in the perpetual victim category no matter of Israeli actions, which we also know is completely false and untrue, and also plays into actually the very simplistic, like, victim narrative that he perpetuates and propagates with his propaganda. And Jeremy, before we toss that to you, I just want to add, the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, which, you know, he's 10 years late to saying, oh, maybe this is a thing that's happening

among young people in college. Like, it's more of a millennial thing than it is a Zoomer thing. But anyway, all that is to say, it's about power. The sort of Marxist, I don't even want to use this term theology behind it, but it's about power dynamics. And that's where he also is completely clueless as to how this is or is not being applied in that case as well. Yeah, I mean, to go back also to what, you know, what Crystal just said earlier, you know, you look at the recent protest organized by Jewish anti-war activists to occupy Trump Tower. Fox News reported that as an anti-Semitic protest. In Germany, you've had numerous Jews arrested in Germany on anti-Semitic hate speech charges, including Jewish people living in Germany who are Israeli citizens. I mean, this has become

such a kind of lethal parody of the notion of what free speech is. And let us never forget that the, you know, the United States, all of us who grew up in the United States at every event, et cetera, we're reminded of the greatest generation. We're reminded of the sacrifices of World War II. This is the origin of what we're witnessing now when the United States and European countries decided to impose a European settler colonial state on Palestinian land. That's historical context that matters. And at the end of the day, the position that the supporters of Israel's genocidal war take is that nothing can justify October 7th, but October 7th. It's a huge mistake for us not to take into account the 77 years of history

that led up to this. Whatever anyone's political position is on this, let's debate based on facts and historical accuracy and not just invent our own paradigm where Israel equals Judaism. Masses of Jews around the world have been at the forefront of opposing this genocide, and it's a total insult to the Jewish faith for Netanyahu to pretend that his war of annihilation is somehow being done in the name of a religion. Yeah, that is all so well said. Jeremy Scahill, always great to have you, sir. Thank you. Thank you both for all your work. Ukraine was able to pull off quite a stunning surprise drone attack within Russia, deep inside of Russia on Russian air bases.

We can put some of these images up on the screen that have come out. So a swarm of drones that had been smuggled into the country, and I'll give you some more details of the operation in just a moment, were able to attack a bunch of Russian warplanes. Now, the Ukrainians are claiming that over 40 of these Russian warplanes were hit in an operation that is being called Spiderweb. And this is some of the video that they released where you can see these fighter jets that are on fire and had been targeted. This happened at not just one base, but a number of them, even as far away as Siberia. So they were able to penetrate deep inside of Russian territory and, you know, strike a significant blow against Russia's offensive air capabilities, including some of these warplanes are, you know, critical in terms of the nuclear triad.

Here you have, this gets to some of the details of the operations. You can see these drones flying out of these semi-trucks that had been positioned in strategic places. The expectation is that the drivers of these trucks may not have even known what they were transporting. These drones were sealed, and they're tiny things. You can see there. They look like, I mean, they look like children's toys. They were sealed inside of the top of these crates. So you had like the crate, and then right, there was like a false lid on the crate where the drones were inside of there. And then there was an ability for the Ukrainians to remote control, open the lids of these crates, and release these drones, again, you can see one of them and how small they are, into the air to go and hit their

targets. The Ukrainians are saying that this operation was more than 18 months in the making. And, you know, obviously, context here is you have some negotiations that are ongoing. You also have Russians have been the Russians have been able to take a significant amount of territory in recent days. And Putin seems, you know, pretty intransigent in terms of bending at all in the context of peace negotiations. So, you know, this could be an attempt to demonstrate, hey, we still have a lot of capability and we can still cause you pain even deep within your own territory. I can put this tear sheet up on the screen. I'll just read a little bit of this and make sure I have all the details right. Ukraine claims massive drone strike on Russian bombers in spider web operation. Audacious attack targeted 41 strategic Russian aircraft. Again, this is according to the Ukrainians. The Russians are downplaying the damage. We don't know exactly what the number is, but clearly they were able to commit some

damage here to the Russian fleet. Yeah, Ukraine claiming $2 billion. Yes, that's right. Ukraine Security Service said it struck more than 40 Russian bombers deep inside Russian territory in what would be one of the largest and most audacious attacks on Russian territory in the years-long conflict. A source within the security service of Ukraine told NBC News the country targeted 41 strategic Russian aircraft. The source also released dramatic video purportedly showing a drone attack at an airbase located in Siberia, nearly 3,000 miles from Ukraine. The video captures bombers under attack with explosions visible and smoke rising from the scene. I think that's one of the videos that we just showed you.

And as Emily just said, they are claiming $2 billion in damage. So obviously a very dramatic and sophisticated attack. Also one that, you know, has potentially troubling implications when you're talking about a nuclear armed superpower being made to feel very insecure within its own territory. And I know that it's sort of obnoxious to talk this way when Russia is bombing and bombarding Ukraine for years at this point. But we also have to acknowledge the reality of the situation and how dangerous and fraught it ultimately is, something that people like us have been warning about for a long time. Yeah. also have to acknowledge the reality of the situation and how dangerous and fraught it

ultimately is, something that people like us have been warning about for a long time. Yeah. I mean, to your point, people have been making obvious comparisons between the beeper attack and this one. Yes. The Crimea Bridge also, that was, people may remember that was a truck. It was an explosion from a truck. That was years ago at this point. But the infiltration of civilian infrastructure, this was more than 3,000 miles away. I think you already mentioned this, but more than 3,000 miles away as far as Siberia from Kiev. So incredible from a military perspective. And military experts have looked at that and said this not only is just remarkable technologically but this changes, literally changes the game. This

changes the future of warfare because again you can remotely detonate things with 3,000 plus miles of distance between you and in this case a truck and completely change a war that's been going on for years and years. And Russia had been, Crystal noted this, bombarding Ukraine hard in the days before this. A lot of Ukrainian service members had died. So there's peace negotiations happening today, actually right now in Istanbul. I want to put this next element on the screen. This is C3. Conflicting reports about whether the United States knew. So this is Jennifer Jacobs of CBS saying administration sources told her that the White House was not aware that today's large-scale drone attack by

Ukraine on the Russian military aircraft was coming. That's also quite an interesting aspect of this happening right before major peace negotiations at the same time. And we can put the next element, this is Arnaud Bertrand saying, essentially, it's the same type of action as Israel's Pager attack, turning civilian supply chains into potential weapon delivery systems and making them inherently suspect. Arnaud goes on to say it should be deeply troubling to anyone thinking through the sheer irresponsibility of the precedent set. And Crystal, you put this really well, that it's not an easy point to make when we're talking about Ukraine defending itself and responding to days of bombardment that had killed its service members. But the precedent being set in the midst of war is troubling because it's in that sort of fog of war.

It's in the fog of uncertainty, of war and desperation. And going forward, it is really frightening. Well, here's the thing is, I mean, I think in a lot of ways, the genie is out of the bottle. Yes. I mean, the drones, we showed you what they look like, small, inexpensive, off the shelf. You know, this isn't just some, you know, a superpower that would be able to procure and deploy these killing machines. You have, you know, parallels not only to the Pager attack, but I also was thinking back to the tech that was used on October 7th by Hamas.

They also used low-budget, off-the-shelf drones to destroy and debilitate this multimillion-dollar, elaborate, high-tech security fence that Israel had put into place, complete with automatic machine guns. Right, right. And so they were able to disable the sensors and the cameras. And that was the start of October 7th. So, you know, like I said, in some ways, I don't think there's any putting this genie back in the bottle. But when you think about, you know, non-state actors, when you think about terrorists and what they could do with this sort of, you know, relatively low tech, relatively inexpensive tech, and then the other piece of this that Arnaud was really pointing to there. And this part is, you know, a little bit different than the, like, you know, the

terror networks, et cetera, because of the extensive coordination that would be involved, not to say it's impossible, but the infiltration of the extensive coordination that would be involved, not to say it's impossible, but the infiltration of civilian supply lines. I mean, this has long been considered completely out of bounds in terms of war fighting. And, you know, it appears like that was involved here in this Ukrainian attack with Russia. And so you have not only the, you know, troubling context of going after Russia's nuclear triad and Russia being a nuclear power and at a particularly fraught moment in terms of this ongoing horrific war, but then you also have what this spells in terms of the future of warfare. And if you are the global superpower as we are with a $1 trillion defense budget as we are about to be, you have to grapple with the fact that nearly any actor around the world could acquire this technology and deploy it for horror, terror, killing, and death

anywhere in the world. So I think that should be really unsett I think that should be unsettling for everyone here and abroad and in Russia and Ukraine and everywhere else because of what it means in terms of the ability of even small ragtag groups to inflict death and suffering on anyone they want. And again, so Jennifer Jacobs of CBS also reported that administration sources told her that there was no intelligence sharing, that the U.S. didn't share any intel. And it's with Zelensky and Ukraine for, quote, Operation Spider's Web, according to admin sources talking to Jennifer Jacobs. Ukraine gathered its own information.

So this is— I'm a little skeptical, but— And I'm wondering if that's— so she's citing Trump administration sources. Right. Curious also if there are Ukrainian sources that are making this sound like it was completely Ukrainian. All them. Or on the other hand, is this the U.S. saying that this is Ukraine so that it can continue the negotiations with sort of the, I mean, neutrality is not the right word, but that sense of diplomacy that's being brought to the negotiations. So no idea about that, but it does raise the question

similarly to what's happened in Israel about, you know, actors who could not be prosecuting these wars without massive funding and resources from the United States acting independently in ways that if you're Ukraine and you have different goals for how this war should end from the person who's funding the war or the country, I should say, is funding the war to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, and you're not on the same page about it, maybe you're going to do things and keep them private that can escalate during peace negotiations. Yeah, I think that's I think it's a possibility. I wouldn't take it face value. The administration's claims that they had no idea in advance, because to your point, both the Trump administration and the Ukrainians have an incentive to make it look like we had no involvement because for the Ukrainians, it's a projection of strength. Like, look, we don't even need the U.S. Look what we're

able to do on our own. This, you know, highly complex, and it certainly was required long-term planning, you know, did require some, you know, tech in terms of being able to deploy these things from the trucks where they were stored potentially for months and months. We don't exactly know. So the Ukrainians want to be able to say, like, look what we can do. And we don't even need our big brother and our greatest ally, the U.S. The U.S. wants to keep their hands clean. So they both have an incentive, even if there was U.S. involvement, to say that there wasn't. However, it is also possible that, you know, the Ukrainians are acting independently in a sort of, I mean, actually rogue way, which is also a disturbing

possibility in and of itself. It didn't give it as much attention, but there were also two Ukrainian attacks recently within Russia that targeted bridges and caused actually some civilian deaths within Russia as well. And that hasn't been, I think the reason it hasn't been reported as much is because the Ukrainians haven't, I believe, claimed responsibility for those attacks. So it's still somewhat disputed. But the understanding, you know, if you read the global press and if you read the Russian press, is they believe that these were both targeted by Ukraine, which does follow and does make sense based on other operations from the Ukrainian security services within the state of Russia. I mentioned this before, but I do think that this is important

just to underscore, put C5 up on the screen. This also did not get a lot of attention in the Western press, but Russia has just seized somewhere around 200 kilometers, made significant advances in Ukrainian territory in recent days, and looks like they're setting up for what they're describing as a fresh ground offensive. So there's been a massive Russian bombardment throughout Ukraine, and there has been evacuations. The reason they think it looks like it's setting up for a new Russian ground invasion, there have been evacuations of some of these villages near the front lines in preparation for, you know, potential escalation in terms of the ground invasion. So again, plays into the context here. You've got Zelensky going into these peace negotiations, does not have a particularly strong hand because of wariness among the American public

and among the Republican Party and potentially among in the Trump administration, although it kind of depends on the day of continuing to fund and arm them to the hilt as has been done. Although so far, the Trump administration has basically continued the Biden-era policy, but that is not certain in the way that it was under Joe Biden whatsoever. So you have that. Then you have the fact that the Russians just have so much more state industrial capacity and just so many more bodies to throw at this conflict. in particular and their difficulty being able to get new recruits and actually like unconscionable tactics that have been used to round up Ukrainian men and send them to the front lines here. So you have Zelensky going to these negotiations with a relatively weak hand. And I think, you know, it's pretty obvious this is an attempt to try to demonstrate, listen, we can still cause

you pain even if you think that time is on your side and capacity is on your side. Yeah, Playbook, actually, there's a direct line from the Playbook author this morning. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, it seems, holds more cards than Trump gave him credit for. Their headline in Playbook this morning was Russia's Pearl Harbor. That's the headline in Playbook this morning. I mean, that seems a little... No, it's taking the Ukrainian spin really far.

And I also saw people pointing out, like, okay, so if you're the Japanese in this scenario doing the Pearl Harbor, then what happens? The thing that happens next is not really that great for you, so I don't know. Great work, team. No, I mean, it's like what's happening right now, it's actually directly related to the negotiations. Everyone trying to get the cards on the table in order to make it look like they have cards and to not look like they're hiding any cards as the negotiations are ongoing. So it's really awful to see escalation right now. But if you're Ukraine, and I don't mean that about this particular Ukrainian attack, although the precedent I do find very frightening, but they've been getting bombarded over the last several days. So you understand the timing of it? Absolutely. We will see if the toothpaste can ever be put back in the tube. But I'm deeply skeptical of that crystal. Yeah, it's a very difficult situation at this point to try to imagine how this is going to be resolved. I mean, however, it's possible we just continue in this kind of like endless back and forth with Russia, continuing to eke out gains slowly over time. And you end up with basically a failed Ukrainian state.

I mean, that's kind of what it looks like it's heading towards right now, unless there is some sort of a dramatic development. But, you know, I also have to say, a lot of war analysts, military analysts have been quite wrong about this conflict at every turn. And while, you know, if you look at the industrial might of Russia versus Ukraine, if you look at just the manpower of Russia versus Ukraine, you come to a pretty clear conclusion about who has the upper hand. But I mean, with this type ability to commit this type of attack and with the modern warfare dynamics that Emily and I were just talking about, where you can use low budget, off the shelf tech, you know, those things can help to level the playing field, especially when you're talking about a group of people who are fighting for where it's truly existential and where you

are fighting for your homeland. I mean, the U.S. has learned this lesson many times before and come in with all the military might in the world, but it's no simple thing to dislodge people's sense of pride and nationalism and, you know, commitment to the homeland. So, you know, I think it's, I just, I think everyone should be very cautious about making any sort of predictions about what the military future of this conflict ultimately looks like, because there are more variables here than just the, okay, you add up the Russian industrial might, the manpower, you add up the Russian industrial might, the manpower, X plus Y equals Z.

There are more complex factors going in here. And in some ways, that's precisely what this Ukrainian attack really demonstrates. Yes. So we'll see what happens over the course of today with negotiations set to continue in Istanbul. Another, you know, thing to feel less than optimistic about, unfortunately. Yeah, unfortunately so. All right, let's get to the latest with Elon.

On his way out the door, Elon Musk stopped by CBS Sunday morning. This is just a couple of days, the interview aired just a couple of days after Elon Musk did a joint press conference, I guess if you could call it that, in the Oval Office with Donald Trump. We have clips from that as well. But just yesterday, he sat down with CBS News and want to play some clips from that interview. And then we'll get to some clips from the Oval Office as well. This is D1. I noticed that all of your businesses involve a lot of components, a lot of parts. Do the tariffs and the trade wars affect any of this? You know, tariffs always affect things a little bit. Wondering what your thought is on the ban on foreign students, the proposal.

I mean, you were one of those kids, right? Yeah, I mean, I think we want to stick to, you know, the subject of the day, which is like spaceships, as opposed to, you know, presidential policy. Oh, okay. I was told anything's good, but... No, well, no. You know, it's not like I agree with everything the administration does. So it's like, there's, I mean, I agree with much of what the administration does, but we have differences of opinion. You know, there are things that I don't entirely agree with. But it's difficult for me to bring that up in an interview because then it creates a bone of contention. So then I'm a little stuck in a bind where I'm like, well, I don't want to, you know, speak up against the administration, but I don't want to...

I also don't want to take responsibility for everything the administration is doing. So, really interesting, actually, set of questions to Elon Musk there, Crystal. And in the defense of the reporter, the CBS reporter, which is not a sentence I thought I would ever say, but in defense of the CBS reporter there, basically, even if you want to talk about spaceships with Elon Musk, you're still going to be talking about tariffs. Politics. Of course. And the combination of Elon's, even, and people talk about Tesla a lot, but even, I mean, the combination particularly of a space business, it is so coupled. It is so intertwined with the United States government that it's, you wouldn't be able to do that interview. I mean, what Elon Musk ended up saying there, and this is what I'm curious to get your thought on, is essentially

that he just shouldn't have sat down for the interview because he's saying there's no way for me to talk about any of this without looking like I'm weighing in on the politics of it. And I wonder, Crystal, if this is something that he's realizing increasingly is a problem after getting involved with politics six plus months ago, seeing his businesses take a hit and then realizing, hey, I should probably go focus back over here. It's interesting to see that happening as he's stepping back from D.C. Completely. And the funny thing about the second part of that. So the first part of that is just so awkward. Like, how could you sit for an interview with anyone and think you're not going to get questions about the Trump administration is wild. But even

if they said they're just going to talk about space, you still have to talk about the administration. Can you put D7 up on the screen? Like, Trump just yanked this NASA nominee who was a close Elon ally. And, I mean, he basically was installed by Elon in this position. And now that Elon's on his way out, Trump is using this excuse of like, oh, I found out he gave to Democrats. I'm sure like that information was widely available before. He's using it as an excuse to now that Elon's gone like, okay, you don't get your dude in at NASA.

But like, obviously that is deeply political. The SpaceX mission is going to, does require and already depends in substantial part on government money. So there is no way to disentangle Elon Musk, his companies, his spaceships, and what is going on in the Trump administration. But, you know, even putting that piece aside, the second part of that clip where he starts talking about, well, you know, I don't agree with everything they do and so I'm in this bind and I, you know, I don't want it to look like I'm cosigning everything. But then again, I don't want to look like I'm a critic. Which is fair, by the way.

He actually brings that up himself. Right. That wasn't even at the prodding of the reporter. So even without, you know, the reporter then explicitly asking questions about the Trump administration, Elon himself can't disentangle who he is, what he's doing, his businesses, and what's going on in terms of politics. It makes me wonder genuinely how much he thought that he was going to steer the ship of the Trump administration. Because Trump, if you were listening to, if you listen to a single Trump rally, if you listen to 10 seconds of any Trump rally, you would realize the man was completely deadly serious about tariffs the entire time. It always has been.

And so it genuinely makes me wonder if Elon Musk thought that by putting so much money into the election and coming into D.C. and being coronated as the king of Doge, that Trump would maybe give some deference to Elon Musk on a lot of these priorities that are just totally out of line with the crypto libertarian ethos that Musk, and I should say ideology, that Musk wants the Republican Party to look more like. And now that he's sort of on his way out, there's this very obvious conflict in what he's saying. It's actually fair that when you start to talk about these things, first of all, you move markets, you look like you have inside information because you do. You look like maybe you're trying to put your thumb on the scale. Like all of those frustrations are perfectly accurate, but that's the obvious

reason that people don't get too involved in politics to the point where they become a special government employee because those problems, like even from a business perspective, are so obvious. I mean, he put in $250 plus million into Trump's campaign and, you know, was critical, potentially, in Trump winning that election and focused a lot of his efforts in Pennsylvania, which was the critical swing state. And so I think he believed that he could basically do what he wanted. And for a while, he could. You know, for a while, he did come in. And this is also, you know, someone who sees himself as the only main character and this sort of like great civilizational figure. I mean, this is truly how he views himself.

And he views his project of getting to Mars and, you know, through via SpaceX and the need to marshal vast government resources in order to do that, I think, is a central driving desire. I think also something he did accomplish during his time in Washington, a central driving desire is to get all of these various regulatory agencies off of his back and make it so that he's not facing labor violation complaints and Tesla doesn't have to be regulated. And if he goes forward with Visa over at X, that the CFPB isn't going to be sniffing around what they're up to, etc. And that part he is able to ultimately accomplish. But, you know, now there is a, so it's one of those weird things where Elon is not in DC anymore. The work of Doge does continue. It's not over. Wired is out with a report saying like, you know, don't believe the hype that Elon has done. He just is saying he needs to take some pressure off of his businesses so he wants to be less visible. Right. However, I think two things do indicate

that he is genuinely on the ounce with this administration. One of them is what I just showed you, them pulling his guy at NASA. That's a big blow to Elon because he wants to be able to get whatever, you know, this government can offer to SpaceX. So I think that is a blow. And the other thing is that there are, there is just a flood of leaks going to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and all kinds of other outlets about how much everybody in the administration hated him and about how he was doing all sorts of drugs all the time while he was here. And I believe during that Oval Office meeting, we can put this image up on the screen. You can see some evidence of that cocktail of drug use. Towards the end, it gets especially wild. Yeah. I mean, here he is just like totally tweaking out. And by the way, with a black eye,

which, brother, if you want to cover that up, I can give you some makeup tips. Oh, look at that, though. It's not that hard. So he looks like shit. He's, like, totally disconnected from reality here. And, you know, proving right the various articles. But he denies that he's using these drugs. Blah, blah, blah. Lawyers, that's what he says. He denies that he's using them.

But totally validating the reporting from the New York Times about what's going on behind the scenes. The New York Times, and this is skipping ahead a little bit, so this is D4, the New York Times dropped this really splashy deep dive with like a Maggie Haberman, oh I'm sorry it was Megan Twohy byline, Kirsten Grind and Megan Twohy on Friday before that Oval Offense press conference. And so speculation ensues throughout the day on Friday. You know, D.C.'s having fun with the story that Elon Musk has been abusing drugs like ketamine. And this is a story sourced from people who were spending time with Elon Musk on the campaign trail in particular, which is when they say it was, quote, more intense than previously known. His drug use was more intense than previously known. Just several hours later, after all the denials are happening, he's literally standing next to the president

in the Oval Office. And I mean, I would assume that what we just watched on screen was drugs. I think anybody would assume that that's drugs. If it's not drugs, it's a problem. That was completely abnormal. Now, Trump in that press conference also said that Elon's not really leaving. This is what the Wired story focused on and that Doge is his baby. He's going to be back and forth. But at the same time, it was like an exit. So let's also get part of that Oval Office conversation where a reporter asked Elon Musk about his black eye. This comes amid speculation that he had a physical altercation with Scott Besant, which we will get to in just a moment as well. So this is D3.

I wanted to ask quickly, Mr. Musk, is your eye okay? What happened to your eye? I know this was a bruise there. Well, it wasn't. I wasn't anywhere near France. So, but. What does that mean? I didn't notice it. First lady of France. I didn't notice it. So, yeah, I was just horsing around with little X and I said go ahead, punch me in the face and

he did. Turns out even a five year old punching you in the face actually does... That was Exodus? If you knew Exodus... I saw his mom right now. I didn't really feel much at the time Ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex-ex- humble bragging that he does. He does know X. They're buddies. Some of his bookers may still be on that text. So let's put now, skipping ahead again, D6 on the screen, because this became a really sort of ugly meme. But Bannon said that there was a physical altercation between Scott Besson and Elon Musk that he, quote, literally got physical with him.

Basically, that Musk shoved Scott Besson. These are the messiest people on the planet. Well, no. I honestly think that Elon Musk is the messiest person on the planet. Like, do you think Scott Besson is around there shoving people? Doesn't really seem like the type. No, he sure doesn't. Don't touch it, but buy his cover, but you never know. I guess he was the one who got shoved. According to Steve Bannon, who's now spilling the tea about all of this, he said that in comments to the Daily Mail, Scott Besson called him out and said,

quote, you promised us a trillion dollars in cuts, and now you're at like $100 billion, and nobody can find anything. What are you doing? And that's when Elon got physical. It's a sore subject with him. It wasn't an argument. It was a physical confrontation. Elon basically shoved him. Now, the White House responded to this and said, quote, it's no secret President Trump has put together a team of people who are incredibly passionate about the issues. It's basically a validation, right?

Yes, they did not deny it. Yeah. So that's Caroline Leavitt. And just to be clear, that altercation happened back in April, so that would not be the cause of the black eye, just so people understand. It just speaks to Elon's, I guess, willingness to get into physical confrontations as a middle-aged man. Like, what the hell are you doing? In any case, so, I mean, it adds credence to the idea that little X punching him in the eye may not have been what happened here. The other, like, blue-an on conspiracy going on with this one is. I wasn't going to bring it up, Crystal.

I mean, we have to give the viewers all of the information, Emily. OK, people are saying Stephen Miller and his wife, Katie Miller, apparently were close with Elon while he was in town and they socialized outside of the office. Katie Miller was working with Elon very closely on Doge. She does communications. Okay. And she is leaving the Trump administration to work with Elon. So leaving, you know, Stephen and the Trump administration to go work with Elon. So this also stoked some speculation about just how closely, I guess, they were working together. And there was some analysis of, you know, Stephen Miller being a lefty in which I that likely would have impacted if, you know, in the theoretical world where there was some sort of an altercation there over Miller's wife.

But in any case. I mean, the much more likely scenario is that Elon Musk can pay an absolute F-ton of money to the people that he sees as trusted advisors. And now Katie Miller should be able to make a ton of money while her husband works in the government, making, you know, by billionaire, massive corporation standards, not that much money. So I think that's probably the likeliest case. But interesting, nonetheless, to see what the drama is behind the scenes on all of this, there's also a Wall Street Journal story. This is D5. We can put on the screen. Getting into the relationship between Trump and Musk as well, they described it as a, quote unquote, complicated relationship. And the Journal story starts with an interesting anecdote that administration officials, sources in the

administration, gave to the Journal where Trump asks to his advisors about Doge, was it all bullshit? And I think the answer to that question, Crystal, is pretty much yes. It's one of these, yeah, okay, if you're talking about cutting costs and efficiency, if you're talking about I'm going to cut $2 trillion, no $1 trillion from the budget, yes. Which is what they're... Yes, it was all bullshit. But how did you not know that? Like, that's the thing that's crazy to me is like, if you just know the very basics of government accounting math, you knew from the beginning

that it was all bullshit when it came to the cost cutting. Because if you want to cut cost, significant costs in the federal government, you are not going to do it by finding some like mice study you don't like, or even, and we'll get to this in just a moment, by completely decimating USAID to the vast detriment of, you know, millions of sick children and other innocents around the world, that is a drop in the bucket in terms of the vast federal government budget. So if you did not know that, I just think it's astonishing to me that he would not have realized that the project with regard to Doge was never really about cost-cutting. Elon had other ideological goals, some of which he did accomplish during his time.

I'm going to talk more tomorrow about, you know, the scooping up of all this data and giving it to Palantir, you know, being one of Elon's, you know, allies within the tech right. And possibly, like, we don't know what sort of federal government data was scooped up to use to further Elon's AI ambitions, you know, because we have very little actual transparency into what Doge was even up to and continues to be up to within all of these organizations. As I said before, in terms of the goal of getting the regulators off his back, certainly mission accomplished there. So there was a lot that was done and a lot that was incredibly destructive and is going to continue to have huge consequences. But I just I think it's so insane that anyone took

seriously the idea that this was going to be a real cost cutting and efficiency effort from the beginning and the way that they approached it. Well, I think the two trillion dollar number to take that seriously is, I mean, without touching Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, that's... Or the Pentagon. Or the Pentagon. Right. I mean, the Pentagon's the big one there because you could plausibly, if you found a lot of waste in other agencies and you basically scuttle USAID, I mean, USAID is not gone. It's been absorbed in the State Department. A lot of those costs have been eliminated. I mean. It's completely shrunk to a shell of its former self, no question about that. I suspect Marco Rubio will still use it as a long arm of soft power, but just in a very different way.

So there's all kinds of waste that you can find in the federal government budget, of course. But the idea that that would, without touching the Pentagon or without touching Medicaid, Social Security, and not just looking for, quote, unquote, waste, fraud, and abuse, that that would amount to $2 trillion is an enormous stretch, especially when the process by which they are going about these cuts, Crystal, was so wildly inefficient. Because Musk's idea was you cut a bunch, and then you learn by the cuts what you need to bring back, which is, I guess, a much more defensible philosophy in a corporate environment when it's not the government that taxpayers pay into and rely on be like, whoops, our bad. We are bringing it back. Sorry about the last month of your life, Mr. Veteran. Yeah. Who was affected by this. So, I mean, it was just the the process was a disaster. And now the line is that Doge is a lifestyle. I forget whether it was Trump or Elon Musk who said that.

Oh, I missed that. Doge isn't going anywhere. It's a lifestyle. And to some extent, though, it's true because there are Musk lieutenants, people who are brought on board who are now they are like actually employees in managerial positions throughout the federal government. in this bill, where you have to kick over a certain number. If you're spending a certain number of money, it has to be kicked over to Congress and has to be signed off on by Congress because, you know, that way you don't have agencies just greenlighting massive contracts and stuff like that. They haven't shown any willingness to, as you said, Bannon has said this many times, go after these Pentagon contracts to seriously take on, quote unquote, waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon. They never really went in that direction. And Dojanel lifestyle. OK, let's see. Let's see, Crystal. I mean, there is one agency that has never been able to pass an audit. And, you know,

and as Bannon always said, you got to cross the river. I mean, you know, I'm very hesitant to ascribe actual like belief to him and whatever. He has his own agenda. But he's 100% correct about that if you actually want to go after ways, fraud, and abuse. But that, again, is why I never took seriously the idea that which mean you can collect less tax revenue, specifically less tax revenue from rich people. So it's going to cost more. You have degraded the efficiency and quality of the services. If you're someone who's trying to resolve some issue with your Social Security check, it is now going to take vastly longer and be, you know, effectively mission impossible with the closed field offices and the longer wait times on the

telephones, etc. But to your point, Emily, like it's all well and good. Like it's one thing if your Twitter DMs don't work for a little while. Yeah, exactly. It's another thing when air traffic controllers are being like pressured to resign at a time when we have a massive crisis in terms of air travel safety. It's another thing when you are a veteran who's enrolled in a cancer research trial that has a chance of curing what you have, and that funding is stripped. You are not going to eliminate the deficit by gutting scientific research for a generation as an example. That's just not where the bulk of federal spending is. Even I looked up the numbers. If you look at how much we spend on the entire federal government workforce, right,

they pushed out some 250,000 federal government workers. Like, it was a massive number of people that they cut. If you cut everybody, it is a very small proportion of the over federal government budget. So I just, to me, to take at face value that Trump didn't know what's going on here, I don't know, that raises some other questions for me about how engaged he is in his own administration beyond like his, you know, Liberation Day chart making exercises. Well, you know, it was hard for anyone to keep up with Doja at first because the cuts were head-spinning and they were coming fast and furious

and that was all part of the flood-the-zone plan. So there were a lot of cuts by the, like, relative standards of how quickly they came. They just didn't end up adding up to anything near what was being projected. I mean, there are some agencies that right now are utterly unrecognizable. The CFPB, USAID, those are significant cuts. Yeah, yeah, exactly. But in the scope of the federal budget, it's amazing how big cuts like that still don't make a dent in things. And RAINS is in the reconciliation bill. We'll see if it survives. But I mean, you

had to cross the river if you wanted to. You certainly had to cross the river. And you would have had to do a lot more than just quote unquote waste, fraud and abuse. And they didn't find any fraud. What fraud did they find? I'm sure they did. But that's also hard to know because the Doge website is full of random shit that you have no idea whether or not it's real. Sometimes people have tried to track it down and you don't know. I'm sure they found some bits and pieces of fraud. I know they found things they didn't like. They definitely found that, yes. That's different from fraud, right? I mean, fraud is, like, there is fraud in the federal government. Although, to be honest with you, after the Doge exercise, I think it must be less than what I was assuming, to be honest with you. You're like, yeah, this is great. They didn't find any of it. You know,

so we always joke like Ryan Grimm found more actual fraud in the federal government budget by identifying this fraudulent $400 million that was set to go hunt the door to Tesla than Doge did. Yeah. So tell me what's going on there. Tell me what's really going on there ultimately. You know, the other piece of the Wall Street Journal article about some of the internal dynamics that was interesting to me is apparently he really got crosswise with Susie Wiles, among others. I mean, Elon is notoriously like he's a raging asshole people don't like to work with. I think he would say that himself. Like he does not deal well with people. He just doesn't.

And that is the history of his dynamics within his companies. He usually has someone else who is working alongside with him who can, you know, deal with the human beings involved. So not only did he have this physical altercation with Scott Bessant, I think he and Rubio were significantly at odds. Some of the tension with Sean Duffy played out in public. But they also got upset because they were learning about some of the chainsaw that was being taken to various parts of the federal government. Susie Wiles and co. were learning about that the same way that we were, where he just went in and did his thing. And so there were increasing efforts to try to rein him in, coordinate with him, et cetera. But I think that was part of the underlying dynamic as well, is just people

did not like him. And so after the Wisconsin Supreme Court debacle, when there was a real display of political weakness, and Trump apparently had talked to, I can't remember, what was that guy's name? Scheimel or something like that? Brad Scheimel. Is that the name of the candidate? Oh, Brad Schimmel. Schimmel. Yeah. Anyway, Trump was not impressed with that guy, thought he was going to lose, thought that Elon displayed very poor political instincts by going all in on that. And I do think that that was a real blow to him with regard to his standing vis-a-vis Trump and others. I'm sure

with the administration, this part I'm just speculating about, use that loss as a way to make the case to Trump of like, okay, this guy's bad for your agenda. He's making you look bad. He's causing you all kinds of problems. Let's try to get him out the door. Because it all comes down to this central cost-benefit analysis. Does the cost of being associated with Elon Musk outweigh the benefit of having particularly his political donations. And so when Elon Musk, notice the timing here, this was all happening as Elon Musk said, by the way, he's going to stop his political donations. Then suddenly he's out at Doge. Well, Wisconsin showed that the cost of association with Elon Musk actually in that case outweighed

the benefits of him pouring millions of dollars into a state Supreme Court election. Even his millions of dollars couldn't buy that election because in the micro example that we're talking about, the microcosmic example we're talking about, it really motivated Dem, Normie Dem voters to come out and vote for the liberal Supreme Court justice in that case. So I think what that showed is that he's he's less valuable than it looked like when he came into Pennsylvania in the waning days of a very, very, very, very, very close presidential election. At least in the sense of, you know, when you are within a margin in Pennsylvania, all the electoral college votes are on the line. He comes in, puts tons of money in the swing states, but particularly Pennsylvania, sort of looks like he buys Trump those states

because is he the sort of deciding factors, that money, what tips it over the edge for Donald Trump? Republicans say, wow, we have the deepest pockets we could ever conceive of having. And he's just giving freely and doing it kind of for the hell of it. And we don't have to really do anything to beg him. He's just like having fun. So what does that mean for us? What does that mean for the party in the midterms? What does it mean for the party for the next 10 years with a massive cash infusion potentially on the table? And as soon as that dream kind of fades for Republicans, he becomes to them less of a benefit than the trouble he causes. And I think that's probably part of what just everyone's exasperated with him. He's exasperated

with them because they have less patience for him. They have less patience for his eccentricities and his process, which is very anathema in Washington. So it just, it fizzled. We'll see how much he's still here. I have a hard time believing, Crystal, that he doesn't want to still be pulling some of the puppet strings. No doubt about it. And that he probably will still be pulling some of the puppet strings. Some of them, yeah. But, you know, not without as much power as he previously wielded, which, you know, at times rivaled Trump, at least, especially with Trump, pre-tariff Trump, where he seemed like he was happy to just like play golf and outsource immigration and foreign policy, apparently to Steve Miller, outsource whatever is going on with Doge to Elon.

Yeah. And, you know, now I think the part of the Trump administration that Trump does take control over is the tariffs, which is kind of a, you know, and maybe he's involved somewhat with the top line ideological underpinnings of the big, beautiful bill. But, you know, other pieces he's been happy to really just kind of hand into various corners of his administration. I wanted to ask you, Emily, an important part of the MAGA Trump 2.0 coalition is the tech right and Elon being the figurehead, right? And so you had all the all-in guys excited about Trump. And Emma and I actually covered last week all of them, including David Stacks, although he was like, well, this is the best we could get. But all of the all-in guys, very critical of the big, beautiful bill. And so what do you think the exit of Elon and the fraying of that relationship means for the broader tech right alignment with the Trump administration? I think the illusion is fading that there was, and people who are people who are in like DC Republican circles, I don't

think anybody said it aloud, but I think everybody looked at those guys as almost inspiringly naive, that they had these huge visions and the will, like the political will to, like Elon Musk was out there with a chainsaw, right? Like this is a dream that the, let's say, anarcho-libertarian world, which not all of them are. I mean, some of them are more robber barons than anarcho-libertarians, but that they have had for a long time is this idea that there would be the political will to go out there and dance on stage with a chainsaw, like a good, true, ideological libertarian. And so what that meant was, wow, this is basically Elon Musk coming in with all of these Silicon Valley nerds and waving magic wands and just dissolving parts

of the government. And I think what we're seeing right now is that, and I say this with some judgment, but not with much judgment, but the fading of that naivete, that there was this idea that if you came into Washington with the will to take the arrows for cutting PEPFAR, to take the arrows for cutting USAID, the CFPB in ways that no Republican ever would have had the courage to do pre-Trump, then man, like this can finally be done. And that was, again, I think a lot of people in D.C. identified that as naive. Maybe they didn't want to say it because it felt hopeful. But I think that it's finally that idea, that dream is dead. I think that's what's really happened here. That is a good transition to talking about this Rogan appearance, Bono talking to Rogan about USAID in particular.

And I told you, I cut a longer shot of this because there was a portion of this one exchange that the right was sharing of like, oh, Rogan really showed him who's boss and USAID exposes a money laundering operation. And there was another part that that Democratic wins account, which used to be Kamala wins account. There was another part that that account shared. So I thought let's give you the whole context and then we can talk about this on the other side. But interesting exchange nonetheless. Let's take a listen. You went to Boston University. You taught at Boston University.

I taught martial arts there, yeah. So just recent report, it's not proven, but the surveillance enough suggests 300,000 people have already died from just this cutoff, this hard cut of USAID. So there's food rotting in boats, in warehouses. There is, this will fuck you off. This will not, you will not be happy. No American will, but there is, I think it's 50,000 tons of food

that are stored in Djibouti, South Africa, Dubai, and wait for it, Houston, Texas. And that is rotting rather than going to Gaza, rather than going to Sudan because the people who know the codes for the warehouse are fired. They're gone. And so this, I don't know, I just, it's, I'm, what do you think? What, what, what is, what is that? That's, that's not America, is it? Well, they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, right? This is the problem. The problem is for sure there have been a lot of organizations that do tremendous good all throughout the world. Also, for sure, it was a money laundering operation.

For sure, there was no oversight. For sure, billions of dollars are missing. In fact, trillions that are unaccounted for that were sent off into various – they don't even know where because there's no receipts. The way Elon Musk described that he said if any of this was done by a public company, the company would be delisted and the executives would be in prison. But in the United States, this is standard. When Biden left office, when it was clear that Trump won in the 73 days, they spent $93 billion from the Department of Energy on just radical loans, just throwing money into places. Right.

And there's no oversight, no receipts. Like the whole thing is – there's a lot of fraud, a lot of money laundering. But also, we help the world. And when you're talking about making wells for people in the Congo to get fresh water, when you're talking about food and medicine to places that don't have access, like no way that should have been cut out. And that should have been clear before they make these radical cuts. Like there's got to be a way to keep aid and not have fraud. And you can't say we're going to kill everything so that there's no fraud. But then you're killing all the good and you're doing it without letting anybody know it's going to happen. So no one's, it's not like they had three years to prepare. Let's build a

new infrastructure. Let's make sure that everything's set up. They want to change and they want to change quickly and do the nature of American politics. They have about two years before the midterms, right? What did you make of that exchange, Emily? Super interesting. And, Crystal, you were pointing out as we were watching it the different parts that were clipped. Where they cut it. Left and right, yeah, where they cut that clip up. And I think what Rogan just made at the end was a really compelling point about not creating any time period for off-ramps. Because if you're somebody like me who looks at USAID and says,

this is actually, in some sense, creating this exploitive dependency system based on where U.S. soft power interests are. And I think that's a critique. I share that critique. Yeah. And so if you think that, you're like, okay, so it's really unfair that we are holding these people basically hostage with our aid to our foreign policy interests. And then you just pull the rug out from under them after making commitments for years and years and years, then yes, people are going to die and people are going to suffer. There's another way, which would involve saying you have five years

to get off of this dependency. We're changing fundamentally the way. And then the Gates Foundation steps in and the Rockefeller Foundation steps in and they fill the gaps, which is just not what happened. And I think it was really interesting to see Rogan reacting particularly to that and as an ally of Elon Musk. Yeah. I mean, some of the things Rogan says like about the quote unquote radical loans and the, you know, oh, there's so much fraud. Again, what was the fraud? Because I share, you know, the, like, the left has a critique of USAID and it's the one that Emily explained of, like, holding people hostage to U.S. imperial foreign policy interests. And this administration, they don't believe in soft power. I mean, by and large, they just believe in hard power.

That's why USAID is being gutted. That's why the State Department is being gutted. They have this throwback imperial, if we see something and we want it, we're going to take it. That is their ideology. That's why Trump loves the McKinley era. That's why they, you know, Greenland, Panama, Gaza, Canada, like, they have this mentality of an old school, we are just going to use our might to take it and we're not going to wrap it in, like, you know, we'll give you some HIV medication and then you're going to help us out with our rare earth mineral supply. They don't want to wrap it in the Ghazi language.

They just want to come in with the guns and force our will upon the world. So that's the ideology that is surrounding this. But again, they didn't actually identify any fraud. I'm not saying there wasn't any. I'm saying there was none identified. What Rogan's referring to there in terms of the end of the Biden administration, it is true that at the end of the Biden administration, when there was a recognition of, oh shit, Kamala lost to Trump, the Trump administration is coming in, we have all of these funds appropriated through, you know, whether it's the IRA or the CHIPS Act or whatever, that has already been authorized by Congress. We need to speed up the process to get these funds out the door. And that's what Rogan calls, quote unquote, radical loans. That's the great term. I do love that term.

So that's what he's referring to ultimately there. But, you know, the other thing that drives me crazy, Emily, is like you just acknowledge people have already died because of the consequences of these actions of just pulling all the funding out from under many of these programs. And we have estimates from Bono's referencing the study. You can put some of these estimates up on the screen from Boston University School of Public Health. This is called the impact counter. This Twitter account was just sharing some of the top lines here. So within one year, these are all projected out. And again, you can quibble with what the numbers are, but we know already, factually speaking, that people have died as a result

of these cuts. And we know that more people will die as a result of these cuts. The estimates here are 1.65 million die without HIV prevention and treatment, 500,000 die without vaccine funding, 500,000 die without food aid. That's what Bono is talking about. It's just rotting at the ports right now. 310,000 die without tuberculosis prevention. He's saying it's zero deaths so far. 300,000 is a low estimate, is the opining of this Twitter account. And 300,000 is, you know, the estimate that they give right now, the number of people who have died already.

And again, there is an Elon and others claim, no one has died, that's impossible, et cetera. And it's like, I don't know how you can live in reality and think that there's just no consequence for cutting this funding for critical life-saving treatments around the world without anything to replace it. And, you know, I'm sure there will be organizations over time that come in and try to fill the gap. I have no doubt about that. But so that has not happened yet. And so there is a, you know, a critical hole that the U.S. used to fill that has just been the, you know, rug has been pulled out. And children, people who need this treatment and care that they were relying on

the U.S. for, they have died and they will continue to die. And that is just the reality of Elon's impact here. And so I think that's the other piece, Emily, is part of why I wanted to highlight this clip, is because there is a sense that Doge utterly and completely failed, and it did. But we need to pair that with the understanding that Doge also did tremendous, tremendous damage that is literally costing people's lives and will continue to have generational fallout for years and years to come. So, and this is something that people on the right feel as well, is that Elon Musk may have done lasting damage to the idea of, like you said, by the Doge website having so many holes that when you're trying to look up the instances of fraud that are being cited, you go to the website and you can't track it down,

or it appears to be a total stretch, or it appears to be, you know, there are actually a lot of examples of journalists trying to chase down the fraud that Dosh had caught or eliminated, whatever it was, and going down rabbit trails, going down things that led them to repetition, something like that. And does that end up doing lasting damage to the, like, really predicate of a lot of conservative ideology about quote-unquote limited government, and I'm someone who's in this camp. People say limited, not small government. Small government is libertarian.

Limited government is conservative. Limited relative to what it's become over the last 100 years. Does that idea ever recover in this generation from Doge? When you have such a, I don't know, yeah, I mean, this is the right way to say it, when you have such an unserious approach, where you end up, I mean, you pledge huge numbers, you come up with very little, it's all done with a billionaire dancing with a chainsaw, does it ever recover? On the other hand, would anyone have ever done it? You sort of have a catch-22 other than eccentric Elon Musk. Maybe not. But does it ever recover from Doge? where when Doge first started, you saw a lot of Democrats frustrated with the

fact that it was Republicans who were capitalizing on this idea of efficiency in government, saying, well, we can certainly stand for efficiency in government because from our perspective, the more efficient the government looks, the more that we can actually make the case for funding, the more that we can make the case that some of these agencies are good if they're efficient. So I don't know. I mean, maybe Democrats are able to co-opt that idea. Well, maybe we can put this in in post, guys. And by the way, Marshall Kosloff is going to co-host with me tomorrow. Yes, abundance. Big abundance guy. Marshall abundance Kosloff. So I'm trying to avoid saying bro in any case. I'm really looking forward. He has some really

smart insights into the interaction of the left, et etc. But I want to talk to him more about this poll tomorrow. But CNN just did a poll that found for the first time in decades, basically unprecedented in the neoliberal era, a majority of Americans say government should do more to solve problems versus the number who say government is trying to do too many things. And I think that is directly attributable to Doge. Directly attributable, where it's like, you don't know what you got until it's gone. Kind of a dynamic where it's like, oh, I liked it when I had a social security field office in my town and I didn't have to wait on a phone for four hours in order to get someone to answer my basic question. That was a good thing the government was doing, and I wish it would do it again. It's a socialist op now that you say that.

Like, Elon Musk, you couldn't come up with a better socialist op. Like, if Bernie Sanders was doing covert operations and planting a libertarian in the federal government to make the entire project look absurd. To prove the importance of what the government actually does. It's like, oh, yeah, you know what? I actually liked it when I could get weather data. And there was a FEMA disaster relief response that maybe it wasn't ideal,

but it was better than not having one. So, I mean, it's an extraordinary surge in the number of people who say, no, actually, I believe in government and I want government to do more and I want it to do well. Now, the challenge on the other side is that there's not a lot of trust for either party to be able to accomplish those things effectively. And so obviously, it's a big,

you know, reality and political challenge. But I do think your point about the fears that Elon has somehow managed to destroy even the concept of like, we need to cut the fat and we need to make government more quote unquote efficient is pretty remarkable because that has always been a winning political proposition for my entire lifetime. Yeah, that's so interesting. We'll see where it goes going forward, but low hanging fruit here for Democrats. Yeah. Should we talk about your favorite senator? Let's talk about Joni Ernst. Why not? Why shouldn't we be talking about Joni Ernst? She came to under the—so Joni Ernst got hit with a tough town hall the other day, as many Republicans have. And in fact, at one point, Republicans just stopped doing town halls.

So amazing that Joni Ernst actually of being heckled by people in the audience. This is people in Iowa reacting to Joni Ernst talking about Medicaid cuts. So go ahead and take a look at this clip. People are not—well, we all are going to die. Hello, everyone. not while we all are going to die. So, for heaven's sakes. Hello, everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. See, I was in the process of answering a question

that had been asked by an audience member when a woman who was extremely distraught screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, people are going to die. And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth. So I apologize. And I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. Hello, fellow flesh and blood mortal. It's just, if you're listening to this, what you missed is it was just her face,

like chin up. And she actually, people pointed out, is walking in front of a cemetery. Like to the point about Washington not being West Wing, but being Veep. This is the best illustration that I've seen in months, actually. There's always a good illustration

every single week, but this is one of the best ones I've ever seen, Crystal. She's apologizing for saying, quote, we're all going to die at a town hall. It was in Butler County, Iowa on Friday. She makes an apology video. First of all, why are you making the apology video? Roll with it.

Secondly, she does it in front of a cemetery. Yeah. And then she pivoted to evangelism, by the way. Towards the end of the video, you didn't see this, but I'm pretty sure, yeah then she pivoted to evangelism, by the way, towards the end of the video. You didn't see this, but I'm pretty sure she, yeah, she ended up saying, quote, for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I'm telling you, as an evangelical Christian, this is the worst evangelism I've ever seen. I mean, yes, we are all going to die.

It kind of matters to me when, you know, like I would rather I think most people, including the millions who are set to lose health insurance coverage because of the Medicaid cuts and the big, beautiful bill. They would like to forestall that possibility, you know, into the future. But, you know, the meme of Republicans is the idea that, like, oh, their health care plan is, like, is don't get sick. Or don't be poor. Like, that's the—and so she just goes all in with basically, like, yeah, I mean, I guess if you get sick, you're going to die. But, eh, whatever, we're all going to die anyway, and just find your salvation in God. It's fine. I was venting about this. First of all, just from a comms perspective, God forbid I put that hat on, the idea of doing communications for a senator. But if you're even thinking about this,

all you have to do is say, yeah, this is the Trump era. All she has to do is say, yeah, I stood up to the liberal heckler in the audience who was defending waste and fraud in Medicaid. Yeah. I'm defending Medicaid from the people who want to undermine Medicaid with waste and fraud and abuse. But why would you ever go out there and apologize for making like a glib offhanded comment? And then because she was clearly frustrated in the clip. She was like, just reaching for straws. And Joni Ernst is not the most talented politician in the world. You'll be shocked to learn, and ends up grasping at, we're all going to die, films an apology video in front of a cemetery,

then jokes about the tooth fairy, and pivots to evangelism. I mean, you just, every item on the bingo card is checked off. Well, and the funny thing, too, I'm interested in your take on this, is I am normally very impressed with Republican message discipline. Usually there's like a, OK, here's what we're saying about the Medicaid cuts. We're saying these aren't cuts. This is we're cutting out the waste. Right. And some Republicans are on that talking point. Other Republicans are on the like, actually, you know, they're not because at all. I don't even know what you're talking about. There are no cuts. People are going to keep their insurance. Right. Some people are just like they're in the, you know, denying of reality. And then some people,

apparently, Joni Ernst is in the, well, we're all going to die anyway. So whatever. If eight million people are slated to lose their health insurance coverage, which is the estimate under this bill. So in some ways, I think it displays the victory of Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid, that this has become a difficult subject for Republicans because it never was in the past. It also is indicative of the realignment that, as Bannon points out, you now have a lot of MAGAs on Medicaid, you know, and so this is going to have an impact on your voting coalition will be among many of the 8 million who lose their health insurance. Like Trump won narrowly, but won voters making under $50,000. And that is the first time for a Republican, I don't know since when, in the modern era. So in any case, I think the schizophrenic nature of the Medicaid messaging

within the Republican coalition is indicative of the fact like they realize this is a big political problem for them, but they also realize they have this ideological commitment to cutting Medicaid. And also the bill blows up the deficit and we've got to do something and we've got to appeal the fiscal hawks and the libertarians in the caucus and whatever. So they are kind of a mess on this issue because it's not really, it is dramatically, you poll cuts to Medicaid, dramatically politically unpopular. And so, you know, they just don't really know what to do with that when they're out trying to talk to regular people. So let's actually, he wasn't talking to regular people, but Josh Vogt went on, he was doing Sunday show messaging to Crystal's point about GOP messaging discipline. And actually a lot of people on the right were passing around this clip as kind of a

masterclass. But people on the left, this reminds me of the Bono clip we played in the Elon block, Crystal. People on the left were passing this around as examples of Doge Republican cruelty, basically. So let's go ahead and roll Office of Management Budget Director Russ Vogt, who is now basically seen as the policy mind that's driving Doge. The administration is saying there's really no one person now that Elon's kind of checked out. There's no one person that's like the leader of Doge. But people generally see Russ as being the intellectual policy mind of Doge. And he's at OMB. So he's kind of managing the purse strings. He's very supportive of the unitary executive theory. He's an extremely consequential person in this administration. So let's watch Russ vote yesterday. It's more about the NIH, and the NIH has been a bureaucracy that we believe has been weaponized against the American people.

We saw that in COVID, the extent to which it doesn't even know or is willing to grapple with the extent to which it funded the Wuhan Institute through the EcoHealth Alliance, and the fact that they pay far more than even Bill Gates does for indirect costs at all of the bureaucracy. So this is something that is vitally important to be able to get a handle on, and we're still going to give $28 billion to the NIH. So that's him with Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union Sunday show. Crystal, interesting in the context of that point you made about generally being impressed with Republican messaging discipline, what did you make of Russ as the people like Joni Ernst are struggling with town halls? At one point, there was the directive from Trump on down, like, just don't do town halls. The bill's on the table right now. Doge is kind of over. So how do you think the way Russ is

talking is playing with the public? Well, I think that the way Russ is talking is the reason why there was some general public receptivity to the project of Doge. Because you can point at things at USAID that people are like, I don't know that we really need to do that. You can obviously, you know, NIH is a good example where you can point and the abundance guys have critiques of like, oh, we should be doing organizing our federal research and our science funding this way. But now that you're on cleanup crew and people have seen, oh, you're not just targeting like the Wuhan lab. You are gutting scientific research across the board in a way that, you know, is going to have generational impacts. No, those are not things that the public

supported. So if there was, you know, if this was before the fact and justification of, okay, why we're going to come in and here's how we're going to do it and this is what it's going to look like, yeah, maybe you could have gotten some public support for that. But now, like, the bloom is off the rose. People have already seen the chainsaw. They're not going to unsee the chainsaw and think that you're doing some limited, targeted, effective cutting of just the pieces of the federal government that they may have some sort of issue with. It's going to be tough. And I wonder, you know, when the history of this first administration is written 10 plus years from now, not like the next couple of years, but 10 plus years from now, how people see the cause of like actually shrinking, like the conservative movement's

almost central animating principle of cutting government because cutting government, and this is, again, the conservative argument, you know, that always brings more freedom. So, like, any cut to the government is more that abstract principle of freedom. Like, you're feeding human freedom every time you cut the government. I just wonder how this period changes that going forward. And if the Republican Party looks more like the Bannon Republican Party or the Elon Republican Party 10 years from now based on all of this. Because right now what they're trying to do, people like Russ Vogt, are trying to marry the two. Right.

And that is what feels like is slipping. And it isn't just the Republicans who have been bought into the, I mean, Bill Clinton is the one who said the era of big government is over. Right. This really starts with Carter, you know, dabbles in it. Reagan is obviously the, you know, real ideological, like, full realization of that ideology in government. Bill Clinton consolidates it as a bipartisan project. And, you know, this is the central question of the political moment we're living in right now is like that consensus is dead. What comes next is contested. And that's where the abundance conversation fits in of what, okay, well, what does the post-neoliberal left offering look like? That's where the, I mean, personally, I think a lot of

abundance is neoliberal, but we'll talk about this tomorrow. But that's their frame. Conception is like, okay, you know, you've got this, you've got the oligarchy framing, you've got the, you know, the breaking up the antitrust and corporate power framing. And then there's this question of what is the role of government? The priorities and values that are embodied in the Trump big, beautiful budget are basically a gutting of the social safety net, a funding of the oligarchs and the wealthy, and a massive expansion of the police state, of the military-industrial complex with a huge Pentagon budget, and then a massive expansion of ICE and the private prison detention centers that go along with that. So that is the, as

embodied by the Trump movement, that is really their conception of government power is that it does little in terms of providing social services and does a lot in terms of, you know, the sort of like surveillance and projecting power and fighting wars and those sorts of things. I think the Democrats and the left more broadly are really grappling right now with what their conception of the federal government is ultimately going to be. But I do think you're right to focus in on that is one of the key questions that is being grappled with right now, sort of across the board politically in terms of arriving at whatever the new political era and consensus is going to be. I actually think it's been a great few months

for democratic socialism in all seriousness. The pitch that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are making. You see the receptivity with Zoran Mamdani, who I know is challenging Cuomo in the way that he's been able to, whether he's able to pull it off or not, for New York City mayor. I think it's a great point. Crystal, I was so proud of us because we almost wrapped the show on a timely basis. And then we didn't. We had to wax poetic about neoliberalism and the waning era.

Let girls be girls. Era of big government. There you go. All right, guys. Premium subscribers are going to get that AMA live today. If you guys want to take part in that, avail yourself of our free trial offer. Month free. Monthly subscriber offer is back. So, you know, we'd love to see you guys sign up and become part of that so we can get your questions

and interact. That was one of the promisings of the premium subscribers is interact with the host. So you will get to do that more if you are a premium subscriber. The promo code for the free monthly trial is BP free over at BreakingPoints.com. Let's see. Today is Monday. Tomorrow, I'm in with Marshall. Hell yeah. That's going to be super fun.

I'm looking forward to that. Such a smart guy. Always enjoy his insights, so that'll be good. He's in person too, right? He's in person. Amazing. That's awesome. Yeah, and you and Ryan on Wednesday, me and Ryan on Thursday.

Friday show. That's the plan for the week. Gang's all here. We'll see you guys tomorrow. Terima kasih telah menonton! Thank you. This is an iHeart Podcast.