Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 9/24/25: Trump's UN Speech, NY Spy Ring Found, Kimmel Returns, Kamala Book Tour, Argentina Bailout

Episode Date: September 24, 2025

Krystal and Emily discuss Trump's UN speech, NYC foreign spy network uncovered, Trump rages over Kimmel return, Kamala starts book tour, Trump to bail out Argentina, TPUSA reveals Kirk Israel pressure. Antony's Doc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfK10unkiGw Juan's Piece: https://www.compactmag.com/article/trouble-in-libertarian-paradise/?ref=compact-newsletterT  To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. I'm Jorge Ramos. And I'm Paola Ramos. Together we're launching The Moment, a new podcast about what it means to live through a time as uncertain as this one. We sit down with politicians, artists, and activists

to bring you death and analysis from a unique Latino perspective. The moment is a space for the conversations we've been having us, father and daughter, for years. Listen to The Moment with Jorge Ramos and Paola Ramos. on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I just normally do straight stand-up, but this is a bit different.

What do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club? Answer, a new podcast called Wisecrack, where a comedian finds himself at the center of a chilling true crime story. Does anyone know what show they've come to see? It's a story. It's about the scariest night of my life. This is Wisecrack, available now. Listen to Wisecrack on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In early 1988, federal agents raced to track down the gang they suspect of importing millions of dollars worth of heroin into New York from Asia.

Had 30 agents ready to go with shotguns and rifles and you do that. Five, six white people pushed me in the car. Basically, your stay-at-home moms were picking up these large amounts of heroin. you're going to do is receive the package. Don't have to open it. Just accept it. She was very upset, crying. Once I saw the gun, I tried to take his hand, and I saw the flash of light. Listen to the Chinatown Sting on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. Good morning and welcome to Breaking Points. Crystal, thanks for stepping in and Ryan's stead today. My pleasure. We're mixing it up this week. tomorrow will be me and Ryan with the commie takeover, so everybody get excited for that. I love that we're calling at the commie takeover. It's how I've always identified it in my head, but now that it's official. We're just making it public now, yes. I love it. All right, so if you want

to get the whole gang's Friday show experience, make sure you're subscribed over at breaking points.com because that's where, you know, soccer pops in sometimes, too. We've got Griffin most Fridays, Crystal, so we're having lots of fun. You get the second half of that show, in addition to early. And actually, you just get the second half of the show. Nobody else gets to see it unless you're a premium subscriber. So make sure to subscribe over there in addition to getting the show early every single day. In your inbox over on breakingpoints.com, big newsweek, Crystal, obviously the UN General Assembly is going down and Donald Trump had a hell of a speech yesterday. Trumpian in all of the most predictable ways and yet still manages, at least managed to

surprise me. I don't know about you, Crystal. That was something else. I don't know what surprises me anymore. But yeah, it was, you know, there was an escalator scandal that we'll get to the bottom of as well. There was a teleprompter scandal that we can dig into. So a lot of moving pieces there, let's say. Wow. Or not moving pieces. What a pun! I thought you did that up perfect. That was amazing. Okay. Well, also, well, Crystal, maybe you should be writing jokes for Kimmel. I think they might be better if you're writing jokes for Kimmel. She'd be writing dad jokes for Ryan, maybe, is more like it. Ryan doesn't need a writer.

They're all right off the dome. It's incredible what he's capable of. Jimmy Kimmel returned to the airwaves last night, although not everyone's airwaves, because Sinclair and Next Star affiliates are still not running Kimmel, but we have a breakdown. Kimmel's return, what he said, how the president responded and where we go from here.

Kamala Harris is on a book tour. She has a book called 107 days out and is basically face planting in every media appearance, major media appearance that she does. So we have some interesting updates on that front, looking like... It's very on brand for her. You know, that's just kind of what she does. That's her thing. Doing a terrible job in interviews.

And I'm excited for this segment. And also the segment we're going to do on Alexandria Ocasio-Critz has Crystal to get some of your insights on where Democrats are right now. It looks like AOC is teaming up with Kevin Neum. Newsom to take on some of the redistricting fights. So that'll be, I'm eager to hear what you think of that, Crystal, because there's all kinds of stuff to dive into. Wanda V. Rojas is joining us to discuss his new compact piece on Argentina, which is getting a U.S. bailout as the market started to dip.

We have some updates on the melee situation. And Crystal also some updates on. from Turning Point USA World on what was going on behind the scenes as it relates to Israel, Charlie Kirk, in the weeks and months before his death. Yeah, very interesting revelations there from one of Charlie's closest friends and executive producer. Obviously, there's been great interest in the pressure that Charlie was under in his final months, especially after Netanyahu came out and tried to, like, claim him as his firmest, strongest and constant ally and really, you know, use Charlie's legacy and mold it for his own

aim. So in any case, some interesting revelations there that kind of backs up some reporting from Max Blumenthal over at Gray Zone. So we'll get into all of that. I'm sure people will be quite interested. That's right. Let's start with the United Nations speech yesterday that Donald Trump gave and also some updates on Trump and Ukraine. He sat down with Zelensky yesterday and then posted on true social. So we're going to get into all of that. But first, Crystal, the way that I understood Donald Trump's speech or the way that I came to frame in my own mind as I was as I was digesting it, his speech is that on the one hand, he's making this deep structural criticism of the geopolitical elite of the United Nations. He's doing it as people will hear in just one moment to their faces. And then he's also swinging for the fences and looking for a noble peace prize. So it's an interesting combination of goals. Good point.

Let's go ahead and roll this compilation of some of the big moments from the speech. Your countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders. In 2024, the UN budgeted $372 million in cash assistance to support an estimated 624,000 migrants journeying into the United States. I'm not mentioning names. I see it. and I could call every single one of them out.

You're destroying your countries. They're being destroyed. Europe is in serious trouble. They've been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody's ever seen before. It's time to end the failed experiment of open borders. You have to end it now. See, I can tell you.

I'm really good at this stuff. Your countries are going to hell. The American public agrees with it. I mean, I was very proud to see this morning have the highest poll numbers I've ever had. Part of it is because of what we've done on the border. I guess the other part is what we've done in the economy. It's the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion. Climate change, no matter what happens, you're involved in that. No more global warming, no more global cooling. All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that, of course, their country's fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success, if you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail. So an absolute banger, as everyone just

heard. Yeah, indeed, telling every other country that they're destroying their countries, they're going to hell. I mean, just think about Trump's record year and what he's done to this country. One of the things we consider covering is, you now have 60 plus percent of Americans saying that they're worse off this year than they were previously. Wrong track numbers are off. the charts. So just in terms of the well-being of Americans in the here and now, Trump's complete disasters, I don't think he's in any condition or in any position to lecture the rest of the world, not to mention the undermining of what, in my opinion, are some of the best things about America, the freedoms we enjoy the freedom of speech, the sense that, you know,

the government is going to aspire to be neutral, that there's going to be representative government. And then you also have on the geopolitical stage, which is very relevant, of course, at the UN, him effectively aligning the entire world against us and, you know, hastening the rise of a multipolar world, which, hey, may actually end up being better for the world, but maybe not best for American interest. So that's one thing. The other thing that is galling to me, Emily, is the two major policy themes were around climate change, which he considers to be a complete and total hoax.

and then migration. And I think you and I are probably on a different place on migration, but perhaps this part you could agree with, which I don't know if there's any country in the world that is more committed to creating migration crises than the United States of America. I mean, we are currently working with Israel to try to expel all two million Palestinians from Gaza to go somewhere else. We are threatening Venezuela right now with another regime change war. and, you know, certainly the list could go on of places where we have created tumult and turmoil and, you know, the conditions for refugee crises, Syria being a key one among them, which is, you know, part of what upended European politics.

I wanted to ask you, too, about the climate change piece. It seems to me that there was a time when Republicans were all in on climate change as a hoax. Then it felt a little bit like, we better at least acknowledge this is real while throwing up a million. in roadblocks to not do anything about it. And now we're back with Trump just full on being like, you know, this is a hoax. This is, there's nothing to see here. And you guys are destroying your countries in service of something that's completely fake. I don't know if that endures beyond Trump, to be honest. I mean, it's hard to say. But when you look at the kind of next generation of Republican politicians, especially like a JD Vance, who's kind of from tech world,

My assumption is that nobody is going to get on the climate change bandwagon, but will probably be a bit more, I don't know, maybe nuanced is the word, because they're also tied into the business community, which has some serious, obviously serious concerns in front of them when it comes to different changes, obviously that they have to worry about if they're real estate, if they're in different businesses, it matters to them. also on the migration point, I think that just captures Trump in a nutshell. And for me, it captures my, it's so representative of my entire reaction to that speech, which is he's saying some things about the United Nations that are just like right on the money. And it's satisfying as someone on the right to see them being said to the face of the United Nations. Or he was like, at one point, what is the point of the United Nations? Or like, what is the purpose of the United Nations? He's like, what do you guys actually do, which, again, as someone on the right is fairly

satisfying to hear that from a United States president. On the other hand, on just the migration issue alone, agree with your critiques, and then also agree with the critique of the United Nations, which is that they were basically complicit in a lot of the trafficking that happened. I remember years ago going through their disbursements. I don't know if it was a tip or something that led me to, like, going through their disbursements, but it's just an incredible amount of money that's spent, you know, for example, making it easier for people to go through the Darian Gap. And it's awful what people experience

going through the Darian Gap. And people ended up coming in higher numbers as the UN was stepping in more and more to provide things like debit cards and protective measures in going through some of these parts. So it's, with Trump, it's this, and I think a lot of populists have this. It's, it's funny even on the tariffs, too. Um, you, you, look at it and you're like, well, he's, he's at least correct about this critique that nobody else will talk about. He's, he's, like, nobody else would say what he's saying. And then it's all, the way it manifests is just like completely insane. Um, so you get a little satisfaction out of him being like, what are you guys doing? And then on the other hand, it's like, okay, but what are you

doing? Yeah. There was, well, there was one part that was, um, again, quite galling to me on the immigration piece because he made some comment about like, you know, we'll be compassion. We want to help you in your country. And I'm like, first of all, bullshit because, yeah, you're committed to waging all these regime change wars and, you know, Iran and Venezuela and like I said, in Gaza and, you know, not to mention his involvement, the past involvement of U.S. presidents in Syria and all of those sorts of things. But in addition, you know, it's not like I'm the biggest USAID fan and as a leftist, I don't

have my own critique of U.S.AID. But it is also true that the destruction of that agency has created mass harm, you know, on a basic level in a lot of poor countries, which, again, can lead to, you know, further suffering in more migration crises, if that is your concern. So, I don't know. I mean, it's a fool's errand to try to ring any sort of consistency or principle from a Trumpian speech. but it was certainly, you know, it was certainly like unvarnished and insane in many ways. And like I said before, the idea that this man who has done so much destruction to the best parts of the American project and to the, you know, basic like livelihoods of millions of Americans who feel themselves slipping behind, see the, you know, the job numbers falling off,

inflation, coming back, the chaos and turmoil of the tariff regime, which, you know, if done appropriately. It might have been helpful, but instead we're actually seeing a decline in manufacturing jobs. The idea of this man lecturing the rest of the world is so absurd to me. Let's get to this escalator subplot, because it's not entirely unimportant, so we can roll A2 on the screen. If you're listening, and you haven't seen this clip yet, as soon as Melania Trump and Donald Trump step onto the escalator, it stops. Melania Trump kind of looks around, and Donald Trump kind of looks around, and finally they just start walking up the escalator. This led to all kinds of conspiracy theories.

Chris will win an escalator at a major building. The President of the United States steps on it with timing like that goes off. I actually do kind of understand why people are asking what's going on. We could put A2B up on the screen. It was unfortunately timed with this story from the Sunday Times. that said, quote, to Mark Trump's arrival, UN staff members have joked that they may turn off the escalators and elevators

and simply tell him they ran out of money. So he has to walk up the stairs. And then, of course, the escalator actually did stop as the president and first lady walked onto it. Some people were taking this in a more serious direction and saying it could have been part of a nefarious potential plot to hurt Trump and the First Lady in some way by causing them to stop in their tracks in a predictable way that someone could exploit. Obviously, the Sunday Times says that it was part of a prank

or that it may have been part of a prank, that people were joking about whether it was part of a prank. Reuters had a report. Someone at the UN said it was because the UN spokesperson said it was a built-in safety mechanism on the comb step that was triggered at the top of the escalator. They're saying by Trump's videographer who was backing up to capture them going up the escalator. Unfortunate timing that there were leaks about the potential pranks, though, Crystal, and the Sunday Times. Yeah, well, in the subtext is Trump knows he's so hated by so many people that it's entirely plausible that some intern was like, let me see if there's a way I can just like mildly fuck

with this guy, you know? And then additionally, during his speech, at one portion, his teleprompter was not working. And he said something about, you know, the teleprompter operator is going to be in big trouble. Again, if this is true, the reporting is that actually is like one of his staffers, as running the teleprompter, which would make sense because if it's your guy and you understand the speech, you know the cadence, like you would probably want your person in there. So in any case, I don't know if there were any conspiracies afoot, but he felt that they were. He felt targeted and aggrieved, as he often does. One of the best VEP episodes, one of the best

VEP plot lines is when this happens to Salina Meyer, and Trump handled it arguably even better. He was riffing wildly during that speech yesterday, not surprisingly, but wildly nonetheless. And it gets this idea that maybe it was on purpose. It's sort of like Trump's central frustration with the United Nations, which is that the United States has been the single biggest funder of the United Nations for years is still U.S. support is a significant chunk of the UN's total budget. I think it's somewhere between 25 percent, so a quarter and a third. It's a huge chunk of the budget. And then you have them joking in the Sunday times about just, you know, flipping the switch on the escalator. It illustrates the tensions. Well, I think that's a reference to under this Trump

administration, they've withheld a significant amount of funds to the tune of like billions of dollars. So that's where the joke comes from is like, oh, well, we're cash dropped because you guys aren't paying your bills. So maybe we just don't have the money to run the escalator anymore. That's the idea there. Right. And so Trump sat down also with Zelensky for a conversation and then posted on true social, what seemed to many people to feel like a total 180 on Ukraine war policy. We can put A4 on the screen. This is from Donald Trump saying, after getting to know and fully understand. I can't even read this, Crystal. It's just so, I don't even, what's the right word for it? It's, it's so transparent. Fully understand that Ukraine,

Russia, military and economic situation. And after seeing the economic trouble is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position of fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience and the financial support of Europe, and in particular NATO, the original borders, from where this war started, is very much an option. Why not? He goes on to say Russia's been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years. It talks more about that. This caused, understandably, an immediate sort of chaos in the news cycles.

People say, is the U.S. policy on Ukraine completely changing, which, of course, you have to read into the president of the United States, his policy. and his statements on this. You can't ignore it. So my immediate reaction was, A, like, what the hell? And B, that Trump is at the United Nations, making this pitch that he's the big peacemaker. He's talking about how he solved all of these conflicts. That was another part of his speech.

It was actually a big theme in his speech. And he's surrounded by world leaders that he wants to have the respect is not the right word. He wants them to sort of kiss the ring. And there he is, frustrated that he's not able get an end to this conflict and decides to try a new tactic and just be like, yeah, yep, original borders. That's what we're fighting for in Ukraine now. Everything that we've said up to this point about negotiating, nope, we're going to stay in it until Zelensky has every inch

of the original border, which is like sort of the John Bolton dream. It sounds pretty obviously to me like a transparent negotiating tactic that I compared it when we were talking yesterday to when like a five-year-old learns how to do up high, down low, too slow. And you've done it like 20 times with them. And they still think they got you that like too slow. Yeah. It's just sort of felt like that. Yeah. I mean, he's been all over the place with regard to Ukraine and Russia. And, you know, I think really believed that he had this special relationship with Vladimir Putin and that he could use his grand negotiating skills to come in and that this would be easy. to solve. And it's anything but easy to solve. You know, it's not, it's not, um, it's not an

uncomplicated situation, especially, you know, at this point in the conflict. So, uh, where you would have to force Ukraine to take some very significant concessions that would be ugly and that would be frankly wildly unjust. I mean, that's just, that's where we are. Um, and he has, you know, he's not been willing to do that. And so now we're back to like the most sort of, um, hawkish, hard-lined position. And it wasn't just this. There was also a joint, I don't know if you call it a press conference, but a brief press avail with Zelensky himself. And Trump got asked, okay, well, if you've got NATO countries and Russia's flying drones over them, what should they do? And he said, well, they should shoot him down. Even Zelensky looked sort of surprised that he made that

comment at that moment because, of course, if you get a NATO country dragged into this, then you have significant treaty obligations from the United States of America, which is why this is also incredibly fraud and incredibly dangerous. So I can only imagine how much soccer is losing his mind right now about this complete and total 180 from Trump based on some of the comments that he made on the campaign trail, although I have to say even on the campaign trail, he was never completely consistent. But this was a major issue with the Republican base. They really thought that the Biden approach to Ukraine had been a disaster. They really wanted someone to come in and force a negotiated solution on Ukraine. It seemed at the beginning after that like Oval Office blowup and

public humiliation ritual of Zelensky that perhaps that was direction that things are headed in. And now you've got like I said, a complete 180 here to the most hawkish possible position. Because I assume when he says, you know, the original lines, I assume he means Crimea as well, which is a wild position to take. And let's also be. be clear that, you know, if he's serious about that, and I think you're right, it's negotiating tactic, but we also have to take, you know, this president does some wild things and we have to take him seriously at his words at this point. What the requirement from U.S. involvement in order to actually effectuate that outcome, it would be extraordinary, would be absolutely

extraordinary at this point. Now, he's right that Russia hasn't made like tremendous gains in the last little while. I wouldn't say it's a total stalemate. They have made some. gains and they have more both manpower and, you know, industrial capacity and resources to be able to drag this thing out and prevail in the end. But yeah, what he's floating here would be incredible escalation in terms of U.S. involvement if he's actually serious about that outcome. And in a nuclear conflict, again, it seems so ridiculous to say that, but a potential nuclear conflict. And Trump, one of the places he does talk more sensitively about is a, a, one of the areas in which he is, I think, more attuned to the general public than your average

politician here in D.C. is that it's not a joke to mess with other nuclear powers and saying that you're going to fight for every inch of Ukraine's original border is messing with other nuclear powers in a negotiating tactic. He's like Jekyll and Hyde, but it's like John Bolton and Tucker Carlson. You never know exactly what you're going to get with Trump one day. he's like he sounds like Tucker and the other day he sounds like uh john bolton obviously i think we're you know always rightfully cover it as his uh sometimes very thinly veiled negotiating methods uh but it still obviously has a serious effect and uh my last takeaway before we bring the guest in is i think just wrapping a bow on all of this the man really wants a Nobel peace

prize he really wants a Nobel Peace Prize and yeah we did the typical Trumpian thing of being like you know, I should get a Nobel Peace Prize for this. Not that I care about the awards. It's not about that. It's about the people. It's about bringing peace to the people. And it's like in his, of course, list of the conflicts that he's allegedly solved. He includes, you know, Iran and Israel as if, oh, they're all best friends now.

We're never going to have a flare up then again, even as Israel is like preparing right now to bomb Iran again, likely and drag us right back into this whole thing. He includes in there that India, Pakistan, ceasefire, which both Indian Pakistan are like, bro, you had nothing to do with this. So in any case, if you're wondering how legit his claims are to be such a great peacemaker, I offer you those two examples as emblematic of the, you know, of the accuracy of the speech overall. Well, let's get to Gaza and bring our guest in. I'm Jorge Ramos. And I'm Paula Ramos. Together we're launching The Moment, a new podcast about what it means to live through a time as uncertain as this one.

We sit down with politicians. I would be the first immigrant mayor in generations, but 40% of New Yorkers were born outside of this country. Artists and activists, I mean, do you ever feel demoralized? I might personally lose hope. This individual might lose the faith, but there's an institution that doesn't lose faith. And that's what I believe in. To bring you depth and analysis from a unique Latino perspective. There's not a single day that Paola and I don't call or text each other, sharing news and thoughts about what's happening in. in the country. This new podcast

will be a way to make that ongoing intergenerational conversation public. Listen to The Moment with Jorge Ramos and Paula Ramos as part of the MyCultura podcast network on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

My name is Ed. Everyone say, hello, Ed. I'm from a very rural background myself. My dad is a farmer, and my mom is a cousin, so, like, it's not... What do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club. I know it sounds like the start of a bad joke, but that really was my reality nine years ago.

I just normally do straight stand-up, but this is a bit different. On stage stood a comedian with a story that no one expected to hear. The 22nd of July 2015, a 23-year-old man had killed his family. And then he came to my house. so what do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club a new podcast called wisecrack where stand-up comedy and murder takes center stage available now listen to wisecrack on the iHeart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts i had this like overwhelming sensation that i had to call it right then and i just hit call said you know hey i'm jacob shick i'm the CEO of one tribe

Foundation, and I just wanted to call on and let her know there's a lot of people battling some of the very same things you're battling, and there is help out there. The Good Stuff podcast, Season 2, takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a non-profit fighting suicide in the veteran community. September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe's mission. I was married to a combat army veteran, and he actually took his own life to suicide. One Tribe saved my life twice.

There's a lot of love that flows through this place, and it's sincere. Now it's a personal mission. I don't have to go to any more funerals, you know. I got blown up on a React mission. I ended up having amputation below the knee of my right leg and a traumatic brain injury because I landed on my head. Welcome to Season 2 of the Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Fortunate to be joined this morning by Anthony Lowenstein.

He's an independent journalist and filmmaker's author of the Palestine. laboratory, which I highly suggest you guys check out. And also the creator of a new Al Jazeera documentary titled Germany's Israel Obsession, joins us now to weigh in on Trump's U.N. comments with regard to Israel and a number of other relevant stories. It's great to see you, Anthony. Thanks so much for having me. Yeah, of course. So Emily and I were just talking about Trump's big UN speech. Within that speech, he made some comments about Palestinian state recognition. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that. As everyone knows, I have also been deeply engaged. in seeking a ceasefire in Gaza, have to get that done, have to get it done.

Unfortunately, Hamas has repeatedly rejected reasonable offers to make peace. We can't forget October 7th, can we? Now, as if to encourage continued conflict, some of this body is seeking to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. the rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists for their atrocities. But instead of giving in to Hamas' ransom demands those who want peace should be united with one message, release the hostages now. Just release the hostages now.

But after almost two years of war, what is the result? Once again, they kill the top leaders of Hamas. This is a great achievement. But at the same time, you have as many Hamas fighters as you had the first day. So it doesn't work to dismantle the Hamas. Well, I have to say that I'm on the side of Israel. I've been on the side of Israel, really, my whole life. And we are going to get a solution.

And it's going to be a solution. Hopefully that's good for everybody. But it's time to stop. So a lot that was interesting there, Anthony. What did you make of President Trump's comments with regard to Palestinian state recognition. This, of course, comes after UK, Canada, Australia, and other countries have announced they are going to recognize a Palestinian state. And I think there's a bit of a divide, at least on the left, of how significant this is, whether this is just like in basically an

ass covering move that makes it seem like you're doing something without actually doing the hard things of like arms embargo or, you know, sanctions or cutting trade ties, those sorts of things. So what did you make of the president's comments and what do you make of the reality of Palestinian state recognition. Look, in some ways what Trump is saying is reiterating what the US has felt for a long time. I mean, yes, Biden, at least on paper, supported a two-state solution, whereas Trump and his administration do not, which mirrors what Netanyahu and his government believes, which is no two-state solution, no Palestinian state. But at the same time, I'm very much in the camp of saying that all these Western states that have recognized Palestine this week and

have done so in some ways for years in the past, to say it's symbolic, I think, would be too kind. You cannot on the one hand talk about recognizing Palestine as a state and the belief that you should acknowledge that Palestinians have a right to self-determination, while at the same time still funding and backing and arming the oppressor, Israel, which the UK does and France does, and Australia does and Canada does. They are still sending weapons and weapons parts to Israel, two years into this genocide. And one of the conditions that President Macron of France said in the last 24 hours, around Palestine was, I think, two things mainly. One, Hamas can't be part of any future government, and two, it must be demilitarized. And I did not know any state in recent history. The two most

recent states that have existed and been born was South Sudan in 2011 and East Timor in about 20 years ago, 23 years ago now. The idea that you would say to those states, you can be demilitarized, you must be demilitarized, is a non-starter. I mean, it's an absurd. third situation, because if you're demilitarized, what that means is, in this case, Israel would control your land, sea, and air borders. The occupation, therefore, continues in a different form. And secondly, this is no love for Hamas, but the idea that you are telling Palestinians that essentially you cannot vote for this party, you have to vote for, the corrupt Palestinian authority, who are Palestinians supposed to vote for? Is it up to them or is it up to

outsiders. So most Palestinians I know in Gaza the West Bank and in the diaspora saying, yes, we welcome that the West sees us as humans, I guess. But after, as I think many people have said, what are you recognizing? Are you recognizing a Mahmoud Abbas, the late 80s corrupt dictator at the Palestinian Authority as the leader of this future Palestine? Who, by the way, he celebrated in the last 24 hours is happening, stuck in Ramallah, because the US won't give the visa, almost comically, really. But ultimately, it comes to the same point that what is there a Palestine to recognize? Gaza no longer exists. It is gone. And the West Bank, I fear, is going in the same way. So unless and until Western states, including the US, but the US arguably is

too far gone on this question, the UK and others, Europe, Australia, my country, want to actually see a resolution of this conflict. You cannot do so by simply issuing a speech at the UN. We are so far beyond that. And it's finally on this point. I think it's worth saying that Western states routinely bring up a two-state solution when there is a so-called problem in the Israel-Palestine conflict, when there is a perceived need to announce something different, to sort of break the algorithm, so to speak. And yes, obviously what's happened in Gaza in the last two years, and I'm precedented scale, far greater than anything in Palestine's history. But I don't think Kirstama or Mark Carney or Australian Prime Minister around Thin Albanese actually thinks that by announcing

recognition, it's going to change anything on the ground because they're not willing to take any steps to make it happen. It's lip service at best, and that's being polite. So obviously, Israel understands the stakes are high going into the UN this week with Nakron and others. pushing as they are. So I want to get your take on this story in the New York Times. This is A6. A lot of theories here as to what's going on, but the headline is cache of devices capable of crashing cell network is found near U.N. Just from the lead, I'm going to read, quote, The Secret Service found and seized an illicit network of sophisticated equipment in the New York region that was capable of shutting down the cellular network as foreign leaders prepared to

gather nearby for the annual UN General Assembly. The agency announced on Tuesday. Officials said the anonymous communications network, which included more than 100,000 SIM cards and 300 servers could interfere with emergency response services and could be used to conduct encrypted communication. One official said the network was capable of sending 30 million text messages per minute anonymously. The official said the agency had never been seen before. I had never before seen such an extensive operation. There's no specific info that the network pose a threat to the conference itself. they go on to say, so this obviously has sparked many, many theories, and particularly people

are pointing to Israel being behind this operation. What do you make of this story? I mean, that's sort of one of the things people should know about what you've done with the Palestine Laboratory, is that this is, so you've studied, and you've studied how Israel has studied the attack capabilities in places like this, or in ways like this. best. So what did you make of the story? I think there's two ways to see this. One, the only likely states who would be doing this in my view and experience is Israel or maybe China. I don't think it's necessarily Israel. I mean, it may well be. And there's a history, including in the last 10 years of a lot of

evidence of Israel bugging, for example, Boris Johnson's residence. He's talked about this in his autobiography, the former British Prime Minister. During the first Trump administration, there was likely evidence, well, not likely, there was evidence, that Israel was potentially bugging the Trump White House when Netanyahu had visited the White House. And one thing that people often don't understand about the U.S.-Israel relationship is that actually, yes, they're seen as best of friends,

but they actually also don't trust each other. And what I mean by that is that both countries have literally hundreds and hundreds of intelligence officers every day spying on the other, listening to communication. I mean, this has been known for years, and Bella gets talked about in the press, but it's a statement of fact.

So, yes, and in fact, one of the interesting revelations of Edward Snowden's documents when he released those in 2013 was that he showed that we often are told in the West that our greatest enemies are Russia and China, and yes, they spy on America, to be sure, but one of the greatest threats that is perceived by the American intelligence agencies

was Israel, because that was so, obsessed with spying on every detail. And of course, the Americans know this, and the Israelis know this. So look, this latest event, Emily, I don't know who it is, of course, beyond what the story in the New York Times said. And obviously, what information the authorities wanted to release. But the likely culprits to me are Israel or China. China has a reason to do so as well. Of course, they have a long history of spying and bugging in the U.S. But so does Israel. and I would say, as I said, that the U.S.-Israel relationship is BFFs on paper, but actually profoundly dysfunctional behind the scenes.

And there's a lot of paranoia right now, I think, on the Israeli side about how much support they have in the Trump administration, which, I mean, yeah. There's a lot of paranoia. On the one hand, you could say it's bizarre that there is that paranoia because they clearly are getting everything they wanted, as was happening under Biden. But they, Israel and Israeli, I guess, spokespeople in the U.S., they see what is happening within the Republican Party, put aside the Democrats, the Democrats obviously are increasingly, at least in the base, very much against Israel,

where the leadership is still very much seemingly in support of Israel, in general. It's not quite as black and white as that, as you guys know well. But on the Republican side, yes, Trump and Marco Rubio and everything are 110% behind Israel, so we're told. But clearly, in the Republican right and the MAGA right, there is a growing split. It's hard to see how that plays out politically yet at this point, but it is clearly happening, and that does worry, rightly, the Israelis. So yes, that would have definite cause to do this.

But, of course, if it was found out to be Israel, what would the so-called punishment be? Is Netanyahu likely to lose his access to the onsuit bathroom at the White House? No. I mean, this is the reality, right? This is the relationship. It's dysfunctional. And if Netanyahu one day no longer is Prime Minister of Israel, which will happen,

the likely successes to him in Israel, Naftali Bennett or Ye La Pied or Benny Gannes, someone like that. And a lot of these issues, believe me, are not much different to Netanyahu. Yeah, that's something we've tried to highlight as well, because there's, I think, a lot of wishcasting from American politics, especially American liberals. Definitely. It's just Netanyahu, we've just got to get him out of there,

and then everything will be fine and different, et cetera. And there's just very, there's just no evidence for that. I wanted to talk to you, too, about this documentary that you just made for Al Jazeera. We can put the thumbnail up on the screen here. And I found this absolutely fascinating. The topic is fascinating. You are Australian, but your family's originally from Germany. So you have close personal ties to the country.

And I'm not sure I really internalized how much the ethos of never again and the knowledge that the German people had perpetrated the Holocaust, how much that. that is a cornerstone of sort of like modern German identity. And then your documentary talks about the way that this has been bastardized in order to effectively criminalize any sort of pro-Palestinian support, which obviously is ironic because now because there is such desperation about avoiding charges of anti-Semitism in Germany, you have the German government, you know, complicit in another genocide here with regard to Palestine. So talk a little bit about what drew you to the topic

and the way that this cultural identity has played out within Germany. One thing that most people maybe don't realize is that Germany is the second biggest provider of weapons to Israel after the U.S. The U.S. is number one, to be sure, under Biden or Trump. But Germany is second,

and that accelerated after October 7. So you're right that there is this sense within Germany, which didn't exist straight after World War II, but certainly the last 30, 40 years that we as a German people need to commemorate and atone essentially for the crimes of our ancestors.

And I, on paper, have no problem with that. I mean, Germany committed one of the ultimate crimes, the genocide, of course, of Jews and millions and millions of others, of course. But the way that manifests itself today, and this was beginning long before October 7, but it's accelerated since, is this belief amongst the vast bulk

of the German political elite and media elite, and a sizeable proportion of the German public, both in the East, former East Germany and the West, that they have a historical responsibility to support Israel no matter what. Now, this was a view, as I said, long before October 7, but it's got stronger since. So what that means practically, believing that, for example, pro-Palestine protests have to be crushed hugely violently. People who say from the river to the sea, Palestine should be free, are literally charged and brought before court. If an individual tries to make a comparison between the Nazi Holocaust and what Israel is doing in Gaza, you are apparently disparaging their so-called original Holocaust and therefore you might be charged.

There have been huge amounts of Palestinians who have been deported, and Arabs for that matter, who have not been violent, who are not terrorists, who are simply expressing a critical view of Israel. And the impact of that, practically, on arguably the most powerful country in Europe, the most powerful economy, which has been for years, although it's in a bit of a bad shape these days economically, is to actually empower the far right, the AFD, which is now the largest opposition party in the country. And you have someone in the film, Iris Hefetz,

who's a Jewish-Israeli-born German citizen, who basically says, I'm paraphrasing what she says, that Israel has become the washing machine for the far right. And what that means is, which is happening in the US across Europe as well. It's not unique to Germany, but it's happening is that when someone in the far right says, I love Israel or I love Jews, you can't accuse me of anti-Semitism. I love the world's only Jewish state.

And the AFD in Germany is doing that very successfully and whitewashing their own record, which historically has been often tied to neo-Nazism. And today they are supported according to the polls by around 25% of the German population. Now, they're not in government, yes. But potentially in years to come, they will be. And I guess part of the reason to make this film, I made it with the British filmmaker Dan Davies, who I also made the Palestine Laboratory with Valdezira earlier this year,

was in some ways most people I spoke to about this question had no idea of what was happening in Germany. We're very well aware of the massive repression, particularly since Trump has returned to the White House, of crushing pro-Palestine speech, trying to deport people, Mahmoud Khalil, amongst many, many others. But what's happening in Germany, the heart of Europe, is actually remarkably similar.

It's remarkably similar, different, but similar. And I am born in Australia, but I'm a German citizen. So I wouldn't say I feel particularly German per se, but I at the same time feel the reason I got a passport 15 or so years ago was, for those who unaware after the war, World War II, Germany allowed Jews whose citizenship was removed because the Nazis didn't recognize Jews as citizens. have it reinstated essentially. And many, many Jews for about half a century mostly refused to do that, including my parents basically saying, why would I want to be a German citizen after

what Germany did to us, which I understood. In the last 20, 25 years, many Jews around the world have changed their opinion and have now, because they want to have an EU passport, for whatever reason may be. But the idea somehow that Germany says they are doing this in the name of me as a Jew to support Israel and critically apparently makes Germany a good global citizen, despite the fact, as you said, that they are now backing, arming a genocide, an Israeli state that is proudly, I would argue, genocidal. So the film, I suppose, tries to uncover that, investigate that, and it came out about two weeks ago. It just had an amazing global response, I think, because most people just don't know what is happening in a country, which is in the center of Europe, with

huge amounts of influence. And what's happening in Germany is happening elsewhere, US, growing parts of Europe, France, England. And I'll finish on this point. We talk about at the end of the film that what's happening in Germany is mirrored elsewhere. Just this year, the UK has prescribed as a terrorist organization, a group called Palestine Action, which is a non-violent group, trying to stop Israel's genocide, but also the complicity of Israeli arms companies in the Israeli occupation. idea that that is a terrorist organization is absurd, and yet Kirstama's government has prescribed that as a terrorist organization, meaning that if you are in London, for example,

or Birmingham, wherever you may be, and you hold a sign and you say, I support Palestine action, you will be arrested and charged. And so this obsessive desire in so many Western countries to protect Israel at the expense of their own country's democracy should really disturb us all a lot. And a point that you're making here is it can also massively backfire. Well, massively backfire to those, I think, who are sane. I guess it depends backfire for whom, right? I mean, in Germany, for example, we have some people talking about this idea that where, you know, as a journalist, one doesn't want to predict the future because we're often wrong, but the direction that Germany appears to be heading on at the moment is moving

towards a far more anti-Islam, anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, blindly pro-Israel direction. And whether that is the AFD being in power in the coming years or someone like the AFD, I mean, it's worth saying, as some viewers of breaking points, of course, will know, is that Elon Musk is a massive fan of the AFD during the German election earlier this year. He was very keen to support the AFD, I think he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, something like only AFD can save Germany. Now, his focus wasn't, I think, so much on Israel. It was more the fact that the AFD is talking about is basically urging or encourage any idea

or would force, frankly, immigrants who have arrived to be sent back to their supposed at home countries. And that's, of course, what's happening increasing the US and certain other Western states. So I would argue it's massively backfiring on Germany because German identity, you would think historically, correctly, is based on both a combination of guilt, acknowledgement, learning from that history. And I still say to this day that Germany, unlike virtually any other European nation, who are often very complicit with Nazis, collaborated with them, has done a lot of atoning.

And I welcome that. But the question is, in what service? For whom? And when Germany is supporting an Israeli state uncreuth, critically, when they are committing genocide, I say you are learning little to nothing from history. And that's a pretty worrying conclusion. Anthony, my last question for you is we actually see Israel dividing the right in the U.S., especially among young people. You mentioned some of this before. I know you're familiar

with the polls and those dynamics as well. Yes. Dividing the far right. You know, if you look at Stephen Miller, very pro-Israel, if you look at Nick Fuentes, very anti-Israel. Are those dynamics playing out in Germany as well with the AFD? Largely not yet. And in short, there is, I mean, the irony, of course, with all this is that those on the far right don't like Jews.

They've never liked Jews. They still don't like Jews. So, yes, the AFD, and not saying everyone who supports the AFD is racist, that would not be true. But there is a deep antipathy within, I think, the AFD and, of the German far right and frankly right wing. In idealizing Israel, this is something I've talked about for a long time that for many people on the right and the far right, I understand there's a split in the parts of the US and in some ways I welcome that. But for many on the right

and the far right, Israel is their model. It's their ethno-nationalist wet dream. That is the nation they want to be like, not Jewish, of course, but Christian, a Christian nationalist, fundamental estate. One only has to look at, for example, all of the language around the Charlie Kirk funeral a few days ago, that was a hardline Christian nationalist agenda, petrifying to someone like me who's a secular atheist Jew, to put it mildly. And I see in Germany a real, almost a combination of growing numbers of young Germans resent the fact that they're told they should be feeling guilty for their past for what their ancestors did in World War II. And that manifests itself now in a hardline, far right, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, pro-Israel agenda. Despite the fact that

me and those people don't like Jews, both can exist. You can be an anti-Semite and love Israel. And what's so disturbing about that is Israel itself is welcoming that support. You've had in the last year alone, the Israeli government, since the genocide began, organizing far-right conferences in Jerusalem for some of these European far-right leaders. You've had Israeli government ministers going to these far-right conferences in Europe. Now, if you're a sane Jew, sane person, you don't welcome the love of the far-right because historically, you know they don't like us for a range of reasons. So the idea that Israel as an increasingly theocratic far-right nation welcomes and

embraces a far-right agenda, both within its own borders and elsewhere, says all you need to know, I think, about where Israel as a country is going, which is, in my view, increasingly likely to be theocratic, proudly theocratic. Anthony, tell people where they can watch this documentary. So Germany's Israel Obsession is on YouTube. If you just put that in Google, it is on the Outer Zero website. If you Google that, you'll find lots of entries. It's available.

Go watch it. It'll hopefully shock you in a good way. It'll shock you in a way that makes you open your eyes. It makes you think. Yeah, it illuminates things in a way that's important. I certainly got a lot on watching it and highly recommend. Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much for your work.

And it's great to see as always. Thank you so much, guys. Both you. I appreciate it. Thank you. I'm Jorge Ramos. And I'm Paola Ramos. Together we're launching The Moment, a new podcast about what it means to live through a time, as uncertain as this one. We sit down with politicians. I would be the first immigrant mayor in generations, but 40% of New Yorkers were born outside of this country. Artists and activists, I mean, do you ever feel demoralized?

I might personally lose hope. This individual, might lose the faith, but there's an institution that doesn't lose faith. And that's what I believe in. To bring you depth and analysis from a unique Latino perspective. There's not a single day that Paola and I don't call or text each other, sharing news and thoughts about what's happening in the country. This new podcast will be a way to make that ongoing intergenerational conversation public. Listen to The Moment with Jorge Ramos and Paola Ramos,

as part of the My Cultura Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. My name is Ed. Everyone say hello, Ed. I'm from a very rural background myself. My dad is a farmer and my mom is a cousin. So, like, it's not like... What do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club? I know it sounds like the start of a bad joke, but that really was my reality nine years ago. I just normally do straight stand-up, but this is a bit different. On stage stood a comedian with a story that no one expected to hear.

The 22nd of July 2015, a 23-year-old man had killed his family. And then he came to my house. So what do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club? A new podcast called Wisecrack, where stand-up comedy and murder takes center stage. Available now. Listen to Wisecrack on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In early 1988, federal agents raced to track down the gang they suspect of importing millions of dollars worth of heroin into New York from Asia. We had 30 agents ready to go with shotguns and rifles and you name it.

But what they find is not what they expected. Basically, your stay-at-home moms were picking up these large amounts of heroin. They go, is this your daughter? I said yes. They go, oh, you may not see her for like 25 years. Caught between a federal investigation and the violent gang who recruited them,

the women must decide who they're willing to protect and who they dare to betray. Once I saw the gun, I tried to take his hand and I saw the flash of light. Listen to the Chinatown Stang on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere you get your podcasts. So Jimmy Kimmel was back last night after being pulled from the air by Disney under pressure from the Trump administration. At least he was back on most ABC broadcasts around the country. Next Star and Sinclair did decide to continue to preempt his program and we'll get to that in a minute.

let's take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say about his suspension. Who supported our show, cared enough to do something about it to make your voices heard so that mine can be heard. I will never forget it. And maybe most of all, I want to thank the people who don't support my show and what I believe, but support my right to share those beliefs anyway. I've been hearing a lot about what I need to say and do tonight. And the truth is, I don't think what I have to say is going to make much of a difference. If you like me, you like me.

If you don't, you don't. I have no illusions about changing anyone's mind. But I do want to make something clear because it's important to me as a human. And that is, you understand that it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man. I don't think there's anything funny about it. I posted a message on Instagram on the Dave's Kilt, sending love. to his family and asking for compassion. And I meant it. I still do. Nor was it my attention to blame any specific group for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply disturbed

individual. That was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make. But I understand that to some that felt either ill-timed or unclear or maybe both. And for those who think I did point a finger, I get why you're upset. If the situation was reversed, there was a good chance I'd have felt the same way. This show, this show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this. So you hear his voice quavering with emotion there

where he's talking about, you know, he never intended to make light of the killing of Charlie Kirk. I think a lot, I don't want to speak for the, you know, the right now. I'll let you say what you made of it, Emily. I think there were skepticism about the sincerity of this sort of pseudo-apology, but, you know, it would, I'm sure this was all a very upsetting and traumatic event for Jimmy Kimmel.

And I think we've seen the way that even people who don't like Charlie Kirk really disagree with Charlie Kirk, but who are in the public eye, were somewhat traumatized by his, you know, violent murder, you know, effectively live-streamed murder. Because Kimmel talks about how he faces threats as well. So you can't help but think about your own mortality. and, you know, the reality of the dangerous situation that you yourself may be in as well. It was interesting that Kimmel was emotional and not completely doing a sort of smug victory lap, which he's want to do. I think he probably handled it as best he could walking the line between keeping the sort of left happy,

keeping middle America happy and trying to throw a bone to the right without looking like, from his perspective, he folded entirely to the administration because obviously that's not in any way what he wants to do. I think Kimball is such a frustrating case. I mean, he did not apologize for, this is where, for example, Turning Point USA, Andrew Colvette came out and said not good enough, didn't apologize for fundamentally saying something that was incorrect. And there are polls that show a lot of people think, for example, Tyler Robinson was a Groper, was a far right type of guy. And so I fully understand why many of my friends on the right are furious about somebody who has a public good, like the airwaves, making a quip that implies. This was

a Trump supporter who killed Charlie Kirk. But Kimmel is sort of, he's frustrating. He's, He's become, like, this performative and sort of self-satisfied type of anti-Trump comedian in a way that's, like, hurt his comedy and, like, softened his edges and, like, gets cringy sometimes. He also was, like, happy about Roseanne firing, whatever else. But that's where we should bring in Next Star, Sinclair, and then Joe Rogan. So we can put B2 on the screen. Next Star and Sinclair did not air this, as Crystal mentioned earlier. So that's a good chunk of affiliates around the country who have more probably, my assumption would be, in many cases, more pro-Kerk audiences in some of these local networks or these communities who have some of their own pressures to deal with. And obviously, Next Star, it is in what would be, we would be remiss if we didn't mention that they have a merger they're trying to get through with.

that's going to come in front of Brendan Carr's FCC in the not too distant future. So let's roll how Joe Rogan reacted to the pressures that befell ABC from the Trump administration, B3. First of all, I definitely don't think that the government should be involved ever in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue. That's fucking crazy. crazy now if the come the problem is the companies if they're being pressured by the government so if that's real and if people on the right are like yeah go get them oh my god you're crazy you're crazy for supporting this because this will be used on you you don't think that the fucking globalist lizard people who run the world are sitting here going great what do we got three years we'll wait this out

wait this out. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, let them say the government should be involved in censoring people's speech. Yeah, yeah, yeah, let them support that. Let these fucking dumbasses, because Jimmy Kilmel's a leftist, let these dumbasses think it's a good idea, and we should celebrate. So, Crystal, the reason I wanted to toss to that just now is, um, I obviously completely agree that the government shouldn't be in a position at all to say what's in a comedian's monologue. That's obviously the way the FCC is set up. And, and Brendan Carr told, mean not too long ago that he thinks it's possible the entire law should just be changed. I think it's, you know, I'm sympathetic to the argument that you just abolish the FCC, but that's a more radical proposal. What's interesting about what Rogan just said is I can hear my friends on the right in their head saying, yeah, okay, what is the FCC going to do cancel a conservative late night host?

There's not a single conservative late night house. What are they going to do to the right that could possibly make these networks more biased in, or what are they going to do to the right, given how these networks are already so biased against the left? And I obviously- They're coming for Sydney-Sweeney, Emily. They're coming for Sydney-Sweeney. Obviously, I just have this, like, gross, I feel gross anytime the government is threatening journalists and comedians. So I'm not, I can't get on that bandwagon, though most of my friends on the right are on that bandwagon. They're like, well, what the, okay, great. Yeah, what do you mean? They're going to, like, we're not afraid of the FCC because all of these networks are already downplaying conservative voices.

That's a taste of what people would say in response to Rogan there. Well, the thing is, like, the FCC is not really the thing here because this is coming down from Trump himself, who threatened Kimmel after Colbert got fire. who I think we, do we have Trump's truth, B6, we can put up on the screen where he's continuing to threaten Kimmel and say he should still be canceled. And so it's not like, you know, it'd be one thing if this was some narrow FCC, like we're going to apply the law differently, which of course they are, you know, Brennan Carr is threatening that as well. But what you're talking about with the Trump administration is a whole of government weaponization.

And, you know, as you mentioned before, next start. and Sinclair, which also preempted Kimmel shows, they both are lobbying the government for different things. You know, they both are lobbying to get their business needs meant. And in Nextar's case, this merger approved. Disney also has business before the government. So, you know, from a dollars and cents perspective, I think the reason Jimmy Kimmel is back on air is because there was enough of a public

and artist backlash that they decided that as a business decision it was more risky to keep him off than to bring him back on come what may from the Trump administration.

So, you know, I don't think this was like a principal decision. I don't think that, you know, I don't think these capitalist organizations make principal decisions. They make decisions based on what they perceive at least their bottom line to be. And there was enough of an outcry

and enough people canceled their Disney Plus subscriptions that they thought, oh, we got a bit of a problem here. We better bring him back. So, you know, to your point about, oh, well, what could the liberals do to us if they got back in power? I think it is where I disagree with Rogan's point is, I don't know if we're going to get any sort of Democrat who would be aggressive enough to do this sort of retaliation. I also don't think that the Supreme Court would go along with the same things from

a Democratic president. that they go along with from a Republican president. But if you did have someone, what's that? They rejected Murthy v. Missouri, which was the challenge on Biden-era pressure on social media companies. I'm speaking more broadly, though, of, I mean, first of all, that was a different situation because you didn't have such a direct and overt threat. It was implicit.

But I'm speaking of, you know, the shadow docket, basically the Trump administration, this time around has gotten everything they want from this court. And I don't think that it's based on print. I think it's based on, like, number one, they want to avoid a direct conflict with, you know, with Trump, who has made it pretty plain that he's open to just ignoring Supreme Court decisions. They don't want to destroy the court. And number two, you know, to a certain extent, they're just like on board with the agenda. So I don't know that a Democratic president would likely weaponize the whole of federal government the way that Trump has been willing to. But yeah, I guess it's good for the right to be afraid that that would be one of the things that would happen.

But if they did, I mean, listen, Fox News is the thing that exists. It is the largest cable news network. It is extraordinarily powerful in terms of its reach and its influence on the overall national conversation. They can really set the agenda in a lot of ways. And there's a lot of connectivity between Fox News and the rest of the conservative media apparatus. Since this isn't really about the FCC because it's cable versus broadcast, of course there's ways that future Democratic administration. could go after Fox News and try to make them pay for supporting a Republican agenda. You know, I don't think that that's the direction that the country should go in.

And the fact that Trump immediately just like comes out and threatens Kimmel again is basically an admission that this was not about Disney making a business decision. This was them caving to the authoritarian demands of the Trump administration. And the only reason he's back is because of the level of pushback that they were. received. I was also going to say the potential CBS free press merger, that's clearly like a downstream consequence of the broader vibe shift narrative where you have some of these. I was talking about this in the context of Kimmel last week is like the market is catching up to Kimmel and Colbert to some extent. Like there are structural conversations to be had about people who are making shows that are

getting just a fraction of the viewership they used to get with a lot of the same overhead. So Kimmel mentioned there are hundreds of people that work on these shows between him, Colbert. Like, that's hundreds of jobs. Crazy. Yeah. Yeah, man. That's hundreds of jobs.

That's a lot of money. And, you know, it's not quite trickling into social media in ways that are super profitable for these companies as linear television starts to decline. So in some sense, yes, the market is catching up with these guys in a business sense, but also in a content sense that, you know, what they're, what they're offering. I mean, these late-night hosts are having, like, Gavin Newsom and Adam Schiff on. It's this, like, super niche content for, as I always describe it, resistance wine moms. And there's, like, not the same amount of money in that as there was, you know, Haydum or

love him, Jay Leno in 1996. It's just totally different game. So in some sense, the market is catching up with them. in some sense, these companies are starting to realize that they've maybe ignored a swath of the country and that they could make money off that swath of the country and Crystal, if there is a CVS free press merger and you start to see some more right-leaning content at a place like CBS, then, yeah, actually, there could be potential for a Dem who, we'll talk about this later in the show to your point if they have the sort of stones but if if a dem wanted to

mess with them i mean maybe that's coming for sherry redstone yeah it's it's possible it's possible i'll believe it i'll believe the dem with the stones when i see it they have not emerged yet um but yeah i mean you have that you have the um ellison family also potentially buying cnn and hbo and comedy Central. You've got obviously TikTok coming under the, you know, already has an IDF sensor involved and is likely to be also, you know, Ellison family plus Fox News. So you've got Twitter, obviously already owned by Elon Musk. So there's a lot of conservative media apparatus that is already out there and that is, you know, going to, that Trump is trying to consolidate right now as we speak. And so the goal, the overall plan is, okay, I'm going to consolidate ownership of as many media

properties in my allies' hands, which is a large chunk of the media space and the fact that you've had so much consolidation in media makes this much easier for an authoritarian like Trump to be able to effectuate. So you've got a large chunk in the hands of his allies, effectively him. And then you have another chunk that you are using the, you're weaponizing the government to try to coerce and keep them in line. Now, Kimmel has been brought back, but a message has been sent.

And we covered how last week the view, which was set in the sites of Brennan Carr called them explicitly as an ex-target, how they were too cowardly to say anything about this in the first days after Kimmel was taken off the air. They did break their silence. I think, again, because the audience was like, what the hell is, like, how cowardly.

are you like what you're not going to say anything now they claimed oh we're waiting to see if jimmy kimmel was going to say anything bull they were just afraid and then when they saw the backlash they realized they couldn't get away with not saying anything but anyway the point the point i'm trying to make here is that many people whether they realize it or not journalists comedians podcasters whoever um they will think about this episode when they're writing their monologues or crafting their commentary or riffing on cable news networks, they will think about what happened here. They will, again, could be without even realizing it, they'll trim their sales a little bit

to not provoke the ire of Trump world and create a big problem for themselves and their employers because no one should have any confidence that their employers are going to stand up for them in this fight with the Trump administration. They're not. Your best hope is, you know, the, like, the grassroots backlash is kind of your best hope. But you have to be a Jimmy Kimmel level national figure, prominent national figure, to expect that that is going to be there for you as well. So in any case, even with Kimmel, at least for now back in the air,

again, you still have this, you know, this conflict between ABC and Disney and now these affiliates, Nexstar and Sinclair. So it's not like the problem has completely gone away. But even with him back on the air, a message has been sent and, you know, a chilling effect when you add this to the previous actions taken by the Trump administration as well. Kimmel rounded out his response with a bit where Robert De Niro is the new FCC commissioner. And what's a couple of takeaways for that. I mean, first of all, you could have read Trump's true social, like in the voice of Roy Cohn

and actually believed that Roy Cohn wrote it. That's what it sounded like. He says, last time I went after them, they gave me $16 million. This one sounds even more lucrative, a true bunch of losers. You could absolutely do that. And you would be like, oh, yes,

this is a mafia boss, but it's, of course, the president of the United States. And so on the one hand, they're also going to, like, Kimmel didn't really pull any punches. I don't think Kimmel or Colbert will really pull any punches as long as Colbert's on the air.

I don't think Seth Meyer's going to pull any punches. And so if what they think about going forward is like jokes that are based on false information that are going to needlessly inflame a big portion of the country, then I think that's a good thing. If it does end up censoring any like just left of center criticism of Donald Trump, that's a bad thing. So it's just one of these, I don't know, it's one of these stories that is, I don't know about you, Crystal, just for me, it's so annoying. Again, we were talking about this with the UN, where it's like Trump has, as someone on the right, oh, sorry, I just touched my microphone, but as somebody on the right, like Trump often will have this, like, directionally correct approach to, like, for example, the problems at the UN. And then he just, like, talks like he's a mafia boss, like he's Robert De Niro. in a mafia movie or literally like he's Roy Cohn and you're like oh my gosh like

do you have to do it this way but he does I mean I just I don't think there's anything directionally correct though about like censoring comedians monologue and well about pushing back on what Kimmel said at a like about that potentially being a maga shooter after it was sure take issue with it I mean I personally I don't have a problem with what Kimmel said because I think the point he was trying to make is they're like doing everything to make it. it like this had nothing to do with us, right? And that's true. Like, everybody was doing that, you know, Ryan admitted it openly that he's like

hoping that it wasn't a left-wing shear will turn out that, you know, based on what we know and Tyler, it seems like he was motivated by LGBTQ issues in particular, again, at least based on what we know at this point. But, like, that wasn't even the major crux of the joke. The major crux of the joke was poking fun at Trump because he didn't give a shit that Charlie Kirk died, like that Charlie Kirk was murdered. He gets asked about it. And he's like, oh, yeah, I'm doing great.

Take a look at my construction. Like, that was actually like the real joke that was going on here. So personally, I would have loved to see Jimmy Kimmel more defiant versus emotional. And the reporting is that that was his original instinct in the face of the backlash. And that was part of what made ABC Disney feel like, okay, well, we have the president coming after us. We have the FCC commissioner coming after us. And Jimmy is unrepentant and not willing to go out here and grovel. So I guess we're going to have to pull him off the air.

So in any case, like, you know, Trump, he literally said that people should not be allowed to criticize him. Like, that is his view. His genuine view is that the media should genuflect that they should be just like his cabinet and constantly praise his greatness and that anything outside of that should be basically illegal and barred and taken off the air. So, you know, while there are other areas where I agree with you, Trump will be, like on terrace, right? Trump will be directionally correct about or have make some point about the way the previous system has failed and then come up with the scheme that makes everything way worse. On this one, I don't, I don't see that. I don't.

There's nothing about this to me that is directionally correct whatsoever. And, you know, if Jimmy Kimmel sucks so bad and his ratings are so bad and it's so expensive and whatever, guess what? You don't have to do anything. Like that business decision is going to be made at some point. Like you, I mean, you're right. These are dinosaur business models. There's no world in which 200 people working on a single show, which I think is the number

that I heard for Jimmy Kimmel, is going to sustain long into the future. That's just not the world. We live in now with totally fragmented media diets. So, you know, if you hate Jimmy Kimmel, that problem was going to solve itself ultimately. The President of the United States did not need to weigh in. It's the exact same thing with Colbert. And weighing in changes the news cycle in a way where it's like, you know, you're, People were like, oh, Trump got Colbert canceled.

Like, actually probably Colbert got Colbert canceled by making millions of dollars a year. But obviously now these companies can use their decisions as opportunities to, like, suck up to the administration and be like, hey, we... Because Trump, in his post, we'll move on after this, but in his post, he said that ABC told the White House. This is actually very interesting. He said ABC told the White House that Kimmel had been canceled. He says something happened. Yeah, so the White House was told by ABC that his show was canceled. Now, that might be a lie. Trump does make shit up. So I don't know.

Or someone lied to him. Someone misheard of it on the phone call. Because it sounds like they told, quote, the White House, not him. So he then posted in the UK taking this victory lap about the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel and the firing of Jimmy Kimmel. And that was never the case. It was always that it was an indefinite suspension after the news broke. But that's actually pretty interesting and does speak to how these companies are probably using their business decisions in conversations with the administration to say, hey, we're getting rid of Colbert. We're getting rid of Kimmel. Like, we're doing the thing.

So nothing to ignore on that front. I'm Jorge Ramos. And I'm Paola Ramos. Together we're launching The Moment, a new podcast about what it means to live through a time as uncertain as this one. We sit down with politicians.

I would be the first immigrant mayor in generations, but 40% of New Yorkers were born outside of this country. Artists and activists. I mean, do you ever feel demoralized? I might personally lose hope. This individual might lose the faith. But there's an institution that doesn't lose faith.

And that's what I believe in. To bring you depth and analysis from a unique Latino perspective. There's not a single day that Paola and I don't call or text each other, sharing news and thoughts about what's happening in the country. This new podcast will be a way to make that ongoing intergenerational conversation public. Listen to The Moment with Jorge Ramos and Paola Ramos as part of the My Cultura Podcast Network on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

My name is Ed. Everyone say hello, Ed. I'm from a very rural background myself. My dad is a farmer, and my mom is a cousin. So, like, it's not like... What do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club? I know it sounds like the start of a bad joke, but that really was my reality nine years ago.

I just normally do straight stand-up, but this is a bit different. On stage stood a comedian with a story that no one expected to hear. On 22nd of July 2015, a 23-year-old man had killed his family. And then he came to my house. So what do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club? A new podcast called Wisecrack, where stand-up comedy and murder takes center stage. Available now.

Listen to Wisecrack on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I had this overwhelming sensation that I had to call it right then. And I just hit call. I said, you know, hey, I'm Jacob Schick. I'm the CEO of One Tribe Foundation, and I just wanted to call on and let her know there's a lot of people battling some of the very same things you're battling.

And there is help out there. The Good Stuff Podcast Season 2 takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a non-profit fighting suicide in the veteran community. September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe's mission. I was married to a combat army veteran, and he actually took his own life to suicide. One Tribe saved my life twice. There's a lot of love that flows through this place, and it's sincere.

Now it's a personal mission. Don't have to go to any more funerals, you know. I got blown up on a React mission. I ended up having amputation below the knee of my right leg and a traumatic brain injury because I landed on my head. Welcome to Season 2 of The Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Let's go ahead and move on to Kamala Harris' book tour. I can't believe I'm saying those words in September of 2025, let alone showing the clips that we're about to show because Kamala Harris fully unreconshire.

Is that fair to say, Crystal? It seems fair. I would say so. It seems fair. The book is called 107 days. She has been on Good Morning America, The View, and Rachel Maddo to sell this book, which came out yesterday, and it's going exactly how you would expect. So let's roll C-1.

My concern about him running for re-election was completely separate from my admiration and knowledge about his capacity to serve as president of the United States, which was consistent and never wavered. Well, when we sit here, as we sit here today, do you think he would have been up for running the country for four more years? Here's the distinction that I make. And having had the experience myself, it is one thing to have the capacity to govern.

It is another thing to go through an election for president of the United States. And by the way, another piece of what is unprecedented and a bit historical about that race, it is the closest presidential race in the 21st century in terms of the outcome. Wow. You know, say that again, because he likes to say over and over again, he's got a mandate. And that's part of why I wrote this book, because history will talk about this race. It is part of American history. I didn't fully appreciate how much people wanted to know there was a difference between me and President Biden.

I thought it was obvious. And I didn't want to offer a difference in a way that would be received or suggested to be a criticism. And during your appearance and you write about it, you say everything about my appearance on the view was going well until it. it wasn't. And if you recall, you were here 28 days before the election, and I asked you if there was anything you would have done differently than President Biden during the past four years. And you said, quote, there is not a thing that comes to mind, end quote. You right, you had no idea you just pulled the pin on a hand grenade in the moment I knew. The Trump campaign weaponized your answer against you.

My question. And some, including James Carville and Jake Tapper, point to that answer as a turning point in your candidacy. Do you think that moment tip the election? No. Good, because Sunday wasn't want to take the blame. Crystal, I'm so excited to get your response to Kamala Harris, answering some pretty softball questions, if I may say so, about why she let Joe Biden. run and how she ended up kind of, well, not that it was her choice to let Joe Biden run, but why she covered for Joe Biden and how she responded to that in the book.

And then how she ultimately ended up losing to Donald Trump. I haven't read the book, full disclosure. I'm shocked. But I mean, I might, right? It does seem like there's some somewhat interesting stuff in there. To be honest with you, the book is a little bit more candid than I expected it to be. but then in these public media appearances she's doing the same old same old like let me try to split the difference let me try to make everybody happy which just ends up making literally no one happy the choice of venue is also worth noting like if you want to be new and improved camilla harris improved to the world you're a different candidate than you're a different person than they thought that you were don't just do the view and rachel matt like go into the lion's den take some risks like go go on with joe imagine she did the joe rogan pot you at long last, you know, after so much discussion about that.

That would be interesting, right? But it's just, I mean, in a sense, I sort of feel bad for it. Because I feel like, I don't know, she walks herself into this life where she's questing after ambition and power. And she clearly doesn't really care about any particular issues in a way that's like motivating for her is deeply uncomfortable in these situations, constantly trying to find the right answer, like the correct answer. like the correct answer versus what she actually thinks.

And then you just end up with this pathetic display where you have to say you didn't realize people wanted you to be different than Joe Biden and you thought it would be obvious, which to me is like a, to me that's a gesture towards her identity. Yes. That she just thought like, well, I'm a black woman.

Of course I'm different from Joe Biden. It's like, no, that's not what we're talking about here. Like you are his vice president. You have stood there and backed his every decision. people wanted to know they're not happy with how things are going. Yes, they want to know how you're different, what you think went wrong, why they should put their trust in you to create a different outcome than what they're experiencing right now. And then, you know, I've also seen some of the discussion around what she had to say about Gaza, allegedly, privately, she was urging Biden to be more compassionate, blah, blah, blah. And it's like, okay, but when it actually mattered, when you were in a position of power, you did nothing to change anything, right? And now we're supposed to believe after the fact that, oh, you were genuinely, you were being courageous behind the scenes. Like, I'm sorry, no one should buy that. No one should believe that whatsoever.

She is the, I feel like the physical embodiment of a lot of the Democratic Party's problems. Like, it's illustrated in this one woman so perfectly. Let's get more into the identity conversation because she, one of the big revelations in the book is that her first choice to add to the vice presidential ticket was actually Pete Buttigieg and not Tim Walls, but she believed that as a black woman married to a Jewish man, adding a gay vice presidential candidate to the ticket would have been too much of a risk.

Now, Rachel Maddo confredited her about this, It was maybe the most uncomfortable moment in a pretty, I don't know, friendly interview. Let's go ahead and roll C3. If his reaction to that since this part of the book has come out, if you've had any reflection on that, or I guess I'd ask you to just elaborate on that a little bit. It's hard to hear with you running as, you know, you're the first woman elected vice president. You're a black woman and a South Asian woman elected that high office, very nearly elected. elected president to say that he couldn't be on the ticket effectively because he was gay. It's hard to hear.

No, no, no. That's not what I said, that that's, that he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay. My point, as I write in the book, is that I was clear that in 107 days in one of the most hotly contested elections for president of United States against someone like Donald Trump who knows no floor. to be a black woman running for president of the United States. And as a vice presidential running mate, a gay man, with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad, but I also realized it would be a real risk.

No matter how, you know, I've been an advocate and an ally of the LGBT community my entire life. So it wasn't about, it wasn't about, yeah, right. So it wasn't about any prejudice on my part, but we had such a short, we had such a short period of time. And the stakes were so high. I think Pete is a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant. And I think America is and would be ready for that. but when I had to make that decision with two weeks to go you know and maybe I was being too cautious

you know I'll let our friends we should all talk about that maybe I was but that's the decision I made I like how powerful she thought it was that she was saying she believes Pete Buttigieg is a phenomenal public servant as though that's some really important line coming from her, Kamala Harris. I mean, where do you start with this? Like, on one level, it gives me flashbacks to the Bernie Elizabeth Warren, you're a secret sexist because you told me like women can't be president or something like that.

Conversation, which, you know, it appears what Bernie was actually saying was like, listen, sexism is a real thing. Trump will try to weaponize it. not like I think I'm sexist and I don't think you should be president. And so Mattow being, you know, high duchin about an analysis of, listen, it's so, you know, it's a lot to have a black woman and a gay guy on the ticket and we know what Trump will do with that and whatever. It is annoying to me. Then it's annoying to me that Kamala doesn't stand on business.

Like if that's what you thought and that was your analysis, like, girl, you put it in the book. This is actually, I'm sure you've had this experience too where authors will say something provocative. and then you go to interview them about it and they add like a thousand caveats and you're like dude you wrote it like say it with your chest explain why you felt that way rather than trying to like run away from it and be all scared where it just comes off as weakness so that's number two number three the problem with p bootage is not that he's gay it's that he sucks it's that he's neoliberal shill who stands for nothing who black people can't stand right like that's the problem with Pete Buttigieg, okay? Now, she doesn't have that problem with him, but that's the actual

issue with him. Number four, I think Pete should feel lucky that he dodged this bullet of not having to be associated with this, you know, terrible campaign, which ended in disaster, in my opinion, for the country and the world. So there's that as well. So there's just, there's a lot of different layers going on here with this Pete Buttigieg commentary. And, you know, the last piece, well, there's two other pieces on the question of, is the country ready for like a black woman and a gay man? Would that have been too much to ask to ask the country to endure? Listen, I'm not one who says that sexism didn't play any role in this campaign. I think it did. I think that that was part of Trump ran this very campy man campaign. Remember the way that

the Madison Square Garden rally was like he leaned into this kind of gender divide. And Hulk Hogan ripping off his shirt at the RNC. Exactly. So that was there, that was there, right? And I think there's a lot of hostility towards women right now in general. I genuinely feel that coming from, like, you know, the red pill and the manosphere and whatever. Like, guys can't get ahead. And it's because of these damn women who are keeping them down and nagging them and they need to be put in their place.

Like, there is an energy of that right now. You should stop doing that, though, Crystal. You should stop. Yeah, I mean, I'm trying to work on myself, Emily, like the self-hating thing. But anyway, I'll get there. But imagine how powerful saga could be without you nagging him. I'm sure he feels that way. Some days he definitely feels that way.

In any case, so that was definitely an energy. I think that was, you know, I think that played into her loss. So I'm not going to say as the only fact, but I definitely think that was a factor in her loss as well. There may have been an argument for actually sort of leaning into that, like heightening the contradictions. I think it was maybe, who was it? Somebody was arguing for putting another woman on the ticket, like a Gretchen Whitmer or something like that and actually leaning into it.

And making the contrast, it was not being afraid of it, not trying to do, you're like, I'm actually the one who prosecuted transnational gangs is going to be bigger and badder and tougher than you are because no one was going to buy that. So, you know,

I'm not saying a gay man is equivalent to a woman, but if you're like doing the whole, we're going to be historic. I don't think that him being a gay man was really the challenge. here. And then, yeah, I'll just, I'll just leave it there. There's other things I could say. But, you know, the bottom line is that Kamala is still this person who doesn't really believe anything, isn't really ready to stand on business on literally anything, wiltz under the slightest criticism, is constantly trying to please absolutely everyone in a way that it's just

going to please absolutely no one. So I'm shocked to hear you say that because if we put C4, on the screen. The book actually opens with a Kendrick Lamar quote that I feel really captures the energy of Kamala Harris. I got loyalty, got royalty inside my DNA. I was born like this. That is actually at the intro of the book. So Crystal, I'm confused to hear you say that she's not standing on business and that she's timid and seems ambivalent on some of the key issues because she was born like this and royalty is in her DNA and she listens to rap music.

So I assume she's a very badass woman despite the... Actually, no, because of the pantsuits. Well, you know, I've said this very, after I did my feminist tirade, I'll say the very unfeminist thing of like, this lady loves cooking. Like, she should do a cooking show.

She'd be so much happier. She's so much more... Like, when you see her in the kitchen doing her thing, she's in her element. So the headline of the segment is, I believe Kamal Harris should be back in the kitchen. Crystal Ball, Kamala should come back to the – that's the headline. Literally, that is the headline.

We'll see. I hope that is literally the headline. Now, Josh Shapiro is obviously getting in on the fun, so here's C5. We'll put this on the screen. Governor Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania, seemed more interested in defining the role for himself than helping her win. And Kamala Harris recounted how Shapiro was questioning an aide about the pieces of art. He could use to decorate the vice president's residence. I believe this about him, by the way. I think this is true. Catching some strays in the otherwise very, I don't know, gentle memoir might be one way to put it. Let's go ahead and listen to Shapiro responding C-6. I mean, look, I haven't

read the former vice president's book. And she's going to have to, she's going to have to answer to how she was in the room and yet never said anything publicly. I can tell you that I wasn't in the room, but when I was confronted with engagement with the former president, in looking at it simply from the perspective of how's he doing in Pennsylvania? Could he win Pennsylvania? Because I think, Stephen, you understand it.

If you can't win, Pennsylvania is pretty darn hard to win the national election. And I was very vocal with him privately and extremely vocal with his staff about my concerns about his fitness to be able to run for another term. I was direct with them. I told them my concerns. I told them my worries. I told them what I was seeing in the polls. I think it seemed to me that maybe his staff wasn't counseling him with all the information that we knew on the ground here in Pennsylvania that, you know, frankly, they should have shared with the president. Convincing Crystal, you're ready to vote for

I mean, I'm not a Shapiro fan. I believe the anecdote that he was, there was some reporting to this effect at the time that he was very entitled and more like asking Kamala, like asserting what he wanted the role to be and assuming he had the job before even, you know, going through the auditions. And there was a bit of a like personality clash between them. That's why she ultimately goes with Tim Walz. Like I think that that is probably accurate based on my vibes of Josh Shapiro. And, you know, I am incredibly biased against anyone who does the fake Obama impression when they're giving public speeches of which he is certainly guilty. But just to wrap it all up in this Kamala book thing, you know, one of the things that she keeps going back to, and again, having not read the book, but judging by the title and the excerpts that I've seen and analysis that I've seen and Kamala herself and how she's representing it, her big overarching excuse is just like, look, y'all, we just didn't have that much time. We didn't have enough time.

If we'd had more time, I could have made the case better. I could have done this. I could have done that. It would have somehow magically made the situation better. It's unknowable. But based on what we actually saw and experienced, she was doing better earlier in the campaign when there was just excitement about someone different,

when she was leaning more into some of the populist elements, like the price gouging, when they were letting Tim Walls be more like do his weird critique, which seemed to land better than the more grandiose, like he's a fascist critique, even though he is a fascist. But the, you know, the like these guys are weird and their freaks and, like, fringe characters actually seem to land better with the public. So I don't see any evidence that more time would have benefited Kamala Harris.

If anything, what we've seen from Kamala Harris' political career is actually the more that people have a chance to sit with the reality of her versus the idea of her or the resume of her, the more they're like, not sure that this is the direction that they want to go in, that they want to go in politically. So from that perspective, it seems to me that the central premise and framing of the book that it was too short a time period to succeed is false or at least unsupported. This is incontrovertible based on the polling data. If you believe it, this is incontrovertible.

Kamala Harris enters the 2020 primary with a lot of money and very splashy media coverage and declines to the point where she can't make it to the Iowa caucuses, drops out literally before 2020 in December of 2019, because the more people see of Kamala Harris, the less people are interested in actually voting for Kamala Harris. She becomes vice president and has a very steadily, historically negative favorability rating. You could go ahead and look at Real Clear Politics's average of her. When she hits the campaign trail after taking the torch from Biden, she does get a very real honeymoon period where her popularity reverses again. And then around late September, October, it just crashes and has been going in the opposite direction

ever since. So what Crystal just said is completely supported by the data when it comes to Kamala Harris, which should throw a real wrench into whatever political future she thinks she has. She might have been butted off as a long-term California senator. Speaking of California, though, let's wrap up the segment with C-7. This is Gavin Newsom. This is apparently Kamala Harris wrote that she called Gavin Newsom for an endorsement after Biden's exit, but he brushed her off of the short text that read, quote, Hiking will call back.

And that was it. Never heard anything else from Gavin Newsom, which is Crystal, hiking will call back. That is how I plan to respond when you guys ask me to do something that I don't want to do in the future. Hiking will call back. Hey, M. Can you fill in for me? Oh, sorry, hiking. Get back to you. Hiking, well, it's like the Mark Sanford, excuse.

He was hiking the Appalachian Trail. He's on the actual trail. Yep. Yeah. Well, I mean, I'm sure someone who's steeped in California politics could tell us more about the Gavin, Kamala, likely, like rivalry. They probably like, low-key hate each other more than they even hate Republicans or whatever. If I had to guess.

And so Gavin also is a finger in the wind kind of a guy. So if it was, you know, at that moment, it was unclear. what was going to happen you had probably maybe Pelosi in his ear who wanted to have a different process play out and actually have some sort of a you know like short primary or dnc convention floor fight or something else play out um and so he just decided like i'm going to absent myself from this because there's no place that i deemed to be politically safe yes uh to land here ultimately it's like taylor swift i very much like to be excluded from this narrative um we're We're running today's show, so make sure you subscribe over at breakingpoints.com and watch the Friday show.

We're going to talk about AOC and more on Gavin Newsom, actually, a potential team-up in the works with AOC and Gavin Newsom. And numbers looking really great for AOC if she wanted to make her own presidential run in 2008. So we're going to do that in the Friday show. Make sure to tune in then, and you can get the full version of it over at breakingpoints.com. Let's go ahead, Crystal, and move on to Argentina and bring in our campaign. I'm Jorge Ramos. And I'm Paola Ramos. Together we're launching The Moment, a new podcast about what it means to live through

a time as uncertain as this one. We sit down with politicians. I would be the first immigrant mayor in generations, but 40% of New Yorkers were born outside of this country. Artists and activists, I mean, do you ever feel demoralized? I might personally lose hope. This individual might lose the faith. there's an institution that doesn't lose faith.

And that's what I believe in. To bring you depth and analysis from a unique Latino perspective. There's not a single day that Paola and I don't call or text each other, sharing news and thoughts about what's happening in the country. This new podcast will be a way to make that ongoing intergenerational conversation public. Listen to The Moment with Jorge Ramos and Paola Ramos as part of the MyCultura podcast network on the IHeartRadio app. podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

My name is Ed. Everyone say, hello, Ed. I'm from a very rural background myself. My dad is a farmer and my mom is a cousin. So, like, it's not like... What do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club? I know it sounds like the start of a bad joke, but that really was my reality nine years ago.

I just normally do straight stand-up, but this is a bit different. On stage stood a comedian with a story that no one expected to hear. Well, 22nd of July 2015, a 23-year-old man had killed his family. And then he came to my house. So what do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club? A new podcast called Wisecrack, where stand-up comedy and murder takes center stage. Available now.

Listen to Wisecrack on the IHeart Radio app, couple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. In early 1988, federal agents race to track down the gang they suspect of importing millions of dollars' worth of heroin into New York from Asia. We had 30 agents ready to go with shotguns and rifles and you name it. But what they find is not what they expected. Basically, your stay-at-home moms were picking up these large amounts of heroin. They go, is this your should be?

daughter, I said yes. They go, oh, you may not see her for like 25 years. Caught between a federal investigation and the violent gang who recruited them, the women must decide who they're willing to protect and who they dare to betray. Once I saw the gun, I tried to take his hand and I saw the flash of light. Listen to the Chinatown Stang on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere you get your podcasts. It looks like the United States is going to bail out Javier Milley and the Argentinian economy amid a slump in their market. So Juan David Rojas, writer at Compact, who has a new story on this, a great new story on this with the headline, Trouble in Libertarian Paradise

over at Compact joins us now. Juan, thanks for being here. Thanks for having me on, guys. Yeah, so there's a little bit of news, actually. on this front. Just before we were recording with you, Juan, this morning, we heard more from Scott Bessent about what this potential bailout. We can put the first tear sheet up on the screen that's been publicly in the works that we've been brought in on over the last couple of days is going to, what that's actually going to look like. This is a great financial times rundown of what actually happened. It starts by saying, quote, less than six months ago, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was in Buenos Aires. Congratulations President Javier Mulei for bringing

America, Argentina back from the precipice as a libertarian secured more than $40 billion in loans from the IMF and multilateral lenders to bolster his government. Now with political and economic missteps sparking panic in Argentina's markets, the South American nation is once again on the brink and the Trump administration is preparing to bail out its ideological ally. So one, tell us what we learned this morning from Scott Besson about what that bailout is going to look like. Yeah, Besson announced this morning that the Treasury is going to provide a $20 billion swap line to Argentina Central Bank. Basically, Argentina Central Bank will get a loan in dollars that they will have to pay back to the United States, which is extremely important because last

week they spent over a billion of the 20 billion they have left in their foreign reserves defending the peso because it lost like a third of its value in the past month. So let's actually back up on that note and explain what. is the crisis that they're facing right now and what triggered this moment where, you know, they're in need potentially of a U.S. bailout? Yeah, so over the past 50 years, really the one constant of all Argentina's economic problems is the dollar. For our purposes, specifically the fact that the peso, Argentina's currency, is pegged to the

dollar. What that means is that the government sets a margin within which the peso will float relative to the dollar around like a thousand something pesos for every dollar. And the problem with this is that you become completely beholden to the whims of investors that can be extremely fickle and also the amount of dollars that your central bank has in its foreign reserves, because that's how you maintain that conversion between those two currencies. And if there's some kind of panic, like what just happened, you need to spend all of your foreign reserves in order to keep that value of the peso. And so Millet, when he came in, said, okay, I'm going to fix this. I'm going to, through libertarianism, I'm going to get government out of the way. I'm going to get rid of this peg and everything is going to be great.

So he took office in December of 2023 and did exactly that. He'd massively devalue the pace. So it lost like 50% of its value overnight. And this caused inflation to skyrocket. Went from like 150% to like 300%. This makes perfect sense because if your currency loses a ton of its buying power overnight, Well, then prices are going to shoot up. And so he said, whoops, okay, what do I do now?

People elected me to control inflation. Okay, so he did exactly what his predecessor were doing. He restored the peg to the peso, and this worked. The peso over the course of the next few months in 2024, recovered and even exceeded its previous peak. See, the problem with the, you know, pegging your currency, the dollar in the case of a country like Argentina, where your currency has zero credibility, is that it's just extremely overvalued relative to its actual worth and the broader value of your economy. So, anyway, you know, inflation started to go down, and Milay says, oh, see, this is because

libertarianism works. We can talk about that. There's some details, you know, whether or not some of what he's done, austerity-wise, it could be, would have been worth it in the long run. But anyway, inflation by the end of 2024 fell from, yeah, like 300% to around 30%. Then in 2025, he started to have a couple of setbacks. There was this big corruption scandal with his sister, who's also his chief of staff. There were recordings suggesting that she was taking bribes.

The Congress passed some spending increases that he vetoed, and then Congress overwrote his veto. And then what really set things off was that a week ago, Buenos Aires, the country's most important province, held provincial elections where Miele's party got destroyed, lost by like 13 points, something like that. And this really caused investors a panic because they saw it as a sign that the opposition parenists that are left wing were going to take control of the Congress next month in midterm elections. And so this caused, in Miele's words, a full market panic. And the peso, yeah, like I said, lost like a third of its value, the central bank, spent a billion dollars. in just three days. And it purportedly only has $20 billion left in reserve,

which is really the exact amount that the IMF gave Argentina in January. Argentina is the single largest recipient of IMF loans in history. I saw something that in the past 30 years of the $200 billion that the IMF has given out, Argentina has gotten a third of that. So it's really crazy. Wow. Let's take a listen. I want to get your reaction to this, actually, one, to what Donald Trump said about Milay while he was in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. And to the people of Argentina, we're backing him 100%. We think he's done a fantastic job. He, like us, inherited a mess. And what he's done to fix it is good. And Scott is working with their country so that they can get good debt and all of the things that you need to make Argentina great again. So it's an obvious.

for me to endorse the president and the future president of Argentina. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So he's sitting astride, Milay, there alongside Scott Bessent and Marco Rubio. Now, one, an interesting question based on everything you've just said, is to what extent the uncertainty that Milay has faced in 2025 is downstream of some of the uncertainty that Donald Trump has injected into the global economy from his economic policies. Is there a kind of circular way that Trump is bailing out Miele from a situation that he, in some sense, stoked in the Argentinian economy? Am I sounding crazy?

Is there a connection there at all? You know what? I hadn't thought about that. It's a good question. I guess, yeah, maybe investors were a bit more skittish than they would be otherwise. But I would say that generally that's not the case. There is one thing that did, like when Milet took power in 2023, one thing is that that's when the Fed raised interest rates.

And Argentina has, unfortunately, way too much of its debt in dollars. Again, there's this circular problem with the dollar. And so when interest rates go up, well, interest payments on your debt also go up. And that caused Argentina's debt to skyrocket. So, and that honestly, I would say, is a big part of what got me lay elected. Interesting. Could you tell me a little bit more? First of all, I wanted to opine on how the support of Malay just reveals how content-free Trumpism is,

because it's not like, allegedly, they are not ideologically the same. But since Malay will be a good little boy and do whatever the U.S. wants him to, then he gets, you know, favored status regardless of his. Because I think there's a lazy assumption that they're sort of like closely ideologically aligned. And on some levels, yes. But I'm sure you could lay out even better than I could, like on a lot of levels, no. But I was also curious what did happen in that Buenos Aires election. Was it surprising that his party suffered such a defeat? What are people reading into like the message that is being sent by voters?

And what are they unhappy with, you know, under Malay? Sorry, remind me the first part of the question. Just you can just weigh in on the second part. The first part was how Trump and MLAE are not. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right, that's right. The second part is just about the Buenos Aires elections, yeah. Right, right, right. So, yeah, I mean, Trump really, what Trump is, is like a gilded age Republican, kind of.

Like, it's protectionism abroad and free marketeerism at home. And Miele is just the free marketeerism everywhere. So Trump is a huge protectionist, you know, the terrorist. all that. Milley hates tariffs. So in that way, they're extremely different. But, yeah, as far as, like, Doge and, you know, the deregulation, all of that, yeah, they're pretty simpatico. And really, I actually do see a lot of this. Well, you know, on the one hand, Trump, he really just loves anyone who says good things about him. But on the other hand, geopolitically, and it's not really that Argentina, like, actually offers any, like, I call it moral support. Miele really has prostrated himself before, like, Washington, and he supports all of our foreign wars, Ukraine, Israel, and also what we're doing now in Venezuela, and, you know, the sanctions regime against Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. As far as the election in Buenos Aires, to be fair, Buenos Aires is a bastion of perinism, the opposition, And so he was expected to lose there, but not by as much as he did, lost by like 13 points.

And the poll showed him as being more competitive. And now he started to slide in these midterm elections. His party has a minority in both chambers of Congress, though there's like a couple of other parties that have kind of allied with him. But yeah, the fear, like I said now, is that the Parenthood will be able to take back control. As far as what the broader population thinks, all things consider. Miele's approval rating is still pretty good, though his disapproval has gone up a lot. And the thing is, his austerity regime has caused this horrible economic depression in the country, something like 40% of the country, is living in poverty.

On the other hand, you can make the case that he has managed to bring down some of Argentina's debt, which is really out of control before he took office. So I'm not sympathetic to Miele or libertarianism, but I'm trying to. trying to give you the other side. But, you know, people are just kind of saying it's like, okay, inflation has come down some, although, you know, it's misleading how the financial press reports this, because they've liked to cite the monthly figure of inflation

that's gone down to like 2%. It's stagnated at 2% for a while now. And the thing is, for instance, here in the U.S., when we talk about monthly inflation, we're still talking about monthly inflation with respect to the annual figure. So if you look at annual inflation in Argentina, it's still at like 30%, which is what it was in like 2021 under the previous government,

and it's still pretty bad. So people want to see results. They still kind of give them the benefit of the doubt because they were promised like a V-shaped recovery that things would get worse and then get better. And the opposition is kind of a similar situation here with the Democrats. They're soul-searching. There's like different wings that are like fighting each other. And we could talk about that.

It's interesting. Well, last question for me, actually, is just what might this do to the situation in Argentina? sort of like the obvious question on the table is, how does a U.S. bailout, it's sort of funny to talk about a libertarian experiment being bailed out by the United States. I mean, it's obviously not funny. And the IMF. Yeah, and the IMF. Yes, I was thinking that too. It's just amusing. But what could we see in the months to come with this bailout as it will influence the Argentinian economy. So it seems that it'll keep them afloat. Markets have rallied, and yeah, those dollars really will be vital for the central bank and also paying back Argentina's debts. There's a broader

conversation, like if we go back further, because they first started pegging the dollar to the peso in the 90s. And Argentina just has these recurring crises. If we go back further, the issue is also that they take on too much debt in dollars. And that's a huge problem. If you borrow in your own currency, you can get way more in debt than otherwise. Just look at us. We have this huge national debt, but thankfully, it's in our own currency, which also happens to be the world's reserve currency, which means that countries like Argentina need it to stay afloat.

But so Argentina, like, they amass so much debt in dollars. They're just, you know, hostage to what the Fed does, if they raise interest rates, their debt explodes. If investors pull their money, they have a currency crisis. And they end up just kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul. They'll get one IMF loan to pay back another IMF loan. They'll get a billion dollars from Qatar to pay back the IMF. They'll get $20 billion from Trump to pay back the IMF.

So it's, I mean, yeah, probably we'll eventually see some sort of collapse. But this really was vital. Like there was, it's not even there was a risk. The country was going to spiral into an inflationary chaos again if Trump had an enemy. well we definitely recommend everyone go and read your piece over at compact mag we'll put the link in the description and as always Juan great to have your insights really useful thanks guys thank you yeah our pleasure I'm Jorge Ramos and I'm Paola Ramos together we're launching the moment a new podcast about what it means to live through a time as uncertain as this one

we sit down with politicians I would be the first first immigrant mayor in generations, but 40% of New Yorkers were born outside of this country. Artists and activists, I mean, do you ever feel demoralized? I might personally lose hope. This individual might lose the faith, but there's an institution that doesn't lose faith. And that's what I believe in. To bring you depth and analysis from a unique Latino perspective. There's not a single day that Paola and I don't call or text each other sharing news and thoughts about what's happening in the country. These new podcast will be a way to make that ongoing intergenerational conversation public.

Listen to The Moment with Jorge Ramos and Paola Ramos as part of the MyCultura podcast network on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. My name is Ed. Everyone say hello, Ed. I'm from a very rural background myself. My dad is a farmer, and my mom is a cousin. So, like, it's not like... What do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club?

I know it sounds like the start of a bad joke, but that really was my reality nine years ago. I just normally do straight stand-up, but this is a bit different. On stage stood a comedian with a story that no one expected to hear. The 22nd of July 2015, a 23-year-old man had killed his family. And then he came to my house. So what do you get when a true crime producer walks in? to a comedy club. A new podcast called Wisecrack,

where stand-up comedy and murder takes center stage. Available now. Listen to Wisecrack on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I had this, like, overwhelming sensation that I had to call it right then. And I just hit call, said, you know, hey, I'm Jacob Schick. I'm the CEO of One Tribe Foundation, and I just wanted to call on and let her know.

there's a lot of people battling some of the very same things you're battling, and there is help out there. The Good Stuff podcast, Season 2, takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a non-profit fighting suicide in the veteran community. September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe's mission. I was married to a combat army veteran, and he actually took his own life to suicide. One Tribe saved my life twice.

There's a lot of love that flows through this place, and it's sincere. Now it's a personal mission. I don't have to go to any more funerals, you know. I got blown up on a React mission. I ended up having amputation below the knee of my right leg and a traumatic brain injury because I landed on my head. Welcome to Season 2 of the Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the IHeart Radio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. We're continuing to learn more about what may have gone on behind the scenes with Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk, in addition to the group's donors, or potential donors, hopeful donors, in the background when it came to Charlie Kirk bringing people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith into some events, speaking out more publicly about the crackdown on free speech

when it came to discussing matters related to Israel because one of Charlie's closest friends, Andrew Colvette, executive producer of his show high up at Turning Point USA, went on Alex Clark's program, culture apothecary yesterday to go into some of the background information and try to debunk some conspiracy theories, tell the truth about what was happening in this conversation with Alex. And he did get into what was happening. And I just want to say before we roll the clip, F3, this is the tear sheet from the gray zone. This is the gray zone story that was

trying to say people close to Charlie Kirk were people close to Charlie Kirk heard that a top pro-Israel turning point USA donor as the Grey Zone piece puts it quote terminated support for the group in the days before his death so with that in mind this is a story that that came out in recent days here's how Colvette addressed questions about potential pressure from donors F1. Charlie's position on Israel was very clear. I like them more than I like Hamas. I just wish I was free to criticize Israel and not be labeled an anti-Semite because I can criticize my own government and not be called anti-American. Right. But why do I have more freedom to do that and not criticize, you know, a foreign government? And he was really upset

that there was this sort of clamp down on the freedom of expression, the freedom of ideas, free speech when it came to a foreign government. With Tucker, for example, yeah, I mean, we took some pushback. We lost some donors. And what's interesting is it wasn't necessarily Jewish donors, although there was, because that's a misconception about turning points funding base, by the way, is, you know, it's not a whole lot of Jewish donors. It's just not.

We never, you know, there was always, I saw the comments online like, oh, the Jewish shekels or something like. I mean, it's all this gross stuff. It just wasn't true. And it isn't true. But we did lose, you know, one in particular towards the end that was frustrating. Charlie was a friend of the Jewish people and a friend of Israel. Did he have opinions about the prosecution of the war, about, he thought their PR was abysmal,

thought they were doing more harm than good in many ways for their own cause. So all of those things were true. And he was upset that he couldn't express those things freely. without all of this pressure coming down on the organization. He has a lot of great Jewish friends and, you know, and some people that maybe some not so good ones, right? But I think there's just, it's just a nuanced thing. Was Charlie offered $150 million from Israel?

As far as I know, no. I had never heard anything like that. Everyone I've asked has said the same thing. And by the way, just for what it's worth, it doesn't matter the amount that would have been coming down. We would have said no. And there's evidence that is true. Turning point does not, Charlie would not accept foreign money.

Exactly. We only took American money. There was money sent to us, like practically in multiple instances. They're trying to cram it down our bank account. And we said, no, we canceled like money wires and things on foreign money. I have, I remember moments we'd be at like an event, you know, and some foreign people would come up and like demand a meeting or try and get a meeting with Charlie. And Charlie would look at me and go deal with them, get rid of them. And, Crystal, basically he says in that clip everyone just heard, one in particular, referring to one donor in particular.

And the Grayzone story is about a particular donor. It's about Robert Schillman, who was super supportive of Charlie Kirk for a long time. And I would guess that's who Colvette was alluding to in his conversation with Alex Clark. It certainly sounds like it. But whether or not it's Shilman, it confirms the thrust of what's been reported in recent days, what people have said they've heard, just that Kirk was under enormous pressure for, as Colvette says, they're speaking out against the public relations that Israel had in the free speech crackdown that Israel had. He said he had opinions on, quote, the prosecution of the war.

Heard a little bit about that from Kirk towards the end of his life. certainly nothing that was a criticism as harsh as, you know, you would hear from Tucker Carlson, for example. Right. But this is basically a confirmation, which we almost don't even know. We almost don't even need because Charlie had that appearance with Meg and Kelly. I think this was in early August where he was openly talking about the pressures he was under, the pressures that he was facing. But now I think we can say confidently that Turning Point USA did.

did actually lose a donor, a big donor over this. Yeah. And according to Colvette, you know, that one, he said one in particular, that was very frustrating. But he did say originally, you know, after that there were donors that they lost over having Tucker and having Dave Smith, et cetera. And it's also, this is a small point. But, I mean, it's also interesting his note of like, hey, we don't actually, it wasn't

actually a lot of Jewish donors, which is why, you know, I think it's very important people be precise in their language, how they speak about these things. because actually the strongest pro-Zionist constituency in the U.S. is not Jewish people. It's evangelical Christians. So it would be no surprise to me that some of the people who pulled support over just the platforming of Tucker Carlson were not Jewish, very possible that they were, you know, evangelical Christians or others who just are, you know, closely tramplined, et cetera. That's why, you know, I, like framing this story as everybody versus the Jewish. Jews is actually anti-Semitic and is also not accurate in terms of the reality of the political

dynamics that play out here with regard to the U.S.'s unequivocal and constant support for Israel. But, you know, in a lot of ways, he did confirm at least this report from the gray zone and Max Blumenthal. And as you said, it also confirms what was already leaking out to the public. No one should be under the illusion that Charlie Kirk was anything, but, you know, relatively and consistently pro-Israel. But I also get the sense, and Emily, you probably tracked this more closely than I have. Like, I can just imagine Charlie Kirk became this, you know,

activist at a very young age. And, you know, his role was backing up the administration, providing, you know, the talking points that would back up the administration's line, and backing up Trump, whatever. And now he's a 31-year-old man. And perhaps he didn't want that relationship just to be, okay, whatever Trump says, I'm going to back up. He wanted, he maybe was chafing at that role a bit.

We know the reporting about how he obviously publicly was opposing a strike on Iran and that he tried to raise those concerns with Trump and was really, you know, berated for that in particular. And so I don't think it would be a surprise that at this age and at his level of maturity is like a full-grown man with kids and a family and a wife and all of those sorts of things, that he would be starting to sort of chafe in this role and asking questions about like, okay, well, I can criticize the U.S.,

but I can't criticize Israel. And by the way, Israelis can criticize Israel, but I can't, you know, don't have the same freedom here and come under all this insane pressure. If I don't even say anything, I just have someone on stage who says something they disagree with,

I don't think that's a surprising development that he was starting to feel very restricted and constrained in that role. No, because, again, he's a member of the younger cohort of conservatives where we've seen significant shifts in polling. And if you grow up after the or in the time of the global war on terror post-9-11, you probably do have a very different opinion. Your opinion on the country has been forged at a time where if you were previously supportive

and then start asking questions, and I'm speaking this as somebody who was sort of on a similar arc with Charlie. And I mentioned this on the show with Ryan last week, but for all of the differences that Charlie and I had over the years, after he started speaking out about the free speech stuff in particular, I had meant to send him a note. And I was going to send him a note. And I was trying to be sort of like trying to not make it look like it was fake or anything like that because I genuinely appreciated what he was doing. And obviously never got the chance to do that because there are so many of us that have just, you know, with, I think especially especially some of it is the fracturing in media and everyone's kind of media bubbles pop. I've talked a lot about this on the show and my own experience going along that arc. But I think a lot of people are in a similar position. And then being told you can't even ask questions, which is what he did at turning point when he hosted a debate between his friend Josh Hammer and Dave Smith. I mean, it's just insane that you get heat for hosting a debate and remaining consistent

on the question of free speech. And I just want to read one more portion here from the Gray Zone story because it's remarkable. Like, for me, as somebody in conservative movement world goes to a lot of these chicken dinners, they report, and some of this is sourced to a TPSA insider, but they report,

the Gray Zone was informed that Shillman announced the termination of contributions to TPSA during a private dinner of another organization he funds, the American Freedom Alliance, according to an attendee of the event, which was held in L.A. on September 6th, So not back in the summer, September 6th, Schilman stated that he would be ending his donations to Kirk, diverting them instead to reliably pro-loclude, lacude anti-Islam groups like the AFA, so the American Freedom Alliance.

That is remarkable. I have never seen anything like that at a conservative movement event. I've never seen anything like a donor coming out at a dinner, a banquet, and publicly announcing that they are routing money. they put into another organization that they enthusiastically supported for years. Making a public announcement like that, yes, it's a private dinner, but you're doing it in front of people in the public sphere, right?

You're out in Los Angeles at a banquet. That is remarkable. That is unheard of, as far as I'm concerned. I've been around a lot of these events. I've never, ever heard of anything like that happening. So these pressures were not just in the background. This is some serious, serious stuff. And something Alex Clark mentioned during the podcast conversation,

which I listened to all of it, was very interesting, is that she had recently, Charlie had recently told her, wow, this infighting on the right over Israel, this is real. These are real divisions, right? This is a real problem. And they didn't get to continue the conversation, but basically they had that discussion, that Charlie didn't think it was sort of a side show,

but that this was genuinely a problem facing the right. And you can see why when you have a long-time donor talking trash about your organization because of it's hosting a debate on Israel? I mean, this is like, this is crazy, crazy stuff. Well, in the context there that you're gesturing towards is that everyone else in the room would have already been read in on this controversy. Right. It would have been aware of it. It would have been applauding. Like, yes, you should be pulling your funding from TPUSA.

How brave of you. Thank you for funneling your dollars into consistently pro-locude outfits, et cetera. So this wasn't, as you said, something that was on the back burner. This was very much foreground for this group, at least, of, you know, significant Republican donors who all would have been aware of this controversy and aware of the ways that Charlie Kirk had apparently strayed from the pro-Israel, just like pro- Netanyahu no matter what line. And I do think it's just worth noting, like, like Colvatt said, Charlie, if you listen to him, he was very pro-Israel, right? He said things that about, I mean, he supported the genocide. Like, he said things I found to be morally outrageous about all of this. And yet the very fact that he would even have someone with the different view at the conference was like, they just, they are so sensitive to any break from the 100 percent.

we're on board with everyone everything we will never breathe the voice of criticism yes our enemies all need to be crushed and never heard from again if you deviate even one inch from that even if you're charlie kirk they will threaten you they'll pull your your funding you know and and like make an example of all of those sorts of things and so i think it's a really important glimpse of the pressures that are brought to bear on all sorts of people um especially i think right now people on the Right. I think they feel like the Democrats, you know, the activists and the Democratic Party are kind of by and large loss. Although I think at the elite at the politician level, that sort of pressure is still applied. But it's just an interesting autopsy of what it looks like to be inside the belly of the beast and the way that they bring pressure to bear on you that may not be, you know, obvious if you're just looking at it from the outside. The last thing we wanted to highlight here was just a kind of eyebrow raising comment that was all. also made by Colvette about the how they were able to work with their tech partners to identify hundreds of thousands of cell phones that came to attend Charlie Crook's Memorial Service. Let's go and take a list of this. And by the way, I'm going to break a little bit of news on your program, Jesse, our partners that do sort of geotagging with devices. They told us that they tracked over 277,000 devices in the vicinity of State Farm Stadium in

Glendale, Arizona, 277,000. So that just gives you an idea of the scale of humanity. I would like to know more about that, Emily. I am curious. There are places that you can go to get that information. I mean, that is an insane turnout. We're talking like Billy Graham level event, if not, if not more that happened in Arizona on Sunday. So I get why that is a stunning number. I am curious where that number comes from. Who are the tech partners? Let's know more about what you're doing with that information.

I mean, it's also just a commentary on how comfy he thinks society is at this point with just this kind of surveillance tech being used all the time by private actors, by the government, et cetera, that this is something to brag about on Fox News. Well, and I mean, I'm sure that they're like mostly interesting getting the number out there, but this was a thing about January 6th. If you remember, Crystal, Google basically turned over, I mean, a lot of data was turned over to track. And the right was really upset about this,

and I think understandably so. And some actually, civil libertarians more on the left were upset about it too, because the way without warrants, through various loopholes, the government was able to get this information on everybody who was near the capital was insane. And so, yeah, there are all kinds of ways to do this.

two really quick points just to wrap this all up. One, the people who are closest to Trump know that Trump respects you more if you, when you are sort of honest, that meaning like you're not pulling your punches in public. He loves the sort of fealty and loyalty that he gets from his cabinet, of course, because he knows that they have to support him at every step of the way. But he doesn't respect the people who act as Pravda. He's nice to them, right, but he doesn't respect them. But the people who are closest to Donald Trump know that it's okay to like come and do what Tucker and Charlie apparently did, which was ahead of the Iran strike, go and say, hey, here's what I'm thinking. I don't know about this. That's, I think, reflective, indicative of

Charlie Kirk being someone who is really in the Trump inner circle. And secondly, one of the other things Colette said on that podcast is that Charlie had started to get bored with politics and was more interested in ideas. Very interesting because I think he was leaning into this media, this media role as someone who is a commentator, not quite a journalist, but somebody who's a broadcaster. And, you know, like one of his heroes, a Dennis Prager or Rush Limbaugh who's like talking through the news instead of kind of doing organizing and activism. And I think, you know, we may have seen a very different direction or more of this from Charlie Kirk. Now, Crystal, Joe Rogan went into some of the theories about what may have happened with the assassin. I don't think there's any evidence of, while we're talking about, you know, Israel, obviously people have tied this into the various conspiracy theories about this assassination, having still some big questions that are unanswered. I'm not on the Israel did a bandwagon, but it's also worth talking about what was happening behind the scenes with donors because it tells us so much, as you said, about what's happening inside of the right right now. Yeah, it does. And also when Netanyahu immediately comes out

and inserts himself into our politics and claims Charlie as, you know, his own, I think that's something that needs to be discussed. And it fits with, you know, my view that I guess somewhat controversial, that it's important if you have a public figure who's killed or who dies to try to assess accurately who they were, what they stood for, what they believed, what they said, even when those things are uncomfortable. So there's a lot of reasons, I think, to be interested in the story and to find it very important from American politics outside of a, you know, conspiracy that Israel had a motive and Israel did it. Did Israel have a motive? I don't know, maybe, but did they do it?

At this point, there's no evidence to support that. Right. Well, we were, or as well, this is a girl show, everybody knows we went long, we could have gone longer. We even cut a segment that we moved to the Friday show because, as Crystal said during one of the breaks, quote, women be talking. It's not exactly what you said. Yeah, that's the sanitized version of what I said. Yes, that's right.

Well, it's always fun to hang out with you, Emily, and I enjoyed it very much. And tomorrow, like I said, it'll be me and Ryan for the commie takeover. So all sorts of flavors of show going on this week. Love it. It's like Baskin-Robbins, 32 flavors. Great stuff. Well, thanks everyone for tuning in. Thank you, Crystal, for joy to you guys.

This is Wednesday. I'm looking forward to the commie takeover. Maybe you guys will get it in under time. I don't know. We'll see. I'll be watching. I'll be timing you guys with my stopwatch. Ryan can Loki be a talker, too.

Oh, my gosh. But in the most... When he gets going? But you don't want him to stop, right? Like, he's... No, I'm not complaining. I'm just taking a fact, yeah. All right.

Well, looking forward to that tomorrow. Thanks for tuning in, everyone. Crystal and Ryan. We'll see you in just a bit on Thursday. I'm Jorge Ramos. And I'm Paola Ramos. Together we're launching The Moment, a new podcast about what it means to live through a time as uncertain as this one. We sit down with politicians, artists, and activists to bring you death and analysis from a unique Latino perspective.

The Moment is a space for the conversations we've been having us, father and daughter, for years. Listen to The Moment with Jorge Ramos and Paola Ramos on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I just normally do straight stand-up, but this is a bit different. What do you get when a true crime producer walks into a comedy club? Answer, a new podcast called Wisecrack, where a comedian finds himself at the center of a chilling true crime story. Does anyone know what show they've come to see? It's a story. It's about the scariest night of my life.

This is Wisecrack, available now. Listen to Wisecrack on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. In early 1988, federal agents raced to track down the gang they suspect of importing millions of dollars worth of heroin into New York from Asia. Had 30 agents ready to go with shotguns and rifles and you name it. Five, six white people pushed me in the car. I'm going, what the hell? Basically, your stay-at-home moms were picking up these large amounts of heroin. All you got to do is receive the package. Don't have to open it, just accept it. She was very upset, crying.

Once I saw the gun, I tried to take his hand and I saw the flash of light. Listen to the Chinatown Stang on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast.