Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 6/5/24: Dem Revolt Over Border Shutdown, Bibi Gov Collapse Over Ceasefire, Gaetz Rips Garland On Trump Cases, Modi Setback In India, AMLO Ally Sweeps Mexico Elections

Episode Date: June 5, 2024

Ryan and Emily discuss Dems revolting over Biden's border shutdown, Bibi government collapsing amid ceasefire talks, Matt Gaetz rips Merrick Garland over Trump cases, Modi suffers setback in India's elections, US media freaks as top AMLO ally sweeps Mexican elections.    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.com/   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Even though it was promised to us, he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back.

Hold up, they could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show.

All right. Good morning and welcome to CounterPoints. Emily, how are you doing? I'm good. I've got a new job, by the way. We should probably mention that I'm now the DC correspondent at UnHerd. Switched over from the Federalist after six awesome years, but DC correspondent at UnHerd. We're going to be doing some stuff on YouTube, actually, so subscribe to the UnHerd YouTube. We'll be launching a show. I'll be co-hosting it twice a week and am writing in the meantime, but make sure you stay tuned, subscribe, and we'll be there soon with more. And congratulations on that. Unheard is kind of cool. It's not exactly left or right. Like, isn't it like kind of, what is it, contrarian or like? I think contrarian is a good way to put it. Publishes opinions that aren't, you know, with the herd.

Yeah, heterodox. It really tries to not go in a direction either way. That's like, this is the consensus opinion you're being pushed by the political establishment. So here's some takes that are kind of different on both sides. Well, congrats. Looking forward to your stuff there. Thanks so much. We have a big show today.

Actually, we have two guests. That's right. We're going to have a liberal Zionist, which is, I'll be honest, a view that is probably lacking on this program. We have four hosts. Probably none of them would consider themselves, quote unquote, liberal Zionist, which is, I'll be honest, a view that is probably lacking on this program. We have four hosts. Probably none of them would consider themselves, quote unquote, liberal Zionists. So we're going to have one who's really plugged in and is going to talk about the negotiations inside the Israeli cabinet to get to a place where they're going to be able to, if they'll be able to accept a peace deal, if Hamas is going to be able to accept this deal.

So we'll see about that. And also 2024 is a year that is going to go down in history as kind of the most people voting ever in one year. We've already seen hundreds of millions go to the polls in Pakistan, Indonesia. That gets you to over 500 million right there. And just in the last couple of days, we had South Africa, Mexico, and India. They all went to the polls.

Fascinating developments out of all of those elections, I think, especially for people who watch this show and are unhappy with elites in the direction that they're taking this country. They might be pretty pleased to see the results in some of those countries as well. We'll unpack why that is. Right. Yeah. You're going to be coming, Modi. We have Wanda V. Rojas here from Compact. She's going to talk about the election of Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico. I think that's a much more interesting development than some people are giving it credit for, given that she's sort of AMLO's successor is how she's being covered. But she's interesting because she's

different than him in several ways. Now, speaking of Mexico, the big story this morning is actually, I would say, Ryan, Democratic reactions to Joe Biden's executive order that would cap daily border crossings. We're going to get into all of that right now. Let's put this first element, A1, up on the screen. The New York Times headline is, In Shift, Biden Issues Order Allowing Temporary Border Closure to Migrants. Now, some of the details of this, basically, is this went into effect at 12.01 a.m. I should say last night. 2,500 crossings, illegal entries is how the New York Times says it. Seven-day average for illegal entries hits 2,500 per day. That had already

happened. So that's why the order went into effect at 12.01 a.m. So let's take a listen actually to what Biden said when he signed the bill first or the executive order first. Here he is. I've come here today to do what the Republicans in Congress refuse to do, take the necessary steps to secure our border. Four months ago, after weeks of intense negotiation between my staff and Democrats and Republicans, we came to a clear, clear bipartisan deal. It was the strongest border security agreement in decades. But then Republicans in Congress, not all, but walked away from it. Why?

Because Donald Trump told them to. He told the Republicans, it has been published widely by many of you, that he didn't want to fix the issue. He wanted to use it to attack me. That's what he wanted to do, was a cynical and extremely cynical political move. And a complete disservice to the American people who are looking for us to not to weaponize the border, but to fix it. So a lot of that was untrue. I'll just say the part about Donald Trump in particular, because in my own conversations with Republican sources, they say we would have totally opposed that bipartisan border deal, no matter what Donald Trump, if Donald Trump had supported it,

we would have opposed it because our constituents would have been so opposed to it. The argument is that it allowed a lot of exemptions. And actually, in this case, Biden's executive order also allows for a lot of exemptions. And, you know, they're reasonably debatable exemptions. So unaccompanied minors will be exempt from these caps. So you have to stay below an average, a daily average of 1,500 for seven days in a row in order for the, for these caps to go away. 1,500 what? Like unpack this for people. Okay, so it's interesting because a lot of what happens now is not the sort of stereotypical border crossing

that a lot of people probably think about. There are still people- Of people like running across the river and scaling the wall. That does still happen. Absolutely, it still happens. But a lot of people will cross the river with cartel escorts and

then just turn themselves in instead of trying to hide from border patrol, go through the desert and totally unnoticed, all of that. They'll simply turn themselves in, claim asylum. And that's why some of this is interesting in and of itself, because the asylum process, a lot of the reporting here is that it's just going to be, asylum is simply going to be cut off with this Biden policy. But I don't know that that's necessarily true because it's not affecting what's called CBP1, which is the app that Biden launched. It's still, the New York Times says they're booking 14, almost 1500 appointments daily through CBP1. And that's so you can make an asylum claim. That's an orderly entry into, like, you get an appointment, this is when you're supposed to come to the border,

show your app, and then you move through the process. Right. And the government provides mostly the numbers for encounters at the border, which are so hard to know what that means. They actually do a really poor job providing numbers on asylum. And so some of the reporting, again, has suggested that Biden's already reduced the number of daily encounters at the border. And that's true. But it's true because a lot of times those encounters are just the people who are crossing actually illegally, like swimming across the river, Border Patrol apprehends them, as opposed to people who are turning themselves in for asylum. We don't really know what the breakdown is of what's happening at the border. We just know that a lot of people are showing up. And there's also the Mexican role,

right? Like over the last three months, for whatever reason, we don't know what exact deal was cut or what domestic interests Sam Lowe had at the time. That's a good point. It could be, you know, it could have been election related. We'll talk about that later. He helped to cut down the crossings by something like 50% by basically holding migrants who are coming through, transiting through. These are not Mexicans. Like, we're not seeing a surge of Mexicans across the border. And we're going to talk about that later. Yeah.

These are people transiting through Mexico. And he was holding a lot of those back. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And so I'm reading from The Hill right now, their headline is that he's limiting asylum at the southern border. That might turn out to be accurate. Again, though, what's one of the really interesting things, I looked up the definition, I actually read through the entire executive order, and it relies on this definition

in the U.S. Code of Trafficking to exempt unaccompanied minors and people who have been trafficked from the limits. And, you know, there are a lot of unaccompanied minors that come. And what the government has found is that when you exempt unaccompanied minors, that's when you end up even with more trafficking and more clever trafficking, where cartels are finding ways to have people who are desperate for their children to get more opportunity to flee gang violence. I mean, serious real asylum cases in many instances, it incentivizes this weird trafficking system, horrible trafficking system, where people will send their unaccompanied minors with cartel escorts posing as their fathers or their, you know, uncles or whatever it is.

And it creates just a really crazy situation. The exemption on trafficking, I want to read the definition here, pull it up, because it's pretty interesting. This is the definition it relies on. I haven't seen this reported a lot of places. The severe forms of trafficking in persons. Sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person is induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age or the recruitment harboring transportation provision or obtaining of a person for labor services

through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, debt bondage, or slavery, peonage as well. So if you want to be exempt from this cap, you probably will have a really good case that you qualify for a trafficking exemption under that definition because every single person who crosses the border and claims asylum has been trafficked. You can talk to people. They pay the cartels. It's maybe, I mean, maybe 90% is the number.

There are some people who paid to get up to the border, but like you said, they're coming from Argentina and Brazil. And if you don't pay, they break your legs, right? They will. I talked to a family, I looked at this little girl who had been held in captivity in a house in Reynosa for 10 days without much food or water, dark safe house, basically, safe house, because they didn't realize they hadn't paid the cartel fee for that region, Hunter and family. It was just, people would be shocked if they heard the story. Right, so it's not necessarily that you need their assistance

to get there. It's that if you try to do it without their assistance, they're going to make you pay. It's interesting because our understanding of trafficked is that you've basically, our Hollywood version is a kidnap. Exactly, yeah. Like Liam Neeson. And this turns it on its head a little bit because you've actually paid. Sometimes you've paid out of extortion at the border. Other times you've paid out of desperation back at home. And the other twisted incentive that you alluded to is the unaccompanied

minors exemption, which means you see an enormous number of 16 and 17-year-olds coming to the border. Because if you're 16 or 17, you live in Honduras, it's now the moment of truth for you. Like, I need to go now or never. And you might have family in the United States. And if you go before your 18th birthday, then you're able to in the United States And if you go before your 18th birthday Then you're able to get this exemption that that that was a truth before it was the truth after we'll see if Trump Does anything about that? Yeah, it's very difficult Because what do you do with a child who knows the border without? Without any accompaniment just kick them back in the desert. Like it's a it an extraordinarily difficult policy and ethical question.

Well, I don't think it's that difficult. I think we should be much more welcoming to immigrants. But if you're trying to stop people- You're no borders guy. Right. But if you're trying to stop people from coming, then it becomes a difficult one. You want to move to the Democratic? Yeah. And I was going to say that's what's interesting is because the Biden administration is not in favor openly of open borders. It's not like Joe Biden is out there making the libertarian or sort of progressive argument for open borders. It's not like Joe Biden is out there making the libertarian or sort of progressive argument for open borders. He's making this argument as he attempts to look really hawkish. And this is something he could have done at any time, of course, and he's doing it in election year. 3.9 million crossings, that's a conservative estimate I read in the New York

Post today. I think that is, it's conservative, but I think that's probably accurate over the course of the Biden administration. If you cap this at 2,500, you're still up about one and a half million a year. That's Jed Johnson. Jed Johnson in the Obama administration said that 1,000 encounters a day was a, quote, crisis. So capping it there, I mean, we're on a different scale than people realize. And I guess that's where the Biden administration heading into an election year decides to finally, finally do something. We'll see what actually happens. Now, to the point about making the argument honestly, here's how Greg Kassar, representative from Texas, reacted. Friend of the show.

Friend of the show. He was on back in December, I think. Yeah, talking immigration. Yeah, talking immigration. Here's how he reacted to the news on MSNBC. I have real disagreements and concerns with this executive action because I think it plays into the current Republican talking points. You see, the Republican Party here in Congress tries to cover up its own failures by scapegoating immigrants. It's the oldest trick in the book. And they continue to advocate for closing legal pathways to migration and pointing at chaos at the border. Unfortunately,

they've created this political pressure that has the president today responding by restricting asylum, which isn't going to work because it doesn't actually reduce the number of people being pushed out of their homes in Latin America. It doesn't actually create new legal pathways for people to migrate here. And so I think we need an alternative progressive vision for what will work on the border. Right. And I've seen a lot of pushback, actually, more than usual, even, I would say, from just sort of Justice Democrat or Justice Democrat adjacent type people. Even more like Alex Padilla in the Senate, the entire Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which politically is very centrist or moderate, lashed out at this. And when he was pressed, when Quesada was pressed, what's your vision here?

He said, well, you have to work on what's pushing people out. He said, start by relieving sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba and our kind of hostile policy towards Central and South Americans, which is making it so that they want to leave. Like people don't actually want to leave. We have a kind of chauvinistic view of the U.S. And good for us. We're proud of our country. We think it's the greatest place on Earth. And so we therefore assume that everyone on Earth is just clamoring to come here Some people really I mean like when I talk to Haitian migrants at the border who were coming from Argentina and Brazil They will they're like, you know, I was making just a normal amount of money wasn't in danger

And I said, well, why did you come was it the American dream and they lit up and they were like the American dream But they weren't in Cuba or right now also wasn't why they left Haiti Like they left those absolutely people left Haiti to go Work basically like to help build the Olympic structures and such in Brazil And if Haiti were were a place where there could be a Haitian dream No, most Haitians I think would prefer absolutely the Haitian dream. We did this in like the 60s We opened up our immigration policy because we thought

everybody in Europe would come pouring over here and we're're so racist, like that we're like, those are the immigrants that we want, you know, the Europeans. And we got like zero basically from Europe. They're like, no, we're good. It's fine. I mean, America seems great, but it's great here too. Is the consensus response, do you think so far from Democrats who are opposing the Biden policy, a root causes kind of argument? Yes. And as Beto talked about in our discussion a couple of weeks ago, there really isn't a consensus kind of border policy yet that Democrats have settled on. And they're really being pulled in this kind of reactionary direction that Biden is leading them in with others kind of pulling back in the other direction. What all of the research has shown in Europe, as the center left parties became anti-immigrant,

they lost vote share to the right, like in every single case. So maybe there's something unique about Biden that he's just such a spectacular political genius that it worked for him and it didn't work for anybody else who has ever tried it. So setting aside the morality, the ethics, whether it works, whatever, just on a pure cynical political basis, what he's trying to do, which is be less Trump. And he even said in his speech, he said, this is going to sound similar to what Trump did, but we do it with love. He was basically saying, we're not going to accompany this with the rhetoric that Trump used. He cited Trump's rhetoric that immigrants poison the blood of America. He's like, I would

never say that, but I'm going to do He's like, I would never say that. But I'm going to do the same policy, but in a much gentler way. Just from a cynical perspective, that politics doesn't work. There are no Trump voters who were like, oh, okay, cool. Then that works for me. And there really are, apparently, according to the research, no other voters who were like, oh, well, I wasn't with you, but now I am. Because if that was their big issue, they were already with Trump. You know, if it's their big issue, but I guess I wonder if there are independent voters around the country, this makes them feel more comfortable with Biden. Even if they're not happy with Biden overall, it could factor in to them feeling more comfortable with Biden. Again, though,

we're less than a day in. And there's a lot one of the reasons a lot of people, immigration hawks are coming out on this is similar to the border deal that Biden just said was the strongest thing in the world or in recent history is how he described it. There's a way to interpret this that could still let. I mean, first of all, it lets a lot of people in. If you're saying we're turning away those credible fear interviews once we hit $2,500, 2,500 people a day, which is amounts to a crazy amount of dollars actually for cartels. When you do that, you're still letting in, I think it's 1.5 million people a year, which is a huge number compared to, I mean, that was around,

it's been about 2 million a year. It was around 200,000 during the Trump years. And people probably remember, we still were talking about migration as a crisis at the Southern border at that point in time. So it's just, we don't know exactly how this is going to work yet. And either way, it's still to the, if Kassar were here, I think we would have a conversation probably similar to what we had with Beto O'Rourke, which I recommend people listen to, I think, for a good sort of debate, push and pull on what's right. I have a hard time with Democrats who aren't openly saying we should be letting in, you know, at least 1.5 million a year, if not more.

If that's your position, you should own it like you do, Ryan, because it's perfectly defensible and reasonable. It's not one that I agree with. But if you're saying, you know, we want the border to be safe and orderly, and yet you're still allowing for these exemptions and all of these entries a year, basically you're not doing and not doing anything about the root cause. In the meanwhile, you know, I know they've made some overtures to, you know, spending more on humanitarian aid in these countries and stationing more people to, you know, tell them about CBP1 throughout South and Central America. I don't know. I mean, it seems like it's sort of a half measure that could, you know, really not end up changing much. Yeah. I mean, that's how most of our policy is done, especially if you

can't do anything through Congress. But yeah, we have a labor shortage. People seem to hate it politically when you say it, but the country that can attract young immigrants who then can be productive, people tend to think of immigrants as these drains on society, parasites, when in fact, immigrants on net are adding productivity to the economy, like just across the board, from everything from the high level, engineering, medical professionals, to the low level, to construction and everything else in between. Plus, if you can keep the American education system, the university system, rocking like it has been, which we're not, we're watching it collapse in front of our eyes, but it has

been the envy of the world in the post-World War II era. You combine those things, you're going to continue to be the country that is dominant on the world stage. If you're an aging country that is keeping people out and that can't keep up, then who's going to do the work of productivity that you need? It's absolutely true, by the way, that we are an aging country. Birth rates are declining.

We're getting older. That's just a fact. And so you can either have a lot more babies or you can allow immigrants in or a combination of the two. Right. And immigration is really the part of that equation that is, first of all, obviously easier. It's pretty complicated and time consuming. Like raise somebody to 18 years old.

If that's your policy. Yeah. So anyway, we'll see. Yeah, we'll see. Yeah, we'll see. I mean, I'm not one of those people that's like, you know, we have to stop immigration, all immigration. I actually think, you know, a much more clear system would allow for actual orderly, sensible, logical system that helps us be competitive and does increase productivity without hurting American workers. There's a way to do it. But to your point, it's not how our policy is done these days whatsoever. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary

results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror

movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes.

But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multibillion- dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission? This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. I'm Greg Glott. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast.

We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug man. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill.

NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Caramouch. What we're doing now isn't working and we need to change things. Stories matter and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does.

It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Speaking of divides between Democrats and the Biden administration, let's move to this Israel block, because if you see it, we can put this up on the screen. This is B1. If you take a look at how Democrats are responding to Biden's comment in this big time magazine interview, he was asked by the interviewer, do you believe that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation?

Biden said, I'm not going to comment on that. Then he goes and comments on it and says there's every reason for people to draw that conclusion. And he goes on also to say, I would cite that before the war began, the blowback he was getting from the Israeli military for wanting to change the constitution, change the court. And so it's an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it's hard to say. But it has not been helpful. Sort of saying the quiet part aloud, kind of in the Time magazine interview. And then going into B2, we can put this up on the screen. Netanyahu was, he was invited to address a joint session of Congress. There is no date for it.

I think this happened actually back in March. But more congressional progressives, This cites Jayapal. Even, you know, you have people like Steny Hoyer saying, I'm not sure this is helpful for Netanyahu. They're actually like AIPAC people who are now trying to distance themselves. Hoyer leads the AIPAC trip every other year to Israel. Ryan, this is your bread and butter. Break down what's happening with the divide, the growing divide here between Biden, who's trying to kind of have it both ways with Netanyahu, and his coalition here at home. Right. So Biden, by saying it has not been helpful

when he's talking about Netanyahu's sense of self-preservation, is referring to a piece that doesn't get discussed enough, I think, in American media that factors into the war, which is that Netanyahu is facing corruption charges. And if he leaves power, it's not just that he goes to become a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy Center. He could actually go to prison for these corruption charges. He is extraordinarily unpopular for his moving a whole bunch of troops up to the West Bank to defend these kind of rampaging settlers before October 7th, and by sapping the country's energy for like six months leading up to October 7th, by trying this takeover of the courts, which was not unrelated to the corruption charges. So that

already, people are already furious at him about that. And believe that those two things factored into Israel kind of being weakened at the moment of October 7th, which allowed this attack to go from an attack on a couple of sentry positions outside of Gaza and grab some military hostages to an absolute horrific massacre over the course of the day. And so the thing that's keeping him out of jail and in power is the fact that he's still prime minister. And the thing that's keeping him prime minister is the war. So that's exactly what Biden is referring to, that his sense of self-preservation. So we talk about how Hamas is being asked to sign on a dotted line with Israel saying, by this agreement, you will all die.

Like their condition is that Hamas must dissolve and go away. And Hamas is like, I'm not so sure about this. On the flip side, that's also in some ways what the public and the U.S. is asking Netanyahu to do. Like once this war ends, like you're in trouble. Like I wish we could come up with some like asylum. Like look, you know what? I would love it if Netanyahu would face justice, but I'd rather that the war end and that the the tens of thousands of people the hundreds of thousands of people's facing famine could get relief and that we can begin reconstruction and this and

If that means he gets a retirement without prison or with some corruption charges then fine. There's the Panama just I mean Florida come on. Sure. We'll give him asylum here in the United States. And so that's what Biden's referring to there. Meanwhile, there's an invitation extended to him to come here and address a joint session of Congress. And when he came in 2015, it was this massive thumb in the nose of Obama, who very much did not want him to come. Boehner invited him anyway. And he came to demand that the Iran nuclear deal not get put together. The audacity of a foreign leader coming to our capital and telling our lawmakers not to do a deal with a different foreign country

is just kind of incredible. You cannot imagine any other foreign leader who would come to the United States and tell us how to strike a treaty with some other country. While we are sending tons of money and weapons, and at the invitation, by the way, of our leaders, of John Boehner at the time. And also, it looks like one of the big reasons that this invitation was originally extended to Netanyahu was as a kind of olive branch, right, Ryan, at the time, this was back in, I think this was March-ish, it was earlier in the spring. It was sort of seen as a negotiating chip, like we may be attacking you publicly here, we may be disagreeing with you publicly here, but come on over, address a joint session of Congress because we're your greatest ally. It was kind of an interesting move. And now it seems like while there's no date,

this looming over Congress is really allowing for some of the big divides between progressives, Justice Democrat adjacent people and the Biden administration to, I don't know, I mean, to become more pointed, more acute than I've seen over the course and the Biden administration to, I don't know, I mean, to become more pointed, more acute than I've seen over the course of the Biden administration. I actually think it's influenced the boldness in speaking out against the Biden border policy we talked about earlier, that it's just, there's a snowball kind of rolling down the hill with people getting comfortable now openly criticizing Biden, Biden in a way that reminds me of how the Freedom Caucus typically treats people like Mike Johnson. Although there's a lot of agreement, even in like the Democratic establishment, that maybe the whole Netanyahu joint address isn't a good thing, even for Netanyahu

himself. And all of this is happening while the question is being called both to Israel and to Hamas. Biden has elevated this offer that Israel made. Israel has now said that it's ratified something very close to it that's gone through the Qatari foreign minister to Hamas. There are multiple balls and multiple courts and politics within each of those different coalitions. Like, you know, Hamas is a coalition, just like the Israeli government is a coalition. It's not as if any of them are a monolith. So to help us walk through this,

Shael Ben-Efraim, who is the host of the podcast Israel Explained, is going to join us in a moment to unpack where he thinks this is heading for Netanyahu and for the potential beginning of the end of the war. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually

like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free

on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that Taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley

comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season One, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Binge episodes one, two, and three on May 21st and episodes four, five, and six on June 4th. Ad free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-stud on Drugs podcast. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives.

This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill.

NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real.

Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. So can you walk us through your assessment of where Netanyahu is now when it comes to this offer that has been made? And has this actual offer been made? Let's actually, before you answer, let's put this element up.

This is B3. reporting that the Qatari foreign minister is basically saying that they've received an Israeli proposal for a hostage deal, quote, that reflects the principles laid out in President Biden's speech, and they delivered it to Hamas. And so unpack that for us. What is Qatar saying here? What has Israel given them and what have they sent to Hamas? So on May 29th, the Israeli war cabinet voted on an offer to give to Hamas. That offer was made at a very low moment for Israel. when a video of several female soldiers that had been taken by Hamas, who worked as observers, had been revealed to the public, and there was a lot of pressure to get a deal right now. Netanyahu was somewhat hesitant to make that offer, but he did.

And because he was very hesitant to make that offer, he's been backtracking ever since. Now, that offer is very similar to the one that Biden referenced in his speech. Biden made no changes from the offer that Israel made, despite some claims to the contrary. There were some things that he omitted, for sure, especially the number of prisoners, things like that. But a lot of that is confidential and under Israeli military censorship to begin with. Netanyahu also made that offer

as the only holdout in the cabinet. He was the only one who wanted to vote against that offer. And then he eventually did because he lost his closest ally in the cabinet, Ron Dermer. So it's a three-stage offer. In the first stage, there'll be an exchange of humanitarian hostages in exchange for a release of prisoners and Israel stopping the war for 46 days. Then there'll be negotiation over a second phase. In the second phase, there's supposed to be complete cessation of the conflict permanently, a return of soldiers. And in the third phase, there is going to be a rebuilding of Gaza that will take place over three to five years. So that's the full. So Netanyahu's initial response when Biden came out with that proposal was to say,

well, you know, this is a nonstarter. This isn't really what I meant because it doesn't allow us to continue the war. Then there were leaks from his own office saying, no, actually, this was our offer. So how did we get from how did we get from that place where he was reluctantly for it? Then he was against it. and now he's transmitting something that is the same in principle through Qatar. And what does it mean in principle? Is it the same deal? Yeah, yeah. So the trouble with what we're doing here as more rational people is that we're trying to find continuity in Netanyahu's policy on a foreign policy level in terms of the national interest, in terms of getting a deal. That's a mistake because Netanyahu

is only working on the level of trying to maintain his coalition. And right now his coalition is ailing on both sides. He's got Ben-Gvir and Smotrich on the right, and they're saying that they're going to bolt if there is an advance on this deal. Then you have Gantz on the left saying that he's going to bolt if there isn't advance on a deal or any kind of strategic vision towards the war. Then you have immense international pressure from Biden, the likes of which if you ignore, there will be repercussions. So what Netanyahu is trying to do is he's trying to avoid all these pitfalls by maneuvering left when he goes too far right and maneuvering right when he goes too far left to try to maintain his coalition,

to try to beat the worst ramifications of having an open spat with Biden, and to try to keep Don's in the coalition for as long as possible. So as far as the actual offer is concerned, nothing has changed because that offer is one that Israel's made. So the offer is locked in. The U.S. has already revealed it. And the reason they revealed it was because they knew that Netanyahu might back away from it and to put pressure on Hamas to agree to it too, because Hamas was probably going to say no without all this. So the offer is the same offer, but the spin is going to constantly change according to Netanyahu's political needs.

And a lot of the things that he's saying are in there are not. The most obvious one is he's saying that the offer includes the Israeli right to destroy Hamas. But you're never going to give an offer to someone with saying, I'm going to destroy you. That is nonsensical. But he's saying that for political reasons. And if we understand that, then we understand what he's doing. But the offer is the same offer. And so let's talk about actually how Biden is navigating some of those challenges here. Matthew Miller was asked about this by

a Nile Stange. I forget how to pronounce his last name. Sorry, Nile. But let's play this next clip and get you to react to it, Shael. You mentioned the president's remarks, which included the idea that as long as Hamas lives up to its commitment, there could be, and I quote, the cessation of hostilities permanently. And you say that is an Israeli proposal. So the government of the state of Israel is signed up to a proposal that there could be a permanent end to hostilities and to mass still in existence in a meaningful way? No. They are signed up to an agreement that leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities, but with a number of provisions that have to be negotiated to get there at the

end of the faith. But I'm not going to negotiate all those provisions in public. I've talked about this a good deal yesterday, about the fact that one of the principles the secretary outlined in Tokyo in November is that there cannot be continued rule of Hamas in Gaza after October 7th. I'm sorry, after the end of this conflict. And that's what we're committed to. No, but I understand that. But if the provisions required would be the dissolution of Hamas. Why would Hamas sign up to get that ball rolling? Because they don't want to see continued conflict, continued Palestinian people dying. They don't want to see war in Gaza. They want to see reconstruction of Gaza. Now, look,

I will say, I will grant you one thing. I said this to Matt yesterday. It may be that Sinwar decides that he is safe in a tunnel and his interests have diverged from the people of Gaza. And so he's not willing to agree to a ceasefire. And he's not willing to look at this proposal and say it requires good faith negotiations to get from phase one to phase two. So I'm not going to accept it because I'm safe and I don't have any interest in the Palestinian people who continue to suffer the ravages of war. But I will say if you look at the deal that's on the table, it is manifestly in the interest of the Palestinian people, it's manifestly in the interest of the Israeli people, it's manifestly in the interest of the world. And so that's why we'll continue to push for it. And if Hamas really does represent the interests of the Palestinian people, as they say over and over,

it's without a doubt that they'll take this deal. So now pushing Matthew Miller on some of the same questions that you guys were just talking about, Ryan and Shael. Shael, give us a little bit of reaction to that exchange. Not an easy question to answer for the Biden administration. Yeah, so, you know, I hate to call people out like this, but everything he's saying is completely erroneous. And he knows it. And it's not even a question. What Miller is saying is that Hamas would accept an offer calling to remove them from power because, I'm paraphrasing here, he cares about the Palestinian people. Sinwar cares about the Palestinian people. Sinwar does not care about the Palestinian people. Sinwar uses the Palestinian people as a tool in order to hurt Israel and increase the power

of his organization. That's what he does. There's no other way to understand this war. If he cared about the Palestinian people, then he would have reached a ceasefire long ago. The Palestinian people are suffering terribly. And neither leader here particularly cares about their people, and they certainly don't care about the people on the other side. And what that clip reveals is how ridiculous it is

to pretend that this deal that Israel has offered is going to allow for the destruction of Hamas. Hamas are not idiots. They have said they're not accepting this deal unless Israel states clearly that it will end the war, which they have said in that offer. And there's no question that Israel did say that in that offer and that the United States will guarantee an end to the war. And if they don't get that, they're not going to sign an agreement. There's no reason for them to stop their control of Gaza because Israel has failed to remove Hamas militarily. The only way you can remove an enemy organization like that is by defeating them in the battlefield. Israel, for various reasons, has not done that. Hamas knows they haven't done that.

And more than that, Sinwar is very hesitant to take this deal to begin with. The only reason he's thinking about doing it is because of pressure from qatar and from egypt uh he knows that the longer this war goes on the more of a price he exacts from israel on the international stage between the icc and the icj and the biden administration and the EU and the UK not sending arms and so on and so forth. And that's just the beginning. In two months, things will be worse. And Sinwar showed on October 7th that his goal is not to help the Palestinian people. His goal is to hurt Israel as much as possible, as it says in the Hamas charter, and also increase their political power.

October 7th has done that. They're more popular now than ever. And with the amount of pain he's inflicting on Israel, we're talking about damage that no other actor has ever done to Israel in its entire history. And he knows that. And to unpack this Matt Miller's kind of contradiction that he has here, it reminds me a little bit of the U.S. and the Taliban. And you said, you know, the only way to defeat an enemy like that is militarily. And even in the case of the Taliban, we actually, the United States did actually completely defeat the Taliban. And yet, because of the nature of counterterrorism and the way that it produces more enemies, the Taliban eventually came back. And we spent like about a decade here in the United States

trying to figure out a day after for Afghanistan, but trying to do so in a way that did not account for the Taliban. And finally, eventually, reality just intervened. We're like, you know what, actually, OK, actually, it's going to be the Taliban and we're just going to be OK with that. And it's been a couple of years and the world and the U.S. just kind of moved intervene. And we're like, you know what, actually, okay, actually, it's going to be the Taliban and we're just going to be okay with that. And it's been a couple of years and the world and the U.S. just kind of moved on. And it feels very similar that like neither Israel or the United States want to acknowledge the potential that Hamas, even if it's some renamed organization, might still be there after the war is over. And so therefore their ability to think of a day after is as irrational and kind of incoherent

as the U.S.'s was in Afghanistan. Does that, what's going on with Hamas and the day after here? Yeah, so I'm gonna push back on that a little bit because I think what we're seeing here is that the Biden administration actually had a pretty good plan for what to do in Gaza. Biden administration said to Netanyahu early on in the war, listen, when you finish taking over Gaza, we're going to bring in the PA.

We're going to reform the PA. We're going to do that with the help of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the EU, etc., etc., a whole plan for that. Netanyahu did not accept that because that would require, talking about a Palestinian state, that would require giving up on Netanyahu's policy of divide and conquer of the Palestinians, where you have Hamas in Gaza and you have the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. That way you're never going to have a Palestinian state because they're divided forever. And that way he can avoid losing Ben-Gvir and Smotrich from his coalition.

So Biden had a plan, a pretty good one. I don't know if it would have worked, but at least it had some realistic prospect. And Netanyahu rejected it. Not only did he reject the diplomatic element, this is the part that people miss, he rejected the military element. Netanyahu did not and has not taken over all of Gaza, and he's avoided doing that by withdrawing from cities that he's already taken and then taking the next city. Think about the fact that he's going into Rafah now,

but left Khan Yunus. If he had Han Yunis and Rafah and Gaza City, he'd basically have the strip. He doesn't want that because once he has that, he owns the Gaza Strip. And then he has to decide what to do with it. If he just takes the city here, takes the city there, he's causing destruction. He's continuing the war, but there's no day after plan. And so right now the Americans are, and I think this is a mistake, playing along with this fantasy that you can have a day after plan without, A, taking over the entire Gaza Strip, and B, bringing in an alternate reformed government. And you mentioned, compare this to Afghanistan. Of course, Afghanistan was a disaster, but Afghanistan was so much more logical than this. Because in Afghanistan, the United States took over the entire country and put in an alternate government.

They cleared the enemy and they rebuilt. The Israelis are unwilling to do either. They're unwilling to get rid of Hamas and they're unwilling to rebuild a new government. And the reason for that is because the Netanyahu government does not want a movement towards a two-state solution and to lose support from the extreme right. So there's no policy at all. It's much worse than Afghanistan. Afghanistan was an honest attempt to do something that went wrong. Here, there's no honest attempt to do anything.

I've got one more question, unless you have another. No, go for it. So here in Washington, D.C., yesterday, the House of Representatives, we could put up B5 here. The House of Representatives passed a bill basically sanctioning the International Criminal Court. 205 Republicans joined by 42 Democrats. Here's my colleague at the Intercept, Prem Tucker, listing who the 42 Democrats are. Sanctioning the ICC for threatening to issue arrest warrants. How does both the ICC's move originally, but also then the U.S. pushback against the ICC,

how does that play into Netanyahu's calculations? I don't think it plays into his calculations all that much. I don't think the ICC at this point is going to be bullied into dropping the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant. I've been talking to some people in the ICC. I've been talking to some people in the Israeli Justice Ministry. They feel, and Netanyahu knows this because he's getting advice from these Ministry, they feel, and Netanyahu knows this because he's getting advice from these people, they feel that the more the ICC is bullied, the more likely they are to go forward with it.

What this is on the level of the ICC, and diplomatically speaking, is an attempt to shore up, again, the base, and also it helps divide and conquer biden from the republicans in the uh in the house and some democrats as well because biden doesn't want to be sanctioning the icc nor should he honestly um the United States is part of the liberal world order. The ICC is an organization set up to prevent future genocides. Going after them in some kind of war because you disagree with their stance on the war in Gaza

goes against everything that a liberal internationalist like Biden and that entire administration should be doing. And that's why he really doesn't want to be doing it. But the reasons being done for Republicans and for Netanyahu is completely political. It's for the Republicans to show that they're more pro-Israel than Biden is, and for Netanyahu to show that he's standing up to Biden. The place that where Netanyahu feels the most comfortable in the world is in Washington, D.C., speaking before Congress, sticking a finger in the eye of a Democratic president. That's his sweet spot. And that's

always gotten him a raise in the polls. And he feels very comfortable there. Running wars, not so much. Fixing problems, not so much. Giving nice speeches in Congress is great. And like everything else that Netanyahu does, this is not going to fix the problem with the ICC. The ICC is a legal organization. And what they ask is that Israel investigate what it's doing in Gaza. And that's the only way that you could get the ICC

to do anything is by having valid internal investigations in Israel. And get the ICC to do anything is by having valid internal investigations in Israel And if the now refuses to do that because that wouldn't play well with the base. So instead he's Going to do a grandstanding show Actually, I did have one last question for you before before you go yesterday We're there were some reports that Hamas had already rejected this offer, yet we also have reports that Hamas is engaged in these detailed negotiations, which those two things seem to be in contradiction. What's your understanding of

who the final negotiators are and what should people be watching for signals of whether or not this is going to lead to a deal. Yeah. So the first thing I would caution is that if you hear that someone accepted or didn't accept without a statement, ignore it. There's a lot of spin right now from interested actors and people are trying to raise the price, lower the price. And that's fine that they're doing that. That's how you negotiate. Israel's doing that. U.S. is doing that. Hamas is doing that. That's how you negotiate. Israel's doing that. U.S. is doing that. Hamas is doing that. That's how you negotiate. That's just how it's done.

But as far as the actual process and not the statements, there's meetings in Doha under Bill Burns. Israeli delegation is going to be there. Qatari delegation is going to be there. Egyptian delegation is going to be there. And thatari delegation is going to be there. Egyptian delegation is going to be there. And that's where they're going to have the talks. What's going to happen there is two things.

Hamas is going to try to squeeze out some more concessions. They never accept an offer as is. They're just not wired that way, even though this offer is very good for them. So they'll be doing that. But the most important thing that both sides will be doing there is they'll be trying to do what James Baker called

leave the dead cat on the other side's doorstep. You want, they both sides have an interest in making this fail, but neither side has an interest in making this fail and appear to be their fault.

Right. Because they'll be facing, Hamas will be facing a lot of problems with Qatar Hamas will be facing a lot of problems with Qatar and Israel will be facing a lot of problems with the United States. So what they're going to do is they're going to try to maneuver to blame the other side for the failure.

The only way that really that this is even accepted is if both sides are somehow put on the spot where they could be blamed for the failure. Something that James Baker, who I mentioned, was very good at because he was aware of that dynamic. I'm not sure that Bill Burns really knows how to do that properly. The CIA is actually not, they don't specialize in negotiating. So that's what we should be looking at, because I think both sides want this to fail. Not most Israelis, by the way, and not even most of the government, but Netanyahu wants it to fail for his political

reasons. And Sinwar wants it to fail for his mostly strategic reasons. And by the way, most of Hamas abroad wants it to succeed. So they're both under tons of pressure to accept it, but they don't want to. So what we're going to be seeing is people trying to avoid that. And also we know from the reaction of the last, what looked to be ceasefire from Gazans, just celebrations in the street. Palestinian people want this to end too. So hopefully the Israeli people and the Palestinian people will get what they want and these leaders won't. We'll see. But like you said, slim chance since they all wanted to fail. No, it's early, Shael. So thank you so much for waking up and briefing us with your insights here. Appreciate it so much. Thank you again.

Thank you so much. Have a lovely evening. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fat phobia that enabled a flawed system to continue

for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that Taser told them.

From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multibillion-dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1,

Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast.

We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all

reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill.

NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content,

subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Attorney General Merrick Garland testified before the House of Representatives. One of the first people to confront him was Republican Matt Gaetz. Let's watch a little bit of that exchange. You lodge this attack that it's a conspiracy theory that there is coordinated lawfare against Trump. And then when we say, fine, just give us the documents, give us the correspondence. And then if it's a conspiracy theory, that will be evident.

But when you say, well, we'll take your request and then we'll sort of work it through the DOJ's accommodation process, then you're actually advancing the very dangerous conspiracy theory that you're concerned about. Now, you were a judge once nominated the highest court in our country. When you were a judge, I'm just curious, did you ever make political donations to partisan candidates? No. No, and you didn't because that would create the potential appearance of impropriety. I didn't because there's a federal rule barring federal judges from making contributions. Right, but under that same theory of a tax on the judicial process, shouldn't someone be owed a jury of their peers and a

judge that's non-biased rather than getting a judge from your political opponent's donor file? I'm well aware that you're not asking a hypothetical. You're asking me to comment on a jury verdict in another jurisdiction which has to be respected. So I was going to say, Ryan, more of that. That was basically the tone of the entire hearing back and forth. Merrick Garland started the hearing. We can put this up on the screen. I really enjoyed the ABC News headline, which is why I included this particular tear sheet. Their headline was Attorney General Merrick Garland blasts conspiracy theories about Trump criminal case and the FBI. So they write, Garland is pushing back forcefully on quote false and quote extremely

dangerous narratives, he says, are being spread about the Department of Justice. And that was in a hearing for the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. So just yesterday, this went on for a long time. Garland continued to say certain members of this committee and the Oversight Committee are seeking contempt as a means of obtaining, for no legitimate purpose, sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations. That was his line sort of throughout these questions. And Jim Jordan came out swinging. Matt Gaetz really went in on Merrick Garland.

None of this is particularly surprising. Jerry Nadler said basically that the House Judiciary Committee had become an acting arm of the Trump campaign is I think how he phrased it. People like Thomas Massey asked questions actually about Ray Epps in January 6th. It was a pretty wide ranging conversation that they ended up having here. But Garland did not want to get into specifics about the extent to which this was the exchange she just had with Matt Gaetz. You saw the DOJ may have coordinated at all on any of the lawfare cases against Donald Trump. And it was happening on a split screen as the DOJ was also prosecuting the Hunter Biden case in Delaware. That was Weiss is the prosecutor in

that case. But also people may remember, got sort of dressed down by the judge in the case last year for basically soft peddling, letting the statute of limitations expire on the Hunter Biden charges to the point where even the judge was surprised that like, oh, you're the prosecutor here? What are you doing? This is not the way to prosecute your case. So there are a lot of actual questions that aren't, quote, conspiracy theories. Of course, there are some conspiracy theories on the right, as there are on the left, but there are a lot of serious questions that aren't conspiracy theories. I thought the media coverage of this was sort of sneering and contemptuous of some relatively serious questions that Merrick Garland absolutely

deserves to be peppered with. You'd think other journalists would be curious about some of them too. But isn't it the case that Garland himself, I mean, most Democrats are furious at Merrick Garland for not prosecuting Trump with any aggressiveness. Right. Like he set up, he dithered for years and then set up a special counsel and let the special counsel. Right. Which I guess we're now going to find out whether or not Eileen Cannon thinks that dithered for years and then set up a special counsel and let the special counsel, which I guess we're now going to find out whether or not Eileen Cannon thinks that the special counsel

even was appointed properly or not. So it feels like the wrong target to me. Like Merrick Garland is, like if everything was left to Merrick Garland, like A, Alvin Bragg is a New York prosecutor. Right. But the rest of the case were brought by the special counsels that he brought he didn't bring him himself um just kind of feel like do they think that like what would be the conspiracy that like merrick garland actually wanted to prosecute but didn't feel like he could prosecute from the from directly from his office so then he dithered for two years and then set up a special counsel that's not gonna get it done in time before the election. What a pitiful conspiracy if that's what the plan was. And see, I find the pitiful conspiracy to be

entirely believable. It seems like a plausible theory, actually. Because Merrick Garland is someone, and he's sort of the perfect pick for the Biden administration's DOJ because it's this, like, symbolic outrage. Right, symbolism over actual effectiveness. Right, half measures. And in a way, that's really been the theme of today's show. We start with this, and I know you and I disagree on the executive action on the border, the executive order on the border. But whatever you think of it, it's not an honest, full-throated embrace of any serious principled position. Same thing with his Israel policy, not an honest, full-throated defense of his position. And I think that's basically the line that Garland has brought, like this weird prosecution of Hunter Biden where you let the statute of limitations expire and then do this strange, like kind of half-assed prosecution attempt by a special, or by Weiss, who's not,

seems to be like utterly disinterested in actually prosecuting Hunter Biden. Yeah, I mean, it's because Merrick Garland really is this kind of institutionalist who's like out of the cast of the West Wing. That really is who he is. Biden initially was going to appoint Doug Jones to be attorney general. Jones was the Alabama senator who beat Roy Moore, famously kind of prosecuted the Klan, and is a much more aggressive prosecutor and probably would have been much more aggressive than Merrick Garland going after Trump and his cronies. But instead, for whatever reason, and we'll get more memoirs eventually, and we'll learn

exactly why he changed his mind at the last minute, they went with Garland, I think mostly, to kind of own the Republicans. Like, haha, like you blocked him from being the Supreme Court justice, but now, you know, he gets to be attorney general. Isn't that like a real like chef's kiss for like resistance liberals? That's why I say symbolism over the substance. And Garland is obviously extremely competent and qualified and all those things, but he is a 90s era institutionalist in a kind of more partisan, bare-knuckled environment. And you kind of watching him tangle with Matt Gaetz shows the kind of anachron, that his anachronistic institutionalism is no kind of defense against Gates. Gates doesn't care that he's got the wrong guy here.

He's going to beat him up anyway. What's interesting, the establishment Democrats, Jerry Nadler, for example, as a reaction to Matt Gates, are embracing the 90s era institutionalism that's not exactly popular with the Democratic base right now either. But that's how they react. I mean, it might be popular in Jerry Nadler's district, but one of the big points of contention in Garland's testimony yesterday is that he's refusing, so Biden lied about the audio of his interview with Robert Herr, special counsel Robert Herr in the documents case. He said things that are not true because we then had the

transcript. The DOJ is right now refusing to also release the audio of the conversation because they're saying you already have the transcript. It might, and this was Merrick Garland's line yesterday, it might dissuade future cooperation from people that the DOJ needs to cooperate, people like Joe Biden. And even though Biden lied about it, the DOJ is not releasing the actual audio itself. And so Garland faced some really stiff questions over that yesterday, especially with that kind of side-by-side. What a lot of people see is this political lawfare, probably coordinated by the DOJ at some point, which is why they don't want to release. That line of questioning is interesting. They don't want to release any communications that

they've had with any of the other prosecutors. Now, theoretically, there could be a good reason for that. And this is usually the problem with the government when they're refusing to release things. We have no way of knowing whether or not their theoretical line of argumentation is accurate because it could be, or is reasonable because we can't see the information. In order to know whether it's reasonable, you kind of just have to have trust. And it's not like this DOJ or this administration is just rolling in public trust. Right. But for Gates to expect that Garland's going to be like, oh, yeah, you wanted all those

emails. Yeah, I've got them right here. Yeah. Oh, I mean, of course. I don't think he expected it, though. It seemed like he's saying, well, you say you have to go back and put it through the process. Like, well, yeah.

What else? Like, do you want me to search right here? I see what you're saying. Yeah. And like pull it up and hand it through the process, like, well yeah, what else do you, like, do you want me to search right here? I see what you're saying, yeah. And like pull it up and hand it over? I mean, I thought Gates knew, he was like, he was almost like reading off a script of like how he expected Golan to. Of course, and that whole line of questioning

is very easy to say, you know, it's your fault that I believe the things that I believe. Yeah. Which the greatest kind of advent of the Twitter era was whenever somebody posts something that turns out to be completely wrong, what they will then respond with, if they actually take it down, but isn't the really interesting point the fact that I believed it? That's what's really interesting here. Like, okay, this wasn't true interesting point the fact that I believed it? That's what's really interesting here. Like, okay, this wasn't true.

But the fact that I thought it was true really tells you something about society today. And that's just intellectually completely dishonest. So the Wall Street Journal described Merrick Garland yesterday as a quote, by the book, play no favorites approach to investigations or his- Murdoch agrees. Murdoch agrees, right. But that's, I mean, that's really going to start getting under the skin, obviously, not just of congressional Republicans, but of- Also Democrats. They want him to play favorites.

Yeah. Like favoritism. They want him to embrace the playing of favorites. Yes. Say like, look, this is democracy versus fascism. What do you mean you don't have a favorite between democracy and fascism? I mean, he kind of does that. But to your point, it's not in the same way where he's just like, we're not prosecuting Hunter Biden.

You know, we're not going to get into it because basically the statute of limitations expiring meant that you couldn't prosecute him on the fairer charges. Of course, Paul Manafort was prosecuted stiffly on fairer charges. You know, and Tony Podesta didn't go to prison like Paul, and Paul Manafort was accused of more law-breaking, obviously, than just the fairer charges. But I think there's really serious questions. It's, though, to your point, Ryan, the DOJ is not what it used to be. And neither, no political party's president at this point expects the DOJ to be this institution of true nonpartisan capital J justice that it used to be. And let this be a tease for our Friday show. We're going to have a true blue liberal progressive defending the lock Trump up perspective.

And then a true red MAGA saying do not do it. Yeah. Brian Boitler. And who's the MAGA guy? Will Chamberlain. Will Chamberlain. So that'll be Friday. Camp Shane, one of America's longest runningrunning weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results.

Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of

fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops call this taser the revolution.

But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company

dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. It's really, really, really bad.

Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast.

Yes, sir. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams,

NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill.

NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. We'll be right back. Season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcast. And to hear episodes one week early and ad free with exclusive content. Subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Let's move on for now over to a bunch of the elections around the world. Let's start with India, because Ryan, you've been following this one really closely, where Narendra Modi was reelected. His party, though, surprisingly poor performance, basically, across the board. And interestingly, yeah, we can put this up on the screen. We can't even necessarily say that he's going to get a third term, even though the press is saying set to win historic third term. That's how Reuters puts it here. He has to now cobble. His party got less than a majority. His coalition pushed over a majority. But his coalition is extremely fickle because

it's got these kind of two political parties that joined him like two months ago and could bounce at any second. So now he has to go to them and grovel in order to get them to join his coalition so that he can become prime minister for the third time. We've covered that incredible February 8th Pakistan election where they change the numbers like in plain view. Like the most flagrant kind of major country rigging that we've maybe ever seen in like world history. So compared to that, the Indian election was free and fair. But the Indian election was extraordinarily rigged towards Modi. Opposition leaders, you know, were jailed. There was, you know, violent suppression of the opposition. Modi outspent his opposition 10 or 100 to one.

You know, it wasn't even close. He deployed all of the kind of instruments of the government toward his electoral favor. And the entire Indian media apparatus was lockstep behind Modi. So under those circumstances to fall short of a majority really makes you ask, you know, what the heck happened? Right, yeah. And so what the heck happened seems to be the massive joblessness across India. Modi has been good at creating cash transfers and helping people stay out of desperation. But he has not been good at getting them jobs. And he has instead focused a lot of his energy on this Hindu nationalism in trying to

Kind of turn India into you know an ethno Hindu State which was fairly popular apparently among some yeah among yes Well, he I mean he had massive electoral successes right when he was first elected went 2014, right? Yeah, so I mean it was going well until it wasn't yes. He had two electoral successes. Right. When he was first elected, what, 2014? Right. Yeah. So, I mean, it was going well until it wasn't. Yes. He had two resounding victories. And the opposition ran on basically economic justice, saying that, you know, we're falling behind. The elites are taking over.

And, you know, we want better jobs. We want more power in the workplace. And that message resonated. And Modi, as all kind of authoritarians who are running on this kind of platform try to do is they want to divide people along cultural lines rather than kind of give in to their material needs, which then kind of suppresses the amount of wealth that can be absorbed by the 1%. And so we see that here in the United States. We see that around the world. And this was people pushing back and saying, no, I don't, your racism is not enough. Like, I want a job, actually. So tell us a little bit more about, and actually another interesting element of this is Modi's

control of the press and information. So it's, you know, if people would put two and two together, unusual for someone who has a lot of control over the press and the flow of information to then be punished at the polls. It sort of undermines the point of it, but it also undermines the argument that this is just pure, unadulterated kind of fascism. Can you break that down a little bit? Like actually what Modi's control versus how voters responded and what that says about the control, how does that play out here? Yeah, and we that says about the control. How does that play out here? Yeah, and we can put up the second element here, which is if you go Google this headline

when you're done with this, this is kind of a fun article to read if you don't follow Indian politics closely. So much of it is different parties and figures that will be completely obscure to you. But the conclusion is pretty straightforward. The opposition coalition was cleverly called India. That's their acronym, India. The India parties have understood the significance of not only fair representation, but also crucially issues of economic justice. Such an awareness has not only helped them correct their political course and learn from each other But also question their inherent social prejudices and predispositions you know India is is this conglomeration of so many different cultures into one nation and It had been easy for people to kind of

play people's prejudices off of each other and Modi was good at that and the and the coalition had been unable to come together because there are so many different factions within it that were you know jockeying for their own power and had their as the this article saying had their own had their own prejudices and then and would then overly rely on just representation, and need somebody from this province, from this nationality, etc. But what they really finally came together on was, no, we're all in this together. Stop letting Modi divide us. We all want the same things. And so that's the thing that Modi wasn't able to overcome. And it also shows the weakness of authoritarianism in one sense, and in this sense, that

all the media reported that this was going to be a landslide victory. Even the exit polls reported that this was going to be a landslide. Didn't Upholster sort of cry on TV as a sort of, yeah, because it was really shocking to the industry. But a lot of that was the media, even Western media, is so intimidated by Modi that it's one thing if you're an intimidating boss and the people around you you know don't want to give you bad news like we're all familiar for example exactly it's just

sorry boss ratings are down uh nobody wants to give you know he's the kind of boss that nobody wants to give bad news to he throws a can of celsius at you that's right but that that extends to for modi that extends even to like to the Western press, certainly the ones that operate within India, that they don't want to become kind of victims of his state repression. And so they're like, oh, yeah, boss, polls are great for you. Exit polls are incredible. Nobody was willing to kind of take, there was a few commentators that were willing to take a risk and they deserve a lot of credit. But nobody was willing to say, you know what, actually, I don't think people like what you're doing here. And I don't think you're going to do very well. And two, India's electoral, you know, structural credit, when people voted against Modi,

those votes were counted and those votes were reported. So that's, which is not what happened in Pakistan. And it's not what happens in some other countries. So that's, which is not what happened in Pakistan. And it's not what happens in some other countries. So good for India for that. And just one last point I'm reading from the Reuters report on all of this. Investors had cheered the prospects of another Modi term, expecting it to deliver further years of strong economic growth and pro-business reforms,

but the margin of victory emerged as a worry during the counting. This quote is so interesting. The key question is whether BJP can retain single party majority. If not, then would its coalition be able to deliver economic development, particularly infrastructure? Ryan, the person who asked that question in Reuters is Ken Peng, head of investment strategy Asia at Citi Global Wealth in Singapore. So markets were really looking forward to another just sort of decisive Modi victory,

seemed to be following the polling. I mean, I guess what else could they do? And are now wondering where the economy goes in India. Yeah, and a good way to gauge whether or not you should be happy about the results of an election is if the market is upset about it. Like whatever the opposite reaction of the market is. And we're going to talk about Mexico in a second. Markets very much did not like the results of the Mexican election needed to David Frum.

So it probably means it's probably a good thing for Mexico. Before we get to that, though. Yeah, South Africa for, and this is fascinating, curious for your take on this. So the African National Congress, ANC, which led Africa out of apartheid, is falling short of a majority for the first time in three decades. They'll probably be able to cobble together a coalition in order to stay in power. We'll see how that goes. But what's interesting here is that I think you see a similar thing. The economy in South Africa is a complete mess. Just absolutely massive unemployment and power outages are just omnipresent and really rock the the economy and my take on you know how this all happened basically is So after the after the ANC takes power you have basically all of the wealth in white hands and which are also

That's also the 1% but it's kind of hard to extricate Those two things, you know, you know in an immediately post-apartheid society. The ANC was a broad coalition of a lot of different kind of political interests, but it was generally pretty left-wing and had a lot of, and you know, its muscle was really communist and socialist. And so the 1% was very concerned that the broader agenda of socialism was going to be accomplished in South Africa, or even the modest agenda of nationalizing major industries and then distributing the resources down to the people. And so what they did is they came up with this system of basically diversifying the

existing system. So they said, we don't need a new system. Like, let's stick with what we've got in apartheid, but let's make a colorblind apartheid. And what they were able to do, a colorblind economic apartheid, and what they were able to do is, you know, pass these laws that said you had to, you know, that you were going to give, you know, it was affirmative action, like affirmative preference to black and other marginalized Indian and what they call colored populations in South Africa would have better access to government contracts. And also these private companies, you know, had to diversify their boards and diversify their ownership. And so what the companies very cleverly did

is they went to these ANC power players and gave them shares effectively in these companies. And so they kind of bought the ANC leadership gradually into maintaining this unequal economic system by bringing in just enough black South Africans so that it would be diversified. It's still only, I think black ownership of the top companies is still well below 40% in a country where the black population is close to over 90%. But what it did is it drained all the political will from the ANC leadership to radically restructure the economy. And it also introduced enormous amounts of corruption.

And so South Africa now has like, you know, raging levels of corruption where, you know, all of these different government assets are for sale. One reason you see, you know, you can't unlink all the power outages from the depth of the corruption here. And so the opposition really ran on, you know, social justice, economic justice, and anti-corruption. And, you know, hopefully the ANC hears that because this is, this is the population saying, you know, enough of this corruption. And if, if they don't do a more kind of democratic socialist approach to this problem, what you're instead going to get is a purely kind of racist, reverse racist approach.

Like you're going to have the kind of white population demonized and attacked. And you see that a lot. And so like a reverse Trumpian kind of approach to it. And so, like, you would want to make an argument of self-preservation to these, like, white capitalists who thought that through corruption they could kind of just buy off their place in society rather than actually, you know, radically reforming the structure of society so that it can be more inclusive and everybody can participate. You're either going to get it through the ballot box and through democratic socialism, or you either going to get it through the ballot box and through democratic socialism, or you're going to get it through pitchforks.

The New York Times ran a really interesting op-ed on this, and they quoted a girl kind of talking about her own parents who grew up, as the Times reports, on the Eastern Cape, who voted for ANC. This girl said, I think they fear racism and apartheid more than they fear poverty. This woman continued, if the ANC had sorted out infrastructure, policing, education, the fundamentals, I probably would have voted for them. So that's the generational difference between her and her parents. The Times notes in this op-ed that a lot of people who are now voting, they don't remember the formal apartheid system. They're actually born after it went away, which is a really interesting kind of generational

divide and one that I just think so many countries, we're actually, this is what we're going to talk about in the Mexico block, are dealing with right now that divide between old parties that used to not just be about the sort of meat and potatoes, but also used to have these kind of principled philosophical groundings now being riven over cultural questions and questions that just strike. Not that there were, obviously, ANC is like founded on cultural questions, but when you rule for a really long time, you can easily be sort of taken down these lines about what the sort of pocketbook issues are versus, you know, whatever you're using to maintain your coalition, which is often not the meat and potato stuff. Yeah. And so, you know, in both India and South Africa, you see people kind of standing up for their economic rights. And in Mexico, you see people rewarding the party that delivered them economic uplift.

What's fascinating about what happened in Mexico is that the economy there hasn't really been growing significantly. It has been growing and it hasn't been collapsing. Yeah. there hasn't really been growing significantly. It has been growing and it hasn't been collapsing. Yet, by taxing the rich and with an inclusive kind of social economic policy, AMLO was able to lift a huge number of Mexicans out of poverty and raise wages. And then his party is rewarded for it as a result. Absolutely fascinating situation unfolding in Mexico. And we're going to talk to Juan David Rojas, who wrote about this for Compact Magazine, just sort of breaking down Claudia Sheinbaum's victory. And I'm excited to talk to him, Ryan, because he was there in Mexico covering this as it happened.

No surprise, huge landslide. She's the first female president of Mexico. Although she herself isn't obsessed with that, but one of the big differences between her and AMLO is she is postured at least more towards that cultural progressive theme or the themes than AMLO ever did. In fact, AMLO was extremely critical of feminism. He had some really interesting, you know, rants in different directions. People say he's basically still going to be the president because he's always been close with Shane Baum. That, you know, Amlo, who's had this difficult relationship with Biden, actually had a better relationship with

the border hawk Trump than he ever did with Joe Biden. They seem to have struck some deal since January, although we still don't know exactly what it is, where Mexico is cracking down on La Bestia, the train that was carrying migrants south to north towards the border. So, Shane Baum, though, probably the biggest difference between those two is there's that economic populism, nationalism, coupling economic populism with nationalism in a really interesting way like AMLO did, doubling minimum wage, huge increases or huge decreases in the poverty rate in Mexico. They're rewarded with a massive margin in the presidential election here. We'll see if she's able to maintain that. She seems to be wanting to. Her speech wasn't full

of sort of like UN World Economic Platitudes. No, not at all. World Economic Platitudes in any way whatsoever. The Atlantic wouldn't be responding to her the way they are if it was. No. So let's bring in Juan David and talk about Claudia's Jane Bomb. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being

thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free

on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called

this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multibillion-dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated,

on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st, and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is season two of the war on drugs podcast. We are back in a big way, in a very big way,

real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star studded a little bit, man. We got a Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman trophy winner. It's just the compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves.

Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote.

Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working and we need to change things. Stories matter and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast

season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. For more on the Mexican elections, we are joined now by Juan David Rojas. He is a columnist at Compact.

He was also in Mexico covering this on the ground. Juan David, thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me on, guys. Big fan of the show. Oh, absolutely. I read your work all the time, Juan David. And I want to ask you, you wrote a great piece on this for Compact. Let's put E1 up on the screen. Mexico's political revolution. You sort of broke down the economic nationalism that Claudia Sheinbaum will likely continue from AMLO. Obviously, they have been very close. Fascinating dynamic between nationalism and populism in Mexico right now, whether it's AMLO or Sheinbaum. Tell us first a little bit about what you saw when you were covering the election down in Mexico the last week.

Yeah, I mean, it was just a stunning victory. I haven't seen anything like it for an incumbent leftist populist government. I mean, it's by far the most successful left government I've seen in 10 years, probably. And tell us a little bit more about why, because Ryan and I were just talking earlier. I think a lot of folks probably misunderstand exactly what it is that attracts so many voters to AMLO and to Shane Baum and their party. What have they done? Especially, you know, people look at the top line economic numbers out of Mexico and maybe don't realize what that means for an average Mexican who went to the polls on Sunday. So for decades, GDP growth in Mexico has been really stagnant at around 1% to 2%, and that hasn't really changed in recent years because of nearshoring. It's gotten better.

But what changed under AMLO is that wages really started to improve. The government every year gave these huge increases, around 20% to the minimum wage. They also banned subcontracting, which is a way to avoid paying workers benefits, which is actually insane in Mexico when you consider the fact that only around half of the population has formal work. Informality is extremely high. And the results we can see is that during the course of the six-year term, wages have gone up 35%, so much so that even informal workers' wages have risen. At the same time, the president is a really idiosyncratic figure.

He's seen as also sharing the values of ordinary Mexicans. He's a leftist, but in a lot of ways, he's very traditionalist and socially conservative. People not only see that their lives have improved, this is someone looking out for them, but also shares their values. And so, Juan David, for decades, Mexico was a one-party state. And elites here in the United States seem to have absolutely no problem with the PRI, you know, just running Mexico, top to bottom. Wages famously were extremely low. Now you have wages growing and you have a lot of the kind of the Atlantic and other kind of elite institutions here in the United States panicking

and saying, oh no, now we're not going to have democracy anymore. It's a one party state. She won by too much. She's too popular. So but the only difference is actually much more competitive today than it was under one party PRI rule. Absolutely. Seems to be wage growth. Like, is it wage growth in Mexico that actually has people so upset here in the United States? Very possibly. There's this great graph that I've referred to that you look at the minimum wage over time in Mexico. In the 70s, Mexico was a pretty prosperous country off of the oil boom. And following the debt crisis in the 80s and the 90s, there's this deliberate decision to suppress wages and stop raising the minimum wage. Well, you have to figure this is also around the 90s they enacted NAFTA.

It makes a lot of sense. You want those low wages because you're stealing all of the industry from the U.S., all of that manufacturing industry. Shainbaum won with around 59, 60% of the vote. It's an incredible victory. They won, the Morena party won seven out of nine governorships, all but every, and Sheinbaum won one in all but every, all but one state. You're going to hear the words democratic and backsliding in a lot of the next few months. Why? It's really interesting.

The Congress actually, the next Congress actually starts one month before Obrador leaves office. And so the markets are going insane. The peso dropped around 6% because they're really scared that they're going to be able to pass all these constitutional reforms that they promised that were previously seen as just these unrealistic campaign proposals. What kind of stuff? What are we likely to see in this month of September where he's still in office, but they'll have close to a supermajority. I guess they'll have a supermajority in the lower chamber and then in the upper chamber they'll have to like pick off a few PRI people to get a supermajority. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

They really are just clientelists. They have no ideology. All they care about is money. They're four seats short in the Senate. But in the Chamber of Deputies, they have a super majority. So it's actually pretty realistic they could pass some of these reforms. Some of them are pretty benign. One that I love to refer to is that they want to constitutionally ban vaping, which is something that libertarians really would hate. On the other hand, the most controversial

one I would say is they want to directly elect judges, including Supreme Court judges. And I'll be honest, I have different feelings about it. It doesn't terrify me, but sure, I guess it could lead to more politicization in the long run. I mean, for a lot of American progressives, I'm sure they'd see that and think, oh, wow, that would be incredible. But what else? They want to make it a constitutional amendment that the minimum wage has to always be raised more than inflation. Yeah. And they want to, like, put some of the cash transfers right into the Constitution or something, right?

Yeah, a lot of that. Basically codifying a lot of the laws that were seen during the past six years. So let's talk a little bit about, we can put this next element up on the screen, the violence that surrounded this cycle in Mexico. And again, WandaVid was just there. So woman mayor shot dead in Mexico day after Claudia Sheinbaum's historic presidential win. That's from CBS News. There were over 30, by some counts, assassinations over the course just of the cycle.

But, WandaVid, one of the things you're reporting makes very clear is that violence in Mexico, while serious, is also concentrated and isolated, basically, in different parts of the country. So if you're in Yucatan, it's one thing. If you're in Tamaulipas, it's another thing. Can you talk to us just a little bit about that? And also in the context of, you and I talked actually on a podcast last week about allegations of AMLO's relationship with Sinaloa, the allegations surrounding AMLO's relationship with Sinaloa, the allegations surrounding AMLO's relationship with Sinaloa. Obviously, Shane Baum doesn't come in with any of that baggage necessarily, other than her affiliation with AMLO. So maybe you could break down just a little bit about

what's going on with organized crime in this cycle and beyond? So Mexico is a gigantic country. It has a population of 110, 120 million, 30-odd states. So there's a lot of variety. I was only in Mexico City, and I was actually surprised. I've been to a lot of Latin American countries and Latin American cities. Mexico City, I found to be extraordinarily safe. You see a lot of people with their cell phones out. There's a ton of tourists. And a lot of the countries like that, obviously, there's loads and loads of tourists from all over the world, especially from the U.S., that visit different states. Obviously, it's not all Afghanistan. But there are states that are extraordinarily violent.

You see incredible rates of kidnappings, cartel attacks and stuff like that. The data is mixed and there's a lot of scrutiny over it. The government says one thing, critics say another. You could do this with just about any country, honestly. But at minimum, we can definitely say that a lot of places within Mexico are very dangerous, but others less so. There's a lot of variety. As for the allegations against Lopez Obrador, I refer to them as Obrador's Russiagate. Why? They're plausible, but you could say the same thing about Russiagate. Is it possible that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians? Sure, it's believable, but there was just no concrete proof.

Same thing in the case of AMLO. Yeah, a lot of Mexican presidents and Latin American presidents have had dirty dealings with cartels, but there's just no concrete proof. The allegations that came from ProPublica and the New York Times had no solid evidence behind them, so much so that an XDEA agent came out and said it was probably just a fit piece because the agency hates Omlo's guts. And in some senses with good reason, because his security policy is very controversial. Sure. And does Shane Baum then come to the table with any of that baggage when you have United States media reporting in that way? What does that mean for her, basically? Yeah, she'll definitely have that baggage. I mean, I haven't seen anything that ties her

to the allegations. And because she was mayor of Mexico City, the big cartels don't have as much of a presence there. She should be fine. Who knows? It'll really depend, I'd say, on whether she continues the similar, more lax approach that has been criticized at the current administration. And we'd probably see more scrutiny then. And Wanda, she's also famously a climate scientist. Mexico City is said to run out of water, I believe June 26th is supposed to be the day that if it doesn't rain between now and then that the horrific drought that we've been seeing combined with the heat dome that Mexico has been suffering under the last couple of weeks. Literally, we're talking about running

out of water in major parts of Mexico City, not the richest parts apparently. But what does that mean? Mexico City is going to run out of water. And what what it seems like Mexico is, you know, has the best person they could possibly have for the job. The former mayor of Mexico City, you know, who is a climate scientist now elevated to the highest office. But that's still not going to make it rain. Like, what is Mexico City going to do? Not really sure. While I was there, there was this huge heat wave all around the country. And Mexico City is actually way above sea level, about 2,000-odd meters above sea level. And it was very, very hot. They said that was very unusual.

I read, just glossed over, that there had been some measures taken around the country, but I'll be completely honest. I was distracted by other things. As far as Sheinbaum is concerned, yeah, she served on a UN climate panel. She studied physics and energy engineering. She's made climate change a banner of her campaign, which is actually very different from the current administration, which has been criticized for not taking as much action. There's been some expansion to solar panels and

stuff like that, but Amla's a real pro-oil guy. Well, yeah. Go ahead, Ryan. I mean, currently, I think most of Mexico's water is used to make produce that is then shipped up to us. And we thank Mexico for that. Yeah, there's always this big back and forth between Texas and I think it's the state of Chihuahua or Nuevo Leon.

They're always haggling over the water in that area, which we're seeing like over 100 degree temperatures in the northern states. And it raises this like super fascinating question about the divides between AMLO and Shane Baum, because AMLO, for example, has had, you know, things to say about the feminist movement that aren't easily categorized in one way or the other. Shane Baum, on the other hand, as you mentioned, served on like a UN climate panel, has been heralded, not because she's pushed it, but as a sort of feminist champion, a champion of women's values.

I think she changed the uniform policy, I think for schools in Mexico City, right? So that they would, boys could wear one thing, girls could wear another thing, and has made kind of overtures towards cultural progressivism in a way that AMLO never did. So what are some of those differences and how do you expect Shane Baum, who hasn't made an effort to like really highlight them over the course of the campaign, at least from my interpretation of how it went, how do you expect those to continue going forward? That's a spot on analysis.

I mean, during the campaign, she basically just stood as close to AMLO as you possibly could, refused to criticize him. She, yeah, she noted some differences that, yeah, she wanted to invest a lot more in renewable energy. She wants a more state led approach, wants Pemex to transition towards extracting lithium. AMLO also created a state ownedled approach, wants Pemex to transition towards extracting lithium. Amlos also created a state-owned lithium company. But she wants there to be a role for the private sector, but definitely wants a greater focus on renewables. And she's obviously much more conventionally progressive. I have a bullish case and a more pessimistic case

as to the course she could take. We really won't know what happens until she takes office in October. If she sticks, I think no matter what, she will govern more like a conventional progressive. And I think that will kind of cause a dormant or hibernating hard right in Mexico, which really remarkably doesn't exist,

and I think you could chalk it up just to the current president. Their hard right will probably be a lot stronger in the midterms or in 2030. But so long as she keeps to the economic nationalism, the bread and butter issues, the stuff that really have changed people's lives. It's great because you talk to middle class people here in the U.S. or in Mexico City, and they just hate this guy's guts. They think he's this demagogue, a charlatan who has fooled the people. They can't possibly. Mexican media is incredible. There was this one famous commenter saying that they didn't recognize all the things we did for them.

We took away their change and we gave them back democracy. And now they're ungrateful. We let them vote and now they're voting for the wrong people. How dare they? Exactly. It's really hilarious. But so long as they stick to those things, I think that Shane Baum should be successful. On the other hand, if she abandons the nationalism, the Mexican left has a really hardcore protectionist, patriotic tradition.

And if they stick to those things, I think that normal people will still see the government as really speaking for them. And Shane Baum's parents actually were Jewish migrants to Mexico. They're from Lithuania and Bulgaria, I believe. Just like a really fascinating story. I have one more question for you, Wanda Veid, is how do we expect Shane Bond's relationship with the Biden administration to proceed similar to AMLO? I mean, we don't really know exactly what the Biden administration has worked out with AMLO when it comes to border crossings. We know that there's been a crackdown after there were meetings.

I think this was back in January. So what can we expect from Shane Baum? Hopefully, well, I guess, depending on your point of view, it could be good or bad. It's been, you know, famously, Trump and Lopez Obrador had this bizarrely good relationship.

I wrote a whole piece about this called the Omlo-Trump romance in March. And on a personal level, but even on policy, Trump and Omlo have a lot of similarities. They both hate the media. They're both protectionists. They're more traditionalists. I mean, you can question Trump's sincerity, I guess, maybe Lopez Obrador's too. But they supposedly got along from the moment they met, and they were really transactional figures. They had what a lot of analysts have described as this informal deal that the U.S. wouldn't meddle in Mexican

affairs, would respect its security and energy priorities as well. And in exchange, Mexico would agree to clamp down on migration. And to a lot of observers from both governments, that was extremely successful. Under Biden, it's actually been more checkered. And so on immigration, well, the Biden administration has had its policy, and that's also altered things in Mexico City. Last year, as Emily mentioned, there's been this huge crackdown that's really driven down border crossings. I think that the current government wants to be seen as not favoring one side or the other. As far as shame bombs are concerned, one really good sign of pragmatism is just one thing.

As I said, who knows? We'll have to wait until she gets sworn in. One of her closest advisors, Ramon de la Fuente, who was, I believe, Mexico's ambassador to the UN, openly criticized U.S. asylum policy, said it was an impediment to be able to bring down border crossings. I think that's a good sign of pragmatism on part of the administration. Interestingly, I'm not going to name names, but a friend of mine informed me that another, actually an advisor I mentioned in the piece, Diana, or anyway, an advisor in the piece attended an event that the Heritage Foundation did in Mexico. So I think that any sort of signs of pragmatism,

goodwill to work with people that you might disagree with is a good sign from the incoming administration. And before I let you go, I wanted to get you to comment on one of the funniest things I've seen in a very long time. And so the night that she was elected, Todd Richman, who is the chair of Democratic Majority for Israel, which is an AIPAC spinoff, said that, you know, because she's been so critical of Israel, that it's not really fair to really even highlight the fact that she's the first Jewish president of Mexico. Doesn't count. And he pointed out that she even thanked Jesus in her victory speech. Turns out her husband is Jesus. She was thanking her husband.

So it was apparently news to Americans that there are people named Jesus that live in Mexico. So A, can you confirm that there are people named Jesus that live in Mexico. So, A, can you confirm that there are people in Mexico named Jesus? And B, what does it say about this kind of APAC pro-Israel reaction to her historic election? I mean, it makes sense. She has taken the same line as her mentor on Israel-Palestine, which actually they've embraced a kind of neutrality. I think they want to play a mediator role, but they've been very strongly in favor of peace. As far as the Jewish component is, the reality is that Sheinbaum is more just ethnically Jewish. She hasn't played up her identity and does not really practice. I think she may be an atheist. And that has played up a lot of her, you know, just Mexican-ness, wearing traditional dress, etc.

Her husband is in fact named Jesus. It's a common name in Latin America. But she's had a lot of videos about it. And maybe it could have fooled a lot of people. But the opposition candidate, Xochitl Galvez, towards the end actually started playing up her religiosity. Who knows how authentic that was to tryemitic slurs against Shane Baum, noting that she wasn't a real Mexican and the only authentic Mexican in the race was the opposition's candidate. Well, Wanda Veed-Rojas, columnist at Compaq, thanks for your reporting

and for sharing with us some of what you saw down in Mexico City last week. That does it for us on today's edition of CounterPoints. Ryan, we'll be back here on Friday with a debate I'm really excited about. Just getting fully immersed in the Trump lawfare conversation with two people on the absolute opposite ends of it. Trump, lock him up, yay or nay. Yes, exactly. That is a resolution. Yay, lock him up for whatever. I mean, that's going to be used against you. If he becomes president. I didn't mean it. If he becomes president, I take it back. That's fair. All right. So we will be back next Wednesday with more CounterPoints, but stay tuned Friday. Make sure to subscribe to the premium version,

BreakingPoints.com to actually get the Friday show on Thursday and to get the Wednesday show early with no breaks whatsoever. Full thing just hits your inbox right away. Breakingpoints.com. Thanks so much for tuning in. And obviously lock Biden up. Like that's not even a debate. Well, I was going to say that's really, we just opened a can of worms kind of at the end here, but yeah. All right. See Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy. But to me, VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships.

It's flexible. It's customizable. And it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane

and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John.

Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, My father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up.

They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart podcast.