The Young Turks - Most Powerful Musk

Episode Date: November 8, 2024

The IDF announces that Palestinians won’t be permitted to return to homes in northern Gaza. Trump names campaign manager Susie Wiles as his Chief of Staff. Elon Musk is described as the most powerful unelected man ever. Biden’s team reportedly attributes Harris’s recent loss to her own missteps, sparking frustration among Democrats who criticize Biden’s “arrogance.”" HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Until my 18th, get excited.

This is big. For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only dinner's July 18th. Welcome to the Young Turks.

Jake U Granix sparing with you guys, live from the Polymarket studio here in L.A. So now that the election is over, the dust is beginning to settle. So obviously one of the things that breaks out is the blame game. So that's coming. Fun for everybody. And then second of all, what's going to happen is we're going to find out what Trump's policy, well, it is policy team is going to look like. What is policy priorities are going to look like? Some of it is exactly what you would expect.

Some of it is super scary and maybe personally to me. So we'll find out about that a little bit. And part of the policy is Israeli policy. And that's what we're going to start with because it is now very clear now that Trump is won. on what they're planning to do. And as you'll find out, we were right about that too. So without further ado, no, well, a little bit of ado. Okay, no, no, no, I'm ready, I'm ready.

All right, let's get started on Gaza, which is unfortunately depressing news. Yes, so let's give you an update. An Israeli bombardment also reportedly damaged Kamal Adwan hospital in northern Gaza. That hospital is one of the last remaining functioning medical facilities in the northern Gaza Strip. It is clearer now than ever before that Israel will not allow Palestinian civilians to return to their homes in northern Gaza. They are clearing it out. And it's actually been announced that they will not allow Palestinians to return to their homes or what remains of their homes. Because as we know, the majority of the buildings in the Gaza Strip, the entirety of the Gaza Strip, have been leveled by Israeli forces, but in a media briefing on Tuesday night, the IDF

Brigadier General, Itzik Cohen, told Israeli reporters that since troops had been forced to enter some areas of northern Gaza twice, such as the Jabalya camp, there is no intention of allowing the residents of the northern Gaza Strip to return to their homes. Now, Cohen also said that humanitarian aid would only be allowed into the southern portion of the Gaza Strip, no humanitarian aid is allowed into the northern part. And he argues that there are no civilians left in northern Gaza. And while the international humanitarian law experts are arguing that this breaks all sorts of international laws, it's unlikely that anyone will do a damn thing about it, especially the Biden administration, which has stood by and

allowed Israel to do essentially anything and everything it wants in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon. But now Cohen is also arguing that his statements were taken out of context. An IDF spokesperson said, Brigadier General Cohen's commitments or comments, I should say. Brigadier General Cohen's comments had been taken out of context during a discussion about Jabalia and did not reflect the IDF's objectives and values. The spokesperson also said that the briefing had been on background and that the general should not have been quoted in Hebrew media reports that emerged. So in other words, we really didn't mean for this to get out.

And it's unfortunate that it did. Okay, so I'm gonna go ahead and believe that they're carrying out what's been shown to be carried out in northern Gaza. And we'll get to some of those, you know, details in a moment. But both the Israeli military and government have repeatedly denied that they're forcing Palestinians out of the northern Gaza area. Now we have evidence, rights groups and aid agencies have alleged that despite the denials, Israel appears to be carrying out a version of the so-called generals plan, something we reported on last month, actually, which proposes giving civilians a deadline to leave and then treating

anyone who remains as a combatant. Israel cut the territory into earlier this year by creating what it calls the Netsarim corridor separating what was once the densely populated Gaza city from the rest of the strip. In Tuesday's briefing, Cohen also confirmed that northern Gaza has now been split again to divide Gaza city from the more rural north. So that's 400,000 civilians that remain in northern Gaza, according to UN estimates. So to say that there no civilians left in northern Gaza is a lie. And the bombardments, the bombings, the military activity by the IDF continues in northern Gaza. And it's been devastating. We're going to get into that in just a moment. Jenk, first you jump in. Okay, so first of all, this general Cohen has

clarified the matter. It's exactly as we told you guys. That is textbook ethnic cleansing. We're going to remove everyone from northern Gaza, and then they're going to resettle it, and they're going to take it. That is, what this war has been about from day one. So, this whole thing about self-defense, it was never, ever, ever about self-defense. It was always a plan to take this land. In fact, the great legendary IDF, Mossad, Shindbet, et cetera, well, they knew about October 7. admitted that they knew about October 7, then they didn't do anything about it. Is it because they knew, oh, we need an excuse.

Oh, it was the Palestinians that made us slaughter them. It was the Palestinians who made us murder them and ethnically cleanse them so we could take more of their land for safety and breathing room. So look, there's no more excuses left, but I will preview this for you. Now soon the talking points will shift from, we are not going to take land, that is outrageous and anti-Semitic. How dare you say that too? Well of course we're going to take the land.

There's no civilians left there. All 400,000 are terrorists. When he says there's no more civilians left there, that doesn't mean there's nobody there. That means we're going to kill them all and call them terrorists. So remember what the most critical part of what Anna just read you is when the guy who said, Oh, no, the generals should not have said that, said, he said it in a background briefing. What that means is, it's not that he didn't say it, he did say it. It's not that he's not atop Israeli general he is.

It's not that we didn't mean it, we do. It's just that it wasn't supposed to come out. It was in a background briefing. We're not, we haven't shifted our talking points yet. Soon we'll have all of our propagandists all over television and Pierce Morgan, etc. and we'll have them telling you, of course we had to take the land. It's because of the terrorist, the terrorist. That's why we slaughtered all the civilians.

I don't even know why they bother lying. There's no, guys, there's no need for them to do so. That's the best point. Okay, it's not like by, hold on, it's not like Biden's going to do anything about it. Kamala Harris partly lost the presidential race because the Muslim American, Arab American vote dwindled due to the lack of willingness to commit to holding American, weapons as leverage to rein in what Israel is currently doing. So like, why, why even lie? I mean, the money to interest already bought up our politicians. You guys can do whatever you

want. You can commit any war crimes. The international community won't do a damn thing about it because, I mean, how could they? Israel is backed by the top military power in the country, in the world, and that's the United States, of course. So, I mean, we are currently funding the slaughter of so many innocent people. We are aiding and abetting a country, a government that's currently stealing land. And this is all happening under a Democratic administration's watch. say, we bought Joe Biden, we bought Kamala Harris, and we bought Donald Trump. What are you going to do about it? Nothing you go do about it.

Now that Trump's coming in, first of all, they announced this after Trump wins because they're like, oh, there's no rules left now. Boom, we're free. Well, why do you think that in Yahoo backed Trump? I mean, he has Biden and Kamala Harris completely under his control. Why did he bother backing Trump? Trump's more of a wild card. Because Biden and Kamala Harris are at least going to huff and puff before they let them

annex that land, right? It's not going to mean anything, Anna's right. I mean, they haven't stopped them 1% yet. And you think Joe Biden, they lost the election. He's free to do anything he likes. According to the Supreme Court, he can't even be held liable for anything he does, let alone normal, decent things to do like this, right? You think he's going to change?

He's not going to change 1%. But Trump, Net Yahoo thinks this, whether it's true or not, we're going to find out. Nanyahu thinks, oh, I made a deal with Trump. He's going to let me annex that land. He's not going to do anything about it. Great. I got to steal more land. And if you're a supporter of Israel and you're saying,

that's outrageous to say that they're stealing land. Then promise me that if Israel moves in settlers into that land and starts stealing it, that you're going to object. You're not going to, are you? Then you're going to shift to your new excuse of the Palestinian civilians are all terrorists, so they made us kill them and steal all of their land. I mean, safety, self-defense. Now you see all the goddamn lies.

And then Netanyahu fired Yoav Galant, his defense secretary. And that's because Galant was, we didn't want to go back to getting into occupying Palestinians, et cetera. He was a slight, Mary. It's not like Galant's a good guy. Galant carried out this genocide, right? But he's like, oh, you only want to do genocide and you don't want to steal all the Palestinian land and throwing them into the goddamn ground and murder them all. Okay, you're fired.

So, okay, congratulations. Now Trump's going to come in here and he's going to let Israel do whatever the hell he wants. Just like Biden. Let's be clear. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, Anna. But at the same time, why did Netanyahu back Trump? It doesn't matter. They're both the exact same when it comes to Israel.

Like nothing gets under my skin more than knowing like we've just, we've just witnessed Biden allowed Netanyahu to commit the most horrendous atrocities. And we're trying to pretend like Trump would be worse. How could it possibly get worse than this? They've been annexing the West Bank. Okay, here's who's not dumb. As much as I hate that evil guy, Nanjahou is not a sucker. He's not like, oh, golly, gee, I'll just back Trump, even though he's riskier for no reason.

No, he has a play. For whatever reason, Nanjahou thinks Biden and Kamala Harris would not have let him annexed that land. I guess, or maybe they would have drawn a line somewhere. Northern Gaza, southern Lebanon, a giant war with Iran. He thinks, Dan Nayao thinks, Trump is not going to draw any lines. He's gonna fund all of my wars, he's gonna let me attack Iran like nuts. He's gonna let me start a giant war in the Middle East, and he's gonna let me occupy and steal any Palestinian land I like.

And that is a fair assumption. That is a fair assumption. Is your assumption that Biden would stop him in doing any of that? Or Kamala Harris would stop him and doing any of that? No, because they've shown no inclination to do that, you're right, and that's why she lost Yeah, born Michigan by a two to one margin, like an idiot because she loves her donors so much. So I got no love for Biden and Harris who's fully funded this genocide. But I'm not saying that they've been great.

I'm saying that Netanyahu clearly thinks that Trump is going to let him do worse. That is definitely why this has started. But either way, it doesn't matter. Anna's right. Joe Biden's not going to stop this. You think he's going to cut the funding now or cut the weapons now that we know they're going to try annex northern Gaza? I mean, Joe Biden circumvented congressional approval to get more military aid to Israel without

congressional approval. Okay, like Biden has destroyed his legacy, this is his legacy, this is who Biden is. And Kamala Harris says that she wouldn't have done anything differently had she been elected president. So let me give you some updates on what's happening in northern Gaza. Let's put the B roll up so you can see the latest footage. of, you know, the beautiful skyline in Gaza. And of course, what I mean by that is it's been completely leveled.

There is no skyline. Every building gone, gone, gone. All right, so. You know, we use a term fascists in America. This is what fascists do. They destroy an entire area and murder people inside of it. Jesus Christ, if this isn't fascism, what is. Israel, are you proud?

Are you proud of the monsters you have become? Look at this place. Now they're going to murder everyone inside northern Gaza. Go ahead, Anna. 15 people were recently killed in an Israeli airstrike in the northern town of Bet Lahia. The director of the Kamal-Adwan hospital there posted a video showing patients fleeing the top floors of the hospital due to an Israeli strike and an artillery fire. On Wednesday, social media footage also showed waves of several dozen displaced people carrying their children. children and rucksacks and walking south through flattened areas of Gaza City.

And many told reporters and the Associated Press that they haven't eaten for days because of the lack of humanitarian aid that's reaching the northern part of the Gaza Strip. Now civilians are also getting killed in a rapid pace in Lebanon as well, let's not forget about that. Israel's war with Hezbollah now in its second month shows no signs of slowing or stopping. At least 30 people were killed in an Israeli airstrike on a residential building in Barja near Beirut on Tuesday night, with rescue efforts continuing into Wednesday. Many of those killed were women and children because of course they were, and that's according

to a local municipality employee. That same employee further stated that this was a civilian building in a civilian neighborhood. There were no indications of anything to do with Hezbollah or weapons. We don't know why they struck what we saw were women, children, and civilians that were killed. So this continues, I mean, the carnage continues. And I have no reason to believe that the Israeli government will feel hindered by the Biden administration or the upcoming second term of Donald Trump. And it's devastating to know that we Americans are the ones who, you know, whether we

we like it or not, are funding this, our government is supporting this, and that we as American voters don't even have an option in our electoral system for candidates that would maybe do something a little different in regard to our foreign policy to Israel. Okay, so last couple of things here, first I'll go to YouTube members. Count one said Kushner estates, remember Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump said that Gaza would make for a very good waterfront property and that they could make a lot of money if they just built beautiful tourist areas there. Of course, after they get rid of the meddlesome Palestinian civilians there.

And so right before the election, Jared Kushner announced that he is 100% against a ceasefire. There are no Hamas leaders left, they're all dead. There are no Hezbollah leaders left, they're all dead. There's nothing left to kill. But it doesn't matter, Kushner says no ceasefire because, count one, you're right. He's got buildings to build in there after the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is over. So that monster is coming back into office and they're going to be in great shape there. But, you know, again, to Anna's point, well, Biden's got three months left.

Why doesn't he say, I'm cutting all their funding? Why doesn't he do anything? And by the way, these are all like you'll see with your own eyes. You'll see that they will annex northern Gaza. They will resettle it. And that Trump will allow them. Trump will give them endless funding, and Jared Kushner will do his plans. And you will see that Biden will, in the three months he has left, will do absolutely nothing to stop them.

Because as long as the donors keep bribing these guys, they're genocidal maniacs. So if you think that Biden and Kamala Harris are moral people, you're going to be proven wrong in the next three months. They're not going to do anything to stop this. Anything you know, even though they lost. They have nothing left to lose, and Biden's nearly dead. It does nothing matters. slavish devotion to donors is unbreakable, totally unbreakable. And when Trump gets in, he's going to do the same or worse, and he's promised it.

He's apparently promised to the Nantenei, who certainly promises to the Adelson family that gave him $300 million over the course of these last three elections. So corruption in America is 100% complete. We're occupied territory. And well, don't mess with the Israelis. Maybe northern Gaza is coming to a place near you soon because there isn't anything they can't do because they have 100% both bought both parties. So Chutulu, another YouTube member, has the only solution left, says, yes, boycott Israel.

Of course, of course, what decent human being would buy Israeli products, send money to Israel? Travel to Israel to a genocidal state that revels in their fascism and their terrorism? And he's in the middle of stealing more land and starting more wars and MAGA guys. Okay, let's see what happens. Your beloved Trump, you told us 2,000 times over was anti-war. And that he was America first and he wouldn't fund all this. We're all going to get to find out together. And by the way, if Trump doesn't and he reverses course, Democrats, I'm warning you right now,

I'm going to give him a million percent credit. Because I don't give a goddamn if they're Republican or Democrat. Do you do the right thing or do you do the wrong thing? If Trump is actually anti-war and he doesn't fund Israel's genocide and ethnic cleansing. If he makes history as the first U.S. president who's willing to check Israel and not allow it to do anything and everything it wants, and I mean that. I know that there have been other Republican presidents in the past who have, you know, tweaked Israel here and there.

But if he actually pushes back significantly and ends this war, not just in Gaza, but in Lebanon as well, yeah, he deserves a lot of credit for that, but we'll see. Yeah, I will, and people will say, oh, no, you take him Trump credit for doing the right thing. Oh, God damn right, I can, but my guess is that's about a 5% chance and 95% chance. Trump's gonna go, money, money, because that's what corrupt, son of a bitch he is, just like Joe Biden, just like your beloved Kamala Harris, who says, greenlight the massacres. So good luck in America, your politicians are the most corrupt people on earth and they will let you, any foreign government, any corporate donor, kill anyone they like.

And do it with our money. All right, let's take a break when we come back. We'll talk a little bit about the role that Elon Musk is likely to play in Donald Trump's administration. All right, back on TYT, Jankana, with you guys. Give me a shout out to all these great people who donated or became members through tyt.com. M. Vikari, Cheesman, Photovidgal, Vinman, 2791, Domra 1, and Lady Fukunty. You guys are all awesome, appreciate you. For everybody, everybody gave 100, over 100 or over, I'll give you guys a call soon, okay, when I get a chance. Anna.

All right, let's get to our next story. A star is born, Elon. Now he is. Now he's an amazing guy. We were sitting together tonight. You know, he spent two weeks in Philadelphia and different parts of Pennsylvania, campaigning. Well, Elon Musk's $130 million contribution to Donald Trump's presidential race seems very likely to pay off, as the now president elect promises to reward Musk for the support by essentially including him in some role in the federal government.

Now, there's been some reporting on it. Some of the reporting was spurred by one excerpt in an Axios column, titled Behind the Curtain, the most powerful unelected man ever. And in it, the two columnists write that Musk is helping staff the top ranks of the incoming White House and will run an unregulated entity to recommend ways to cut and reorganize government. That sounds great. Okay, they didn't cite anything for that. I was curious, what are they specifically referring to? They talk about, you know, an unregulated entity. What is that entity?

I had to do a lot more digging since Axios reports in bullet points. And here's what I found. So Musk is in fact looking to cut regulations specifically to benefit his own businesses, which is the least shocking thing on the planet. In a CNBC piece, they report that Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnik said that he and Musk were co-founders of the envisioned department of government efficiency. And he asked Musk how much he thought could be cut from the federal budget, Musk answered at least $2 trillion, which is more than the federal government's discretionary budget of $1.7 trillion. Now, Musk didn't specify specifically what he sought to cut, but he did complain about specific government agencies for what he feels is their

regulatory overreach. And he specifically mentioned the securities and exchange commissions, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the FAA. Now, Musk intends to use this role to do away with the regulations that he finds too burdensome or inconvenient for his businesses. Musk also said during a Tesla earnings call on October 23rd, that he intended to use his sway with Trump to establish a federal approval process for autonomous vehicles. Currently, those approval processes happen at the state level. And he complained that there are too many IRS agents. And so that's obviously something that annoys him considering the fact that IRS agents ensure that everyone's paying their fair share in taxes. And so unclear if he is going to target the IRS, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is given a role and free reign to cut funding to various or cut various jobs within the federal government.

And then the final thing I want to just quickly mention is, you know, let's go to the last graphic here. reports that given the executive branch's outsized control over federal regulatory bodies, Musk can look forward to regulators and intelligence agencies winding down some or all of the 19 known ongoing federal investigations and lawsuits against Tesla, SpaceX, and X, formerly known as Twitter. So it seems based on the reporting that we have so far and based on his public statements, the things that he seems to be targeting are regulation. and potential government agencies that are cumbersome or regulatory or inconvenient for his own bottom line in his own businesses.

Yeah. So first, Anna, you said it's the least surprising thing. That's true for rational people who've been following this. But the right wing doesn't realize any of this. They think that Elon Musk is just looking out for them. Look, I don't know if they'll ever come to a rude awakening on that, or Elon Musk and Donald Trump will rob us blind for four years, take trillions of dollars from us, and then MAGA will be like, oh yeah, I love it, I love it, man, here, Elon, take more money, remind me, you only

have 250 billion, I need you to have 350 billion, please take my money, take my money, my kids shouldn't have it, etc. Look, I'm not saying they're going to do that. I don't, maybe at some point in the four years, they realize, oh, these guys are robbing us too, right? Oh, he deregulated every single agency that regulates his companies. Huh, he took money away from the IRS so they couldn't audit him so he could cheat on his taxes and we have to pay more taxes so he pays less, even though he's the richest man in the world and has over $200 billion. Is that thought ever going to occur to them?

I was on a right wing show and they're like, oh, aren't you in favor of Department of Government efficiency, that's like Doge, like the Doge coin, like the Bitcoin thing that he was doing. Isn't that amazing? I'm like, no, it's not amazing. The largest donor to a presidential candidate says, yeah, I will end all criminal investigations of me, all regulatory investigations of me. I will then defund anyone who could regulate me or any of my incredibly rich friends So they can break any law and rule and regulation that they like.

And then on top of that, we're not even going to pay taxes, you schmucks. We're going to make you pay the taxes, right? And so are they going to find that out? Are they ever going to know that? I don't know, probably because Tucker Carlson and all the other guys will tell them, oh, no, when Elon doesn't pay any taxes, that's good for you. It'll trickle on you at some point. So, okay, this is the Sheldon Aidelson model, but to be fair,

it's actually the originally the Koch brothers model, okay? Yep. Koch brothers, when they were stealing oil from Native American lands, they got caught, and they were in serious criminal trouble. And they realized after the 1970 Supreme Court decision had legalized bribery, oh, wait a minute, what if we just try to buy one of the senators or a couple of the senators? And one of the senators they bought was from their home state of Kansas. His name was Bob Dole. And so Bob Dole made that criminal investigation go away for them. And that was the beginning of the era of massive corruption where billionaires would just buy our government. So then Sheldon Aedelson had a giant problem because he bribed some people

in China. And he, and that's actually, what's hilarious is bribing people here through campaign contributions is not illegal. But it is illegal here to bribe foreign governments. So Aedelson had apparently done that in China. So he gave Trump $100 million. And when Trump got in, He's like, oh, this thing where you paid a $61 million bribe for a contract that must have been in the billions. Now we're estimating here and based on the fine that he was sent to pay in China, he made all of that go away for a tiny little $9 million fine for a multi-billion dollar project. So Sheldon Aidelson could have gotten to jail.

Instead, a little tiny little fine takes care of it. And you know where Sheldon Anderson makes most of his money and where most of his businesses are? China. So a guy who makes most of his money in China got a giant gift from Donald Trump because he gave him a campaign country, a lot of campaign countries. Now his top donor, he's like Sheldon Adelson. Oh, you got away with criminality? I'm going to do the same. You got all these goodies. I can list you, but it's in my book, Justice is coming. It's like half a chapter of all the things that Sheldon Adelson got for his bribes to Donald Trump. Legalized bribes now. So Elon's like, why don't I get it? I already get tons of subsidies from the government.

maybe I could steal a trillion from these guys. And besides which, I've manipulated half the country into thinking, I'm the good guy and that I'm the multi-billionaire looking out for their best interest. Right wing, he's laughing his ass off at you. The robbery has begun. I mean, the robbery has been happening. And there's like government corruption just gets worse and worse and worse. And you can, you know, Sheldon Aedelson's dead now, right?

but his wife isn't, Miriam Edelson bribed Donald Trump during his presidential campaign to the tune of $90 million. And that money talks. That money will certainly inform his decisions in regard to foreign policy in Israel. The only thing with Trump, though, is he seems to listen to his supporters way more than Democratic presidents do. So if he does have some faction of his base that pushes back against funding Israel, maybe he'll listen to them. That's literally the only possible good outcome. But overall, I mean, whether you're talking about Trump, whether you're talking about Biden, whether you're talking about the vast majority of politicians in America, they take

the money and they do as they're told. How exactly is that a democracy? When you ignore your base and what your base wants and instead carry out the best interests of the moneyed interests that have funded your campaigns. Yeah, 100%. So look, the whole system's corrupt. So when Trump gets in office, last thing on this, he will do all these things and yeah, the robespine, et cetera. And then people on TV will pretend that the robbery began when

Trump came into office. No, the robbery has been going on since 1978 when the Supreme Court and activist judges on the Supreme Court legalized bribery. The minute they said you can give unlimited campaign contributions, we were toast. The Democrats have been allowing this the entire time. The Republicans have been allowing this the entire time. Why do you think the Democrats were willing to lose Michigan and the entire election and fund Israel's war and genocide anyway because they are 100% controlled by the donors. But if you think Trump isn't, well, that's hilarious. And look, last thing on this, Anna, there's only, as Anna pointed out, there's only $1.7 trillion in all discretionary spending. So the most you could possibly cut, if you cut

the entire federal government, including defense, is $1.7. trillion. And Elon's like, I'm going to cut two trillion. Does anybody care about facts anymore? Or we're just in a fact-free world where everybody makes up something and then gets their cheerleaders to rush out there and go. Yay, yay, Elon, Elon, Donald Trump. Woo-hoo. Okay. We expect better of our politicians. We demand better. We do accountability here. And the Democrats get super pissed at us when we do accountability of Democrats. I'm so curious if in these next four years, a single person in right wing media is going to do accountability for their side. historic news. Let's let's get into who Trump is already, you know, staffing his administration

with. When it comes to chief of staff, the name Susie Wiles, if folks haven't become familiar with Susie, she was sort of the behind the scenes operator, co-campaign manager for Donald Trump the last two years. We've been used to palace intrigue stories when it comes to Donald Trump's campaigns in the White House. She was somebody here who very much allowed anybody that wanted access to Donald Trump to have that access. Some of the, you know, more of the right-wing provocateurs you could call them, but as well as sort of the mainstream conservatives, everybody who I have talked to over the last two years has been very happy with the role she played in not trying to keep anybody away from Donald

Trump, but allowing it to be sort of a big tent, not only a Mar-a-Lago, but on the campaign trail. This is pretty big news. Donald Trump has in fact named Susie Wiles as his chief of of staff. Now, of course, Donald Trump is president-elect. He won the 2024 presidential election. And this is big news, not only because we're learning details about what Trump intends to do once he's in office, but because she would be the first woman to ever hold the title of White House chief of staff. Now, Susie Wiles worked as a Republican consultant for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and played a key role along with Chris Lasavita in helping Trump win the 2024 presidential election. Look, she is smart and she's savvy and she's strategic.

She, along with Chris Lasavita, managed to rein in some of the more deranged characteristics of Donald Trump on the campaign trail. Not always, certainly, but she has been credited for professionalizing his 2024 presidential run, certainly in comparison to previous presidential runs. And so I've got a few more details about her in just a moment. But I got to ask you, Jank, do you think that Trump named a woman thus making history as having the first female White House chief of staff as like a middle finger to Democrats and what they were claiming about like, I'm wondering if that's why he did it. I mean, I think she's actually qualified for the job. She has delivered for him. So that definitely informed his decision. That might have been a small

part of it, Anna. But no, I think the main reason is because she got a win in the election and she earned it. And she is by all accounts enormously competent. And you don't see me saying that about anyone involved in politics much at all. And I'm not just saying that now, the Trump won. This just happened right before we got on air, which we pulled the tape for you I guess, we had a conversation about her about four to six months ago where we said, wow, Susie Wiles is doing a great job for Trump's campaign. Yes. You remember that?

Of course I do. Yeah. And so now why do we say that? Because we like Susie Wiles and we like Donald Trump and we want them to win? No, we're giving you honest analysis. We said, watch out. She's running a great campaign. I'm worried about it, right?

So she seems to be incredibly competent. The problem is that she's competent in the direction we're not happy with. So if she's as good at this job as she was as campaign managed for Donald Trump, watch out. So they will be able to get a lot of things done. And we're not in favor of any of those things. So, but it does make Mark Cuban's comment seem even more absurd. That's what I was referring to when I said, you know, is this like a middle finger to

Mark Cuban and the Democrats, you know. But even if it isn't a middle finger, Mark Cuban deserves. deserves one. I agree, yeah. Because at the time he made the comment, Susie Wiles was in the middle of running a great campaign for Donald Trump. And you've seen me tear into Trump time and time again, including in the last two stories we did. But did he pick a competent woman to run his campaign? Did he say, of all the people in the world, I'm going to pick a woman and not a man? He did. He did. Facts are stubborn thing. So a few more details about Susie Wiles. So in the 2023 federal indictment of Donald Trump

for mishandling the classified documents, a person was mentioned but not named. And that person was, you know, labeled PAC representative. And it turns out that that PAC representative was Susie Wiles. She was overseeing the pro-Trump PAC at the time. And basically, according to ABC News, sources have said that the person is Susie Wiles. After the indictment, ProPublica documented an increase in payments to Wiles and the hiring of her daughter as part of a pattern of other Trump staffers who have been subpoenaed as part of the investigation to Trump receiving significant financial benefits. She denied knowing that it was best practice for witnesses in an investigation concerning their boss or client to not appear like they're receiving

special treatment and denied ever taking talking to Trump about her testimony in that investigation regarding the classified documents case. Look, I agree with you. I think that Trump chose her specifically because of the fact that she helped him run a better campaign this time around. She also helped Ron DeSantis run for governor in 2018, and obviously he won. They later had a falling out because of the fact that Trump had a bit of a tiff with Ron DeSantis. So she was let go by Ron DeSantis. So, you know, there's all this politics involved in that. But at the end of the day, she delivered for Trump.

And I think that is what informed his decision to choose her as a White House chief of staff. The question is, though, will she be able to rein in his more destructive characteristics in the White House the way that she was able to, while he was on the camp? campaign trail. Yeah, so that's such a critical question because part of that answer is definitively no. The question is if the other half is a yes or no. So will she be able to get them to stop saying crazy things? No chance. That's not possible. There's no force on earth can contain Donald Trump from saying unhinged things, okay? So that, but that's not that important. What's important, like that, that horse is already out of the barn and you're never gonna put it back in. Like, oh, he's spreading fear and hatred, et cetera. Yeah,

he's gonna keep on spreading it. There's nothing you can do about it. He won, okay? So the question is, will she be able to rein him in if he suggests doing something maniacal in office? So I'll give you an example. In his first term, he suggested to his staff that we 10x our nuclear arsenal, okay? He said, go do it. That would bankrupt the country. It's not even close, that's the most expensive thing you could possibly imagine. His staff ignored him, and because it was a ridiculous request, and that's the famous meeting that his secretary state at the time, Rex Tillerson comes out of and goes, this guy's an effing morrow. I have a procedural question about that, though. So if the president says, I want a 10x our nuclear

arsenal, okay? Is he able to unilaterally do that without Congress? Because you would need funding to do that. No, you would have to set up a plan, hey, or we got to go to Congress, how we're going to go to Congress, what can we do with executive orders? What do we need legislation for? I mean, that's a whole giant process normally, right? But they didn't even do first step one of it, and Trump didn't even notice because he's not that bright, right? So, and I can give you a dozen more examples like that.

So in the case like that, the Susie Wiles go, yes, sir, we will now increase the nuclear arsenal tenfold because you're anti-war. And then go proceed to bankrupt the country and be really good and competent. in doing that? Or will she find a way to make sure that we don't do something nuts, right? If she finds a way of assuaging Trump, but preventing things that are nuts, then great, that I'm happy that we have a, you're not going to get a good person that you love and is not corrupt as Trump's chief of staff. That's not in the equation. So what's in the equation is lunatic or non-lunatic, competent or not competent, right? Yeah. So overall, given that she seems

to live in this reality-based world to the best of our ability to discern it from the outside, not a bad pick. He could have picked like, you know, Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump Jr. He could have picked Bozo one or Bozo two, right? In fact, Susie Wiles and Chris LaSavita convinced Trump to get rid of Cory Lewandowski during the 2024 presidential campaign, which is a good sign. Again, reiterating, you know, it's not that we agree with that. policy wise, but there's the Corey Lewandowski's and then there's the, you know, Susie Wiles who's been a consultant for Republicans since the late 1970s. You get what I mean, they're two different types of Republicans.

Yeah, last two things here, downside and upside of this story too. So one of the downsides you should know is these guys and Susie Wiles is part of it. For sure, as Anna partly explained there, and Kellyanne is a part of it. is this whole industrial complex we're going to explain and omit to lobbying industrial complex that is already picks up the trough ready to dive in and just take, take, take everything from the federal government for all of Trump's donors, right? Susie Wiles will be very competent in executing that and make sure that they rob us as cleanly and efficiently as they possibly can.

So don't get excited like, oh yay, Susie Wiles, no, no, she will make sure that they take every nickel that the U.S. taxpayers have. So that's the downside, okay? But one other upside is of Trump, and yes, I just said that. He has 200 downsides, but one of the upsides is he likes things that are demonstrably good for him, okay? So Susie Wiles, you won me the election? Okay, I promote you to chief of staff, okay? So if things make him unpopular, it's possible that he'll go, now, I don't like that. I fire you, right? Oh, you made me more popular. I like that. I keep you, right? So that's your only hope here. And if you're, if that's your hope, having someone who is not deranged as chief of staff is not such a bad thing. So that's your mixed record on Susie Wiles.

All right. We got to take a break. When we come back, we've got some updates on how delusional the Biden administration is about his chances of beating Donald Trump. It's, still happening. All right, we'll be back. guys are amazing. Thank you for supporting honest programming and thank you for believing in a little bit of optimism and hope. We're going to try to fight back. We've got a populist point to do that. We had it before the election because we knew either way, the donors were still going to be in charge. So let's form a voting block that can make a difference. So go sign

that if you can at t.com. And Chaplain Fred, thank you for gifting five memberships. Anna. The internal war among Democrats is heating up. Let's get a little taste of it. The question was, President Biden, what were you thinking ever running for re-election? Must be clear. If Biden had stayed in the race, as Summer said, oh, maybe you should have stayed in him. He almost certainly would have done worse than Harris. So for anyone suggesting that the Democrats lost because Biden dropped out, that is a fantasy. The issue is that Biden probably never should have run in the first place.

While many in the Democratic Party and even members of Kamala Harris's own team lay a lot of blame on Joe Biden for the electoral loss that Democrats experienced this week, turns out that the president's own team is actually pointing fingers right back at them. So according to Biden's biographer Franklin Four, some of his closest confidants are still under the impression that, If Biden had just stayed in the race, Democrats would have been victorious. He would have been elected for a second term. And in a piece for the Atlantic titled why Biden's team thinks Harris lost, Four writes that members of Biden's clan continue to stoke the delusion that Biden would have won the election and some of his advisors feared that he might publicly voice that deeply misguided view.

Now, four says that Biden's advisors were reluctant. to say anything negative about Harris, but Biden advisors did level critiques at her campaign based on the months they'd spent strategizing and anticipation of the election. Embedded in their autopsies was their own unstated faith that they could have done better. Now, look, I think some of the critiques are on the note, like they're right. Kamala Harris was doing okay, in the beginning of her campaign. Yes, part of it had to do with the excitement, but part of it also had to do with her message.

And then she changed her message to a pro business, more moderate message in regard to economic policies. So let's just show that Trump was clearly ahead in the polls when Biden was in the race. So before I get to some of this other stuff and go to you, Jank, like let's take a look at this. The New York Times poll on the day that Biden dropped out, had him losing by three points nationally,

and getting wrecked in the battle ground states. Let's take a look at the other. Wrecked. Absolutely. A New York Times Sienna College poll found Trump was ahead of Biden by six percentage points among likely voters and eight points ahead among registered voters. And then on top of which, let's look at the other graph here. In a July Gallup poll, Biden received a 36% job approval rating from the American people, and that was his lowest ever. The majority of Americans, 58% disapproved of the job that Biden was doing. So it remains to be seen how Biden or his staffers could think that he would have won this election.

Right now, his popularity has ticked back up slightly to an underwhelming 41%. So, Jank. Yeah. So fair show in America. So I'm actually going to give a tiny bit of credit to the Biden staffers in a minute. Okay, but first, a lot of discredit. So I want you to notice in the first thing that Anna read, you guys. guys, the Biden advisors are split. Half of them are saying, please don't say it out loud that we would have won.

That's really embarrassing. Don't do that. It'll just make it worse for your legacy because they're trying to look out for, right? So I don't know which ones are which, so I don't know who to give credit to on that side. But the other half are the diluted ones. So we're like, oh, we would have won. Remember the garbage comment that Biden made, you know, four or five days before the election? If you watch that whole clip, it's not just that he called Trump supporters garbage, I think, by accident.

But he's like, and then what rally, Puerto Rico? It was a disaster. He can't speak anymore. Yep. He would have fallen apart at the seams. He might have lost, I think he would have lost about 40 states. He might have lost them all because he couldn't speak at that. You can't vote for a guy who you know with absolute certainty is seen on, right?

So, and losing by eight nationally? Come on. Losing by seven points and it would have only gotten worse, not better, because every time he came out to speak, imagine they would have done another debate? No, but that's, come on. That delusion is what kept him in the race. First of all, that delusion led him to run for reelection in the first place, which he should not have done, okay?

That delusion led him to remain in the race as long as he did, thus depriving Democratic voters of an opportunity to engage in a robust primary process and pay. a candidate that they wanted rather than a candidate who was anointed. And look, who knows, it might have ended up being Kamala Harris. I doubt it, but there's a possibility. But if it had happened the right way, she would at least have the opportunity to run a full campaign as opposed to a last minute, there's only a few months left campaign that was a disaster, okay?

There were a few highlights, a few good moments from Kamala's campaign, but honestly, I can count them on one hand. In reality, she pivoted and she pivoted real hard to an unpopular message and she wouldn't get off of it. So that was the critique that, you know, some of these Biden staffers had and I want to get to that. Are you ready for that? Yeah, no, one more thing here.

So notice that the Biden staffer said they could have done better. So that's their ego talking. They're like, oh, it doesn't matter who the candidate is anyway. We always use these corporate robots. Hey, will you do everything to don't say yes, they're absolute. Okay, you're good enough. Just bring out the widget in the assembly line. Biden, Harris, whatever they're called, whatever the races, who cares, right? Because the advisors think that they're in charge. And so they thought, well, we would have run a better race and we would

have won. Yeah, but brother, the candidate matters. And besides which, how are you doing that so far? I mean, you were doing disastrously. It's not like you were up by eight when Kamala Harris took over. You're the rocket scientists who were down by eight. Yeah. Right. So now, Now, nevertheless, to be fair to whoever it is on whichever side, some of the Biden advisors apparently knew exactly what Kamala Harris was doing wrong and they're right about that. So in the beginning, you know, not only did she have a more economic populist message, she would go after corporate greed, which did play well with Democratic voters. But as the critics are now saying, she made a mistake by getting off of that message.

Harris began the campaign portraying Trump as a stooge of corporate interests and touted herself as a relentless scourge of big business, while Harris was stuck defending the Biden economy and hobbled by lingering anger over inflation, attacking big business allowed her to go on the offense. So the fact that they recognized that going populace and attacking big business was a right strategy is shocking. So apparently there's like maybe one or two smart Democrats on on earth, at least in leadership. What's shocking about it. What's shocking about it is that they know that that messaging works and they don't deliver on it once. Like that that bothers

me, right? A hundred percent, but not only that. And maybe Biden prevented that maybe he's the source of the problem. But it's not like Biden while he was in the race. He was in a race for a long time. It's not like he ran an anti big business campaign at all. So apparently those advisors, whoever they are, did not win the argument internally in the Biden team anyway. Now, then they talk about the pivot, right? Then quite suddenly, it's not really that sudden when you think about the billionaire money flowing into her campaign coffers. But then quite suddenly, the strain of populism disappeared. One Biden aid told me that Harris steered away from such hard-edged messaging at the urging of her brother-in-law, Tony West, Uber's chief legal

officer. To win the support of CEOs, Harris jettisoned a strong argument that deflected attention from one of her weakest issues. Instead, the campaign elevated Mark Cuban as one of its chief surrogates, the very sort of rich guy she had recently attacked. And at the end of October, the New York Times reported that Harris had campaigned four times with Liz Cheney stumping with her more than with any other ally. She appeared more in October with the billionaire Mark Cuban than with Sean Fane. Obviously, that's the president of the United Auto Workers and one of the nation's most visible labor leaders. Because F labor, right? Like, yeah, you guys nailed it. So that analysis by whoever the Biden advisors were exactly correct.

It's amazing. Yet no Democrat actually does it. So now more on that. Her sister ran her 2020 campaign, which turned into a disaster. So here she is again. Oh, I'm going to go to family. Oh, in this case, it's a guy who's basically a glorified lobbyist, his or her brother-in-law. Oh, you think that big business should get everything. Oh, well, okay, I will listen to you, family member who's a lobbyist and and I will funnel and I will run my campaign saying big business is great. I love corporate CEOs. She bragged so much about that letter of the 90 corporate CEOs who backed her and in every appearance. They're like all the CEOs are on ours and what happened to be anti big business? When she was anti big business guys, we showed

you this on the show day to day. Her numbers went up, up, up, up. She was up five points nationally. she had it. At one point she got a poll that had her up seven points nationally. That was comfortable enough to win the electoral college. And I said, oh my God, if we had the, I said, do you remember? I said, I wish the election were today because then she would win. From that point, she listened to her dumb ass corrupt brother-in-law, and she turned around and went in a pro-corporate pro-donor direction, and it cost us everything. So whose fault is it that we lost the election? Biden or Kamala Harris. Both of them? Exactly. It's a trick question, guys. It's both. Biden handed her a devastating deficit in terms of the polling. She climbed out of it by running a populist campaign, a gigantic miraculous comeback. And they're like a moron. Oh, no, you can't say that about a Democratic leader. We all have to cry for Kamala Harris. No, why doesn't she take personal responsibility? Why is it the voter's fault and not the candidate's fault?

Democrats expect better from your candidates. And the same goes for Joe Biden, who again, I want to repeat, should not have run for a second term. And Corrine Jean-Pierre was asked about this, of course that's the White House press secretary, about this whole situation, you know, who should take responsibility, who gets the blame. Let's listen to what she has to say. A lot of criticism in the last couple of days directly addressed at President Biden for some of the questions that have already been asked. running in the first place or not stepping aside faster. Some of that criticism has also been directed at his team

and the advisors around him for advising him to do what he did. Can you address that criticism? To do what he did, meaning... Running again, not stepping aside faster, and showing what some people say, quoting folks here, in arrogance of believing he was the only one who could beat Donald John. I mean, well, you said, something at the end that I do want to just kind of reiterate and remind folks. And it was a good

reminder to me, which is like, look, the president, this is the president who has been the only person has been able to beat Donald Trump. I mean, that is true. In 2020, he was able to do that. There were more than 20 candidates who tried to beat him. And they, he was the one that has been able to do that. There was a, there was a cover up in regard to Joe Biden's mental decline. Okay, let's let's stop. The election's over. So let's stop like, you know, walking on eggshells because people are going to get upset. I don't care how upset people get. Okay, there was a cover up by the Democratic Party in regard to Joe Biden's mental decline. Okay, as a result of that, I mean, they just sat around and allowed this guy to run for reelection, knowing what a freaking

risk that was. I mean, they're running around talking about what a threat Donald Trump is, as they are carrying out an egregious cover up. And we're, anyway, I just, the Democratic Party is super lost right now. Okay, they are, and they're gonna keep losing elections if they keep, you know, engaging in this ridiculous hive mind and not taking personal responsibility for the cover up itself, the failure of the Harris campaign, the corruption that has completely taken over the Democratic Party, if none of that changes, there's no reason to support Democrats. What have they been offering us, Jank?

I know. So listen, I don't want people thinking we're Monday morning quarterbacking because right now that's what everybody's doing. Everyone who said Biden was going to win, now he's blaming Biden. Everyone who said Kamala Harris was going to win is now playing the blame game. We told you this about a year ago. Now I'm going to show you this tape. And you know we started this because right now what these people who are yelling at us

are saying is, oh, you know what? Biden should have stepped down from the race over a year ago so that we could have a real primary so we could pick the best candidate. Gee, I wonder who's been saying that for the last year. So let's show you the tape C2. I'm tired of these guys. We're doing a petition. And so, look, the petition is get out. I put it a lot more politely than that because a lot of people love Joe Biden for whatever reason. They just think he's too old and he's going to lose. I 100% agree that he's going to lose. So we're doing a petition, President Biden, please drop out. You're gonna send in a hobbled candidate who's 80 and looks like a wounded antelope,

who 67% of Democratic voters say, we don't want them. We don't want them. The guy's got to go. That was in September of 2023. September of 2023. Okay, I just, and I remember people being real upset with us, so angry. Oh, you're hurting the Democratic Party. Because God forbid, political pundits do their job, right?

I get it, I get the people expect you to actually be an operative for one party or the other, okay? That's not what we do here. We give our analysis. And the fact that that's what you were saying on air in September of 2023 and it would take him nearly a year to finally drop out of the race is infuriating. The cover up was happening the whole time. But we were the bad guys, right? I just, it's so ridiculous. So I'm sure though, all those pundits that are saying you should have dropped out in September of 2023 are going to come apologize. to us for yelling at us at the time and for a whole another year, right? And by the way, because of, I couldn't believe he wasn't dropping out.

An act of desperation, as you all know, I ran in the presidential primary against them. A couple of the URLs that I bought were Biden's going to lose.com, wounded antelope.com. Okay, so this was so obvious as every liar on TV and every liar in the Democratic Party was lying to you guys about how great a shape Joe Biden was in. So last thing I'll read you guys is, so they, you know, we talked about Liz Cheney and they decided to go with the corporate CEOs and the Liz Cheney strategy because it was such a genius move because they were going to get the Republicans of the suburbs. Remember? Oh yeah, it's all. They were going to get the moderate Republicans. It always works. So let's see how that turned out. Let's go to Andrew Perez writing in

Rolling Stone. Harris only received 5% of Republican votes. Less than 6% Joe Biden won in 2020 when he beat Trump as well as the 7% won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 when she lost to him. Nailed it. Oh, we're gonna get all those Republicans. They love the Cheney's. And we're going to get so many Republicans. We don't need progressive votes. We don't need to do the right thing. We could still kiss our donor's ass and win because the Republicans love us. How'd that turn out for you? Remember the next time they lie to you, how much they lied to you this time. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back for the second hour of the show, we're going to get into what motivated

Latino voters to support Trump over Harris. There's some really interesting new reporting on this, so don't miss it.