4/11/25: Dollar Plunges, SCOTUS Orders Return of Deported Man, Douglas Murray Beclowned By Dave Smith

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Happy Friday. Everybody. Take a look. We got everybody in
the house. Nice to see you guys.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Wow, nice to see right. Oh well, thank you.

Speaker 3 (00:11):
No.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
I appreciate we had to move some things around, but
definitely had to be here.

Speaker 3 (00:17):
Now.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
I just have a very rigid I ariginly have a
really very rigid schedule, and as you guys know, with
my sleep sleep schedule and other things, I'm very reluctant
to move things around. But sometimes that's what that's what things,
that's what things get called for here.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
Yeah, well there's a lot of things going on, uh
what many market moves that are kind of disturbing, and
China's announcing new tariffs, and so we'll take a look
at that stuff. We've got big Supreme Court, unanimous Supreme
Court decision last Friday. We actually talked to the lawyer
for Kilmar Abario Garcia. He is the immigrant who was

(00:51):
wrongfully the administration even admitted wrongfully sent to that person
at El Salvador. The question was whether or not they
would have to do anything to come back. In the
Supreme Court, in a nine to o decision, says you
have to in this word is key facilitate his return
so really significant there. We're also getting a look at
the government's quote unquote case against Mockmood Khalil, which is

(01:14):
revealing in the many things it doesn't say and doesn't argue.
So we'll take a look at that, and then SAGERA
in particular, very very interested in this Dave Smith Douglas
Murray debate on Joe Rogan. You want to give a
little previous Sager.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
I'm I'm heated, you know, I, as I said, I've
got my schedule, you know, I'm at the gym ready
for my cardio, and so I see this thing flash
on my Spotify. As you know, Douglas Murray can't really
I don't really like the guy, but I'll decide it
within the first ten minutes. I'm I'm so, I'm texting, Dave,
I'm tweeting. I'm fury. My entire workout has been screwed

(01:48):
up and I'm enraged. I had to sit there and
just work out. Oh I did afterwards, Yeah, afterwards, because
my blood was so it was so hot over this
entire thing. It was ever characteristic. And have been so
reluctant to enter this so called woke right debate because
I find it so tedious and annoying. Emily, I'm sure
you find it similarly, But this is the best example

(02:10):
to me of somebody who is, you know, double standards
all of the tropes of actual wokeism, like in terms
of lived experience and ad hominem attacks and expert you know,
trolling or whatever, when you yourself are not even and experts.
And we'll get to it, but yeah, I'm excited about it.

Speaker 1 (02:29):
I guess I'm just like, I don't know how it's
even a debate at this point about the quote unquote
woke right, Like, how is that even a debate? I mean,
and they've crazy further than the craziest wokesters could have
ever imagined with regard to like using the apparatus of
the state to achieve their goals.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
Yeah, but the thing is, Crystal is, as you understand it,
the people who are pushing it, like Douglas are the woke, right.
The crazy thing is they're the ones who coined the
term for people who are against or not even against
who want They're the ones who coined the term for
people who are like, hey, like maybe we can talk
about Israel or Ukraine immigration immigrant. I don't understand if

(03:04):
they are the ones who created it, they're like and
that's that's actually part of what makes it so maddening.
And like I said, I don't generally engage with like
low IQ individuals like James Lindsay, but you know, just
like just the other day, just yesterday he tweeted and
he was like, gosh, they're calling Douglas Murray and neo
Khon And I'm just like, am I the only person
who reads books or like knows anything anymore? Because he

(03:25):
wrote a book called neo Conservatism Why we need It?
And it's like in Europe, right Ryan, Like you know,
for you've been in this game while what you know,
if someone was like, hey, Douglas Murray's neo khon, you'd
be like, yeah, we know, bro. She told us things.
He told us that I read that book Incer Soccer.

Speaker 1 (03:49):
You're you're very animated this morning. Your mic is still
like peaking a little association.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
I'm sorry, Okay, all right, I'll turn it down.

Speaker 4 (03:57):
He needs like a Douglas Murray James Lynn a button
on his microphone when he gets mad, he hits.

Speaker 1 (04:03):
That great and then we go to the proper setting to
bring back our tones. Okay, all right, well, with all
that's being said, let's get to the markets. I'm just
gonna pull up the CNBC main page now so we
can see it's nine to fifteen am. Market to open
in fifteen minutes. We can take a look at the futures.
So also this headline has been important. Jamie Diamond says

(04:23):
he expects S and P five hundred earnings estimates to
fall as companies pull guidance. And apparently Jamie diamond like
basically runs the country since he's the one that Trump
allegedly listened to about the potential for the potential for
a recession. You can see here up at the top though,
futures basically flat at this point. But saga, let me
let me throw it to you a little bit here

(04:44):
for what we saw yesterday, you know, originally obviously Trump
makes his announcement. Okay, we're keeping the terrace on China.
What are they now? One hundred and forty five percent? Yes,
but we're rolling back other terriffs to quote unquote just
ten percent except for Canada and Mexico, which you're staying
with whatever they were before. Markets get really excited. There's
a huge gain one of the largest single day gains

(05:05):
in history, and then the next day looked very different,
so a lot of those gains rolled back, and then
overnight we were seeing some really troubling indications in terms
of bonds, in terms of basically the world being like,
you know, I don't know if the US economy is
really the place where we want to put our money
with any regards. So Sager, why don't you go ahead
and speak to a little bit of that.

Speaker 2 (05:26):
Yeah, sure, is my mic. Ok Now, I'm talking a
little biteah about better. Okay, all right, sorry sales guy.
Apologize everyone. I'm still a boomer in terms of my
home setup. Yeah, the dollar, there's been some major selloff
in the dollars. Actually, one of the most important things
that's happening, aside to the bond market, the dollars at
one of its lowest levels for international currencies, including in
the European Union. This is not necessarily like de dollarization,

(05:50):
but it is generally like a loss of confidence and
reserve currency. I don't want to overstate the case, but
obviously with trade instability, that's going to be a big
part of it. The bond market continues to be a
big problem and The funny thing is it wouldn't be
as much of a problem if the administration had not
said from day one that their stated goal was too

(06:12):
lower the yield on the ten years, specifically to try
and reduce the amount of debt servicing that would require
from the federal government. And so the fact that the
bonds have spiked in terms of the yield, and actually
even the ninety day reduction did not have any general
reaction on the price basically means that the administrations the

(06:34):
administration strategy is failing on all fronts. From the bond strategy,
we also have like this attempt to try and what
is it. The attempt is to try and isolate China
with the rest of the world. So not only do
we still continue to have the ten percent tariff, but
we're actually starting to see some interesting deals getting cut, right,
So you could see there that you brought it back
about the long term yields. But I actually think one

(06:56):
of the more interesting stories is about this European Union
side deal that's been cut with China. So actually the
last twenty four hours has been very clarifying for US markets,
and that's why I don't really think it's a surprised
that we saw such a significant reduction overall yesterday. And yeah,
as you said, it's nine to fifteen here on the
East coast. We have a general decent idea of where
things are, and the S and P basically is flat

(07:17):
to yesterday. So you know, the total bump quote unquote
from the ninety day pause, it's like maybe four to
five percent. I mean, don't forget, we're still almost what
fifteen seventeen percent down from the all time high on
the SP five hundred and the day. There's still some Yeah,
there are the deals, right, part of the deal Ryan.

Speaker 1 (07:35):
One of the things this morning, so China announced they're
lifting tariffs to I think one hundred and twenty five percent.
But they also said, and I think this is part
of why futures are basically flat up a little bit.
They also were like, that's all we're doing, like whatever
Trump does, like we're just staying here. We're not doing
this whole tip for tat thing. And so I don't know,
I guess that's giving people comfort of like, well, I

(07:56):
guess it's not going to get worse than it already is.
But I also saw I think Wisenthal was tweeting that
the the like discount store five and below canceled from China.
Five below, Yeah, five below, you can't below. It's I
have to say, they have some kind of cool stuff
in there.

Speaker 2 (08:14):
Anyways, you ever need a gift, like a white elephant
gift or something, It's a great place to go. I've
bought a lot of stupid ship from there before.

Speaker 5 (08:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (08:21):
But anyway, I'd love for you to talk a little
bit about the China dynamics here, because, uh, I feel
like there's a lot of overconfidence among the leadership of
this country that we're positioned to win a trade war
with China whilst also fighting trade wars apparently with the
rest of the world.

Speaker 6 (08:38):
I don't know where that confidence comes from. China has basically,
you know, all of the cars as Trump as Trump
likes to put it, like, they have every they have.
They have the treasuries, they have the manufacturing capacity, they
have the supply chains. We buy things from them, like
that's that's our entire leverage. And if they can find audiences,

(09:03):
consumer bases for that for that manufacturing capacity, then we're screwed.
And so they're they're already pivoting domestically they have a
billion plus people. They're trying to grow their domestic consumer base.
They're you know, there's the European Union, There's there's Southeast
and South Asia. You know they have uh, they have
they have political problems with all of these different entities

(09:25):
of various ranges, but nothing like what they have all es.
So it makes it makes their differences with Southeast Asia,
you know, pale in comparison to US. And just so
people understand the the profound implications of these of these
yield numbers going up. I remember when I was taking
the Series seven, like twenty five years ago or whatever,

(09:46):
one of the you know, the on the bond side.

Speaker 1 (09:47):
How did you take the Series seven?

Speaker 2 (09:49):
I was a broker.

Speaker 1 (09:52):
Yeah, when have you looked like eight lifetimes right out
right out of college, you have two thousand, two thousand,
two thousand and one.

Speaker 2 (10:02):
So the dot com crash got you out of the business,
got it?

Speaker 6 (10:05):
I was Yeah, I was there while it happened. Basically,
it was actually I got there a little bit after.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
Not that's wild.

Speaker 6 (10:11):
That's my first article ever. Yeah, my first article ever
was an expose a of the place where I worked
actually hire this man, which was a It was a
mobbed up shop and they're they're like, uh, they're going
to kill you for this. I was like, no, they're
not going to kill me, and they didn't kill me.
But on the series seven they think this is a
key thing that there's a seesaw effect with bond prices

(10:35):
and interest rates. When bond prices go up, interest rates
go down. When bond prices go down, interest rates go
up because when you need to entice people with a
higher interest rate to get them in, and so it's
supply and demand. When there's more demand for a bond,
the price of it goes up, and so when people

(10:56):
sell stocks, they move money. This is the orthodox. When
people sell stocks, they move money into bonds. Because there's
now more people trying to buy bonds, the price comes
up and the interest rate goes down. And that was
what the Trump administration was counting on, that if you
tank the stock market, you drive up the price of bonds,

(11:17):
and then you reduce the interest rate, and then boom,
we can when we roll over all of our debt our,
debt payments are going to go down. But something broke.
The orthodoxy is not working. People sold out of the
market and they're going somewhere else. They're also selling their
bonds Japan's as.

Speaker 1 (11:36):
A lot of it is into gold. By the way,
gold prices are going up and up, So I mean
there's a.

Speaker 6 (11:41):
Lot going on there looking for equities around the world too,
somewhere other than the US that they can so we
are screwed.

Speaker 5 (11:49):
Well.

Speaker 4 (11:50):
So, I mean throughout the week I have been, I've
probably had a different take from you guys, and that
I've like, this stuff is so hard to predict it
to the point that Ryan just made it's kind of
like jury's all out. And I think Sager just said
the last twenty four hours have been clarifying. That is,
I mean, what we're starting to see is maybe this
isn't a surprise, but the Trump administration said this is

(12:12):
going to be a bet. We're gonna as we do
this ninety day pause, we're going to just jack up
the China tariffs. And this is going to force countries
and Wisenthal pointed this out, like Cambodia and Vietnam to
choose finally, between the United States and China. Nobody can
have it both ways anymore, and so this is going
to bring a rash of investment back into the US

(12:32):
and it's going to be great. Everyone's going to be happy.
And I do think there's just been a lack of
evidence of any of that happening. You know, it's not
like that's not shock, you're controversial, but they are not
able to point to very many examples. And this is
something we saw this in a CNN Wasn't this a
CNN panel last night, where like actually pointing to examples

(12:53):
of how this has panned out over the last week,
like investments that have actually come into the United States,
deals with those seventy five countries that have actually been struck. Listen,
I'm still open to hearing great deals are coming through
with these countries because we do have the leverage over
things like the EU. But they can also just decide
to go to China.

Speaker 1 (13:13):
And if you that's already happening, it's already happening, and
think about it. But like, if that's the bet you're
going to make, okay, then why are you running around
the world like insulting everyone needlessly and you know, picking
fights with Denmark and sending jd Vance to like shake
his finger at the Europeans for their censorious ways, which

(13:35):
there's some legitimate critiques there, but then you know you
have no room to talk given what you're doing back home. Right,
And so if okay, if you wanted to do this intelligently,
which Sager was saying, this is like, in some ways,
I hate even indulging an intelligent conversation about this because
there is no intelligence behind this.

Speaker 5 (13:52):
Right.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
If you wanted to do this intelligently, and you wanted
to force the world to pick between you and China,
and you actually wanted to win in that, why would
you tearify entire world? Right? Why would you go around
insulting all of these people, picking a fight with Canada,
picking a fight with my picking a fight with Denmark
over Greenland, picking a fight with the EU. No, you
would want to isolate China. You would want to try

(14:13):
to make that deal appealing for your allies, and they've
done the total opposite of that. You know. I think
part of it comes from Trump's like he's an old man,
and his formative years when he was like at the
peak of his powers, or like the eighties and early nineties. Okay,
the US is in a very different position now. The
world has moved on, Right, we have a true economic

(14:37):
competitor in China, who is in many ways surpassing us
at this point, especially on technological development and their ability
to you know, build and deliver for their own people
and have some sort of like unity and program and
long term thinking behind all of that. And it just
seems to me like he didn't reckon with any of that,
because you know, I'm not a financial genius. I did

(15:00):
never I never took the series seven. I'm looking at
this all from like a political macro perspective, and it
does not surprise me at all that as the stock
market is tanking and as we are taking these insane
like positions and total chaos and they're on, they're off,
they're on, they're big, they're small, or whatever, we're doing

(15:22):
it again in ninety days, that the rest of the
world is going like we already were moving in the
direction of moving away from the dollar. Did we learn
nothing from the fact that we threw every sanction in
the book at Russia and they were like, yeah, we're
still okay, Like we're actually we were able to manage that.
And China is so much better position than Russia, in
such a wealthier place to be able to withstand what

(15:43):
we have to throw at them.

Speaker 4 (15:44):
Well, I just want to say quickly, like on the
so Scott Bessett was making the point on Talker last
week that the mark a lot of the market dips
started with deep seek, which is super interesting if you're
making this bet about China, and I think what the
reason that they were doing the penguin tariffs and the
reason that they were like being so chaotic. I'm not
saying that there was like a method to the madness.

(16:05):
I think people were on different pages. I think Trump
allowed that to happen because he was like, the more
people have no idea what my strategy is, the more
that they bet with the United States. It creates this
complete state of total chaos and uncertainty, and we are
the steady hand, and it's the.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
Study Are you kidding me? Are you kidding to China?

Speaker 4 (16:26):
But this is what I'm saying, this is what I'm
saying with the best at point, he's making the point
that the deep seek leap is baked into the market
decline at the same time as they're saying the uncertainty
will cause people to bet on the United States. I
think there's there's something if you are Canada or Mexico
and you were treated a little bit differently in all

(16:47):
of this, but still got some attacks, although I know
we have. Yesterday Trump said nice things about Queen Cloudy
as shine Bomb the show.

Speaker 1 (16:58):
Yeah, he's part of that percent approval ratings she had.

Speaker 4 (17:04):
But for some people, like for some countries, it there's
logic for Trump flex and his muscles and saying you
don't want to be doing this with.

Speaker 5 (17:11):
China, like this is is the US. You're safer with us. Well,
it didn't. It's not turning out that way.

Speaker 2 (17:17):
One thing I just want to put on quickly just
to show you guys, like why China is so much
better positioned is this story which I was just reading
this morning. This will not really make sense to most people,
but this is an example of what realestate capacity looks like.
So JD dot Com, for people who don't know, is
one of the biggest companies in the Fortune or in
the Global five hundred and it is according to the

(17:39):
Wall Street Journal. Here what the Chinese government has said
is that this is effectively like forcing Amazon to then
pump twenty seven billion dollars of money into their economy,
to force that company to buy exclusively Chinese products and
to boost their domestic manufacturing. So I just want to

(17:59):
show people, like, when you have a wholesome strategy, you
can absorb one hundred and twenty five percent tariffs. If
this was a strategy that was pushing something like this,
I would be behind it. But I don't see a
dollar for dollar investment credit here being pushed in the
United States. Instead, the Trump administration currently endorsed a one
trillion dollar cut from the United States government budget, while

(18:22):
we're also simultaneously increasing the Pentagon budget by one hundred
and fifty billion dollars. So there is actually a reduction
in state capacity and in cutting project yeah doze project
cutting taxes, reducing state capacity. We're actually cutting manufacturing tax
credits and extending them for corporations, all while trying to

(18:42):
levy a massive tariff. China, on the other hand, when
they absorb a massive tariff, what do they do. They're like, hey,
JD dot Com aka Amazon or retailer or whatever. They're like,
you're pumping twenty seven billion into the economy, and they
can do that to every single company in their entire
country simultaneously. They don't have We have some idiot Jerome
Powell just like reading the tea leaves on an a

(19:03):
magic eight ball. They're like, the rates are getting cut now.
They also they don't have Congress. They can just pump
money into their economy. They are ten x better position
in my opinion, right now than we are because of
these cross cutting forces. All of this is actually possible
in a democratic system, but it would require a whole
of government approach, manufacturing, tax credits and more. And I

(19:26):
think that is really the most like blackpilling thing about
all of this. And yeah, just reading that, I was
I'm like in awe that they can just go imagine
summoning bezos the way that they imprisoned that guy was
at jack MA and they're like, yeah, you're putting twenty
seven billion off the top, it's going straight into the economy.
There's no yes or no, they're just like, this is
what you're doing. And in that my admiration for that

(19:49):
is that it's Yes, often they use their authoritarianism capriciously
and to crack down whatever, but like, in this sense,
it is so obviously intelligent in knowing exactly how to
make sure that the Chinese customer is not you know,
broadly affected keeping their supply chain. They don't care if
it's going to impact jdstock or JD dot Com stock,

(20:11):
which ironically it actually went up as a result of this. Yeah,
but I'm just saying they don't care about these short
term you know, you know, even quarter by quarter basis,
and that's why they're well positioned for strength and frankly
even more like the autaric protectionist vision that the Trump
administration wants. You can have that, but then you have
to do stuff like this, and you'd have to do

(20:33):
it via Congress. You have to you'd actually have to
endorse a one trillion dollar a one trillion dollar investment
tax credit that would be giving to all of companies
that want to build in the United States phase ins.
But you need then you can't be cutting the EPA.
You know, a friend of mine and very into regular
nuclear energy just sent me this dose is trying to

(20:54):
act the entire team that would be responsible for green
lighting new nuclear reactors. Right, So what are we doing here?
That's actually about if you know, abundance. We talk a
lot about abundance. That's a key part I think of
the abundance agenda. Meanwhile, you know, over there everything is
so vertically integrated that yes, they obviously have inefficiency, but
whenever it's like hyper focused on something very important, that is,

(21:16):
they're ready to spring into action. They've studied the US
economic playbook for years. Russia is the greatest thing that
ever happened to them. They got to battle test it
and they got to observe exactly how it all works.
I mean, I remember screaming this at the time. I
was said, why why would you blow it all here
on a stupid conflict like Russia Ukraine? Whenever China is

(21:37):
just sitting there and watching this entire thing.

Speaker 1 (21:39):
We talked about this, We talked about this. I mean,
Ryan can't we can't beat the Hohu Thies in Yemen.
We can't. Like we stay in Afghanistan for twenty plus
years and the Taliban just to me, like, we think
we're going to be able to go toe to toe
with China at this point. I'm sorry, it's delusional. It's delusional.

Speaker 6 (21:58):
Yeah, And we're like, we're shocked at what China has
been able to build development wise from two thousand up
until twenty twenty five. And we're like, China is cheating us,
you know, we are, We're such victims. How on earth
could China have done this to us. We never should
have let them into WTO and PNCR was such a mistake.

Speaker 2 (22:20):
It's like, well, what where did the What did the.

Speaker 6 (22:22):
US spend its trillions of dollars on from two thousand
until today? We spent all of our money in Iraq
and Afghanistan And during the during the Cold War, the
US actually did have the capacity to organize its foreign
in corporate policy in a uniform ish way, similar to
how China can today, because the parties were the parties

(22:45):
agreed on what US foreign policy ought to be taking
on the Soviet Union, establishing American togemony, and the corporate
CEOs were on board. They would like just pick up
a phone like all right, this is these are your
marching orders. And the corporations they would not China style,
but they would they would follow the directions that they

(23:06):
were getting from from a white House that had the
buy in from the other party. Now Trump is fighting
a two front war. He's trying to basically eradicate the
Democratic Party and all of its constituent elements with universities,
research union, you know, teachers unions, federal workers like he's

(23:27):
trying to basically destroy his domestic enemies, while he is
also then waging war trade war on all of these
countries around the world. And that means you don't have
a unified a center of power on which to take
on China like you can't. Maybe he can win, you know,
a two hundred and eighty five front war, but it's

(23:49):
a little bit more difficult.

Speaker 5 (23:50):
We also have a corporate class compared to mid century
post war period.

Speaker 6 (23:54):
That is, they're not pro American, they're global.

Speaker 4 (23:57):
And they're more there's there's so much more powerful. I mean,
you have somebody like Markser who running a company that
is significantly more powerful, the most RT right.

Speaker 6 (24:02):
And he speaks Chinese like like he's not gonna like
be like all right, let's let's rally around the flag.

Speaker 2 (24:08):
He's like what flag?

Speaker 1 (24:10):
Yeah, Eli Mooble company, Yeah, same yeah.

Speaker 3 (24:12):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (24:13):
I mean the vast majority of Meta users are not American.
That's people forget. That's like it's actually not really I mean,
it's an American flagship company. But the absolute back I think
they have three billion users, so you do math. I mean,
it's not that difficult to figure out what percentage of
people do use their platform just broadly. I think Ryan
is absolutely correct and on all of this. Look, I mean,

(24:33):
I don't want to understate the great strengths of the
United States. Like the one thing we have going for
us is that we are the greatest consumer market in
the history of the world. Uh. Probably not a good thing,
but that does mean that we have a lot of
letter below. Yeah, shout out to five below. And I mean,
you know, that's that's what makes American tick. Who am
I say otherwise TJ Max Home Goods and all this
other stuff. Uh. But and a lot of that does

(24:55):
come from China, so they're obviously going to have an effect.
I'm not going to say they won't make it. It's
just like the Russians. No one will say that the
Russians are materially better off than whenever they invaded Ukraine.
But the idea that you can just overnight like crush
them or something, when they have such incredible state capacity
in China and they also have their own ability to
act as well as a much more unified population. I mean,

(25:18):
I don't know if you guys saw this, but that
JD clip of him calling the Chinese peasants, yeah, talking
about Chinese that has gone massively viral in chinaeah massively
viral on I forget what it's called webo or something
like that, and the state censors are actually usually they
crush clips that get circulated around. They're like, oh, let fly,

(25:40):
let fly, and that is rock. Some of the state.

Speaker 1 (25:43):
Folks people are sharing old clips of maw being like
we will never give it, oh boy. And I mean,
but that's a real phenomenon, Like look at what happened
in Canada with the trade war. Suddenly it flipped politics
on its head. The conservative dude was ready to run
and now Carney the liberal has an eight percent chance

(26:04):
of being the next prime minister. Like there was a
real there was like a spark of Canadian nationalism, maybe
at like historic levels, and it's going to be the
same thing in China. Like they are unified behind We're
going to win. Our country is not unified. But our
country does not want this. If you had to vote,
I mean, I think a majority of probably even Republicans
would be like, I don't know about this direction, but

(26:25):
certainly a majority of the public based on all of
the polling that we've seen Trump himself, he has squandered,
like his honeymoon period is over. The approval ratings now
are back down to where they were in the first term,
low forties. You know, he has expended the sort of
like political capital that he had accumulated with an impressive
victory and you know, Republican wins and all of that

(26:46):
sort of stuff like that's over and gone. So even
just in terms of the political positioning, they're in much
better shape. The last thing, just before we move on,
because the picture has changed just in the time that
we've been speaking. The markets are now open and you
can see there's you know, the that they're down a bit,
So you know this is going to be who knows

(27:07):
what things are going to look like today as we're
moving forward.

Speaker 3 (27:11):
But I love to.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
Wall Street wraps one of the wildest weeks.

Speaker 1 (27:16):
There you go, for no reason. I love giving everybody
insight into what the e commerce folks want me to buy.
It's always like, all right, let's let's unless you guys
have some final thoughts. Let's go ahead and get to
this Supreme Court ruling that was pretty significant. Anybody any

(27:36):
last thoughts on the tariff economic piece? We're good, okay,
all right, So last week on Friday, we actually got
to talk to the lawyer of Kilmara Brego Garcia, Marylyn
father immigrant deported wrongfully. Administrative administration had admitted, like they
called it an administrative error. He was sent to this prison,

(27:56):
this notorious torture dungeon, Kelly's Dungeons and Salvador. And so
the administration was like, yeah, we fucked up, but we're
not going to do anything about it, and you can't
make us. District Court judge said you need to do
what you can to get him back. They said you
need to facilitate and effectuate his return. Peel's Court agreed,

(28:17):
went to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court initially issued an
administrative stay saying, okay, well, the deadline that you had
to bring them back tonight, like we're putting that on
hold because we're going to take a look at this.
And now we have their answer. And it's pretty remarkable
because all nine justices sided with the lower courts saying

(28:38):
you have to in this warning again is key facilitate
Abrego Garcia's return from this prison in El Salvador. So again,
everyone from Justice Alito and Justice Thomas to you know,
Sonya Soto mayor, they all were on board with this.
It's an unsigned order, and as I mentioned, these two

(29:02):
terms are important. Effectively, what the order here from the
court said is they have to facilitate his return. But
the District Court needs to clarify the term effectuate to
make sure that it is not overstepping its bounds with
regard to the executive's prerogative to conduct foreign policy. The

(29:23):
lower court has now amended its order to just take
out the term effectuate. So I think this is being
seen rightfully so as a major victory certainly for this
you know, for this individual, for his family, also an
indication of you know, the Supreme Court's willingness to stand
up to this administration on some fronts. But I also

(29:45):
don't want to celebrate here to early Ryan, because what
does it technically mean to facilitate his return? Like if
the Trump administration just goes to Bokelly and is like
wink wink, non nod, can you send that guy back
and Bekel is like, sorry, can't do it.

Speaker 5 (30:02):
They can.

Speaker 1 (30:02):
Can they go back to the court and be, oh, well,
we tried, we did our best, and you know what
what can be done? I guess he just has to
stay there now and be you know, tortured and sold
on for slave labor for life.

Speaker 6 (30:12):
And it's also worth noting that the administration fired the
attorney who submitted the brief that acknowledged the administrative error.
Uh and and uh, which suggests like where they are
on this situation. I wonder if it's simply that they
are they do not want this guy giving interviews if

(30:34):
he comes back and talking about the conditions of the
prison that that he's been that he's been living in.

Speaker 2 (30:41):
Uh.

Speaker 6 (30:42):
To to prevent that, I suppose they could facilitate his return,
put him in detention and then deport him somewhere, you know,
just keep him definitely in attention and to try to
and while they try to either get the get the
stay lifted on the ability to deport him to all Salvador,
or try to deport him to some other country that

(31:04):
would that would take him, or they maybe they send
him to Guantanamo. There are all kinds of like evil
options you know that Steven Miller has before him and so,
which which to me means it's probably unlikely that they're
going to do the non evil one, which would be
our apologies, UH, please send this guy back. Uh and

(31:25):
and then if they want to go through the deportation process.
They could, you know, they could. They can do that
and but you know, do it on the up and up.

Speaker 2 (31:33):
One thing I wanted to flag here while you guys
were talking, was this a friend of mine jaos one
of your guys thoughts. My friend Jason Willik says this quote.
It is probably not unintentional that the Scotus order it
refers explicitly to Abrego Garcia's release from custody rather than
his return to the United States. Is that what you
guys saw in this because it says the order posually

(31:54):
requires the government to facilitate release from custody and to
ensure his case is handled as it would have been
had he not been in properly sent to L Salvador.

Speaker 1 (32:02):
I don't think so, because the thing is he is
specifically barred from being sent to El Salvador. Specifically, that
was what the I have. What is it called like
an order which holding order or something like that, So
it's specifically That's where they messed up, is they could
have gone through the court process. He has an ongoing asylum.

(32:24):
Came a claim too that you know, his attorney at
least thought that he had a good shot at being
at prevailing, and whether or not that's case, we don't
really know. But you know, he had a they had found, okay,
a credible fear, you can go through this asylum process.
So he has an ongoing asylum case. But specifically the
judge said he cannot be deforded to this particular country.
So if you're just releasing him from custody, you are

(32:45):
still in very clear blatant violation of what a US
judge had prohibited and what this administration admitted they were
prohibited from doing. So I think, I don't, you know,
maybe I'm missing something. I'm not a lawyer, but I think,
get that doesn't follow logically to me. What to me
more of the gray area is sort of similar to

(33:07):
how the Supreme Court had ruled. Are you you can
go forward for now with this Alien Enemies Act while
you know this is working its way through the lower courts,
but you have to provide some level of due process.
They have to be able to file habeas petitions, and
they have to be given quote unquote reasonable notice. But
they left it to the administration to define, well, what
do we consider to be reasonable notice? So I sort

(33:29):
of feel like this is a similar deal where it's
like you're leaving it to the administration to determine what
does it mean to quote unquote facilitate his return. And
I think Rian is one hundred percent right. I mean,
I think it's not just that they don't want him
back and going on sixty minutes and talking about the reality.
I think it's also, you know, they they want to

(33:51):
maintain the image that you know, we can just send
you if you want. They want to maintain that hard
line image and that there's no recourse, and they certainly
don't want people really getting a sense like you know,
you're they They've called him, they've alleged she's a human
trafficker and like a leader in MS thirteen. There is
just zero evidence to support any of that, and so

(34:13):
they certainly don't want the public to get a look
at this, you know, seemingly innocent man with no criminal
record that they sent to be indefinitely tortured.

Speaker 2 (34:22):
I think it's a go ahead.

Speaker 4 (34:25):
I was gonna say, sucker, is Jason making the point
that they could get Mexico to accept him.

Speaker 2 (34:30):
I don't, like, I just would I did not understand
because I was like, weoll as an el Salvadoran citizen.
I was like, so would they just release him from
custody now, you know? But if if that's how the.

Speaker 6 (34:39):
That seems plausible that they say, Okay, legally we can
deport him to Mexico if Mexico will take him.

Speaker 1 (34:45):
But he but it also says in the order though,
if you want to put that back up on the screen,
it also says the case has to be handled as
if this had never happened. So it says the language
is such like you have to pretend go back to
what you would have done, and you know, handle this
in the way that it would have been handled had
he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. So I,

(35:10):
you know, I certainly he can't just be deported without
again some sort of due process. There was no due
process here. That would be in violation of the other
thing that the Supreme Court said. That indicates you have
to give these people due process.

Speaker 2 (35:22):
So I have to bring back give him Ahavius petition
in Texas or Louisiana or whatever right that way.

Speaker 4 (35:27):
So that's what that's what's interesting about this particular case
is that one of the reasons they're sending Venezuelans to
Al Salvador is because obviously Venezuela is not accepting deportations.

Speaker 5 (35:38):
And so I think the administration.

Speaker 4 (35:42):
The error here, and it is incredibly stupid, is that
they didn't realize his petition specifically was barring him from
going back because of the asylum claim of credible fear.
And so I think they keep trying to make the
point that they can boot people to wherever they want
to boot people, so long as that country accepts them,
because they're struggling to do the quote mass deportations, and

(36:04):
one of the ways that they're able to get more
deportations is having Bukel, for example, just taken people who
are Venezuelan. So I mean, I wonder if they will
pursue some other deportation option. I don't know the legality.
I think that's what was saying.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
I think the reason that they won't admit it is
because it takes off the VEGNA. Right now, obviously the
administration has lost a lot of credibility. I actually think Chrystal,
did you guys cover the case, the MS thirteen case
here in Virginia, the one where this is important where
they yeah, Okay, yeah, talk.

Speaker 1 (36:39):
I'm actually looking for that right now.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
This is an important case because the administration keeps trying
to do these flagship arrests where they'll be like this
guy MS thirteen literally here not far from where I live.
They arrested this guy and like he's a major leader
of MS thirteen. They charged him with all of this.
The Governor of Virginia was there, the Secondry of Homeland
Security was there, like this was a major event. And

(37:03):
then in the charging documents, basically all they said in
the charging documents was like, we caught him in possession
of an illegal firearm. Okay, I mean, listen, fine, but
that is a crime and definitely you know it'll get
sent to prison, not necessarily an MS thirteen quote gang leader.
And it seems that the administration now is going to
be dropping the case and instead pursuing deportation. Now, okay,

(37:27):
like you can pursue deportation based on like, oh, he
was charged or whatever with a possession of an illegal firearm,
but that's pretty far from human trafficking orchestrating murders and
being a gang leader. And it's pretty obvious that either
a bad intelligence or b this was literally just like
made up like it was a PR stunt, and I

(37:47):
think that is now what's happening. Where if you see
in the case here of Abrego Garcia and the government
has to admit in writing and then facilitate the return,
everyone's going to be because there's a lot of MAGA
people who are still like, oh, this doesn't matter whatever,
you come here legally, et cetera. They're going to be like, well,
hold on, Like if you have to bring somebody back
because you screwed up, it's like, well, how many other

(38:08):
screw ups are there in the bundle? Right?

Speaker 1 (38:10):
And so to mention go ahead, I mean it just
it makes it clear, like it there's nothing about this.
Just grab someone and throw them in the prison. That
would preclude US citizens or anyone else from being caught
up in that as well. But I mean, to your point, Soccer,
about this this guy like they did a whole thing
and they portue he's the East Coast leader of MS thirteen. Okay,

(38:33):
well don't you want to have that guy in prison?
Because if you just deport him and he doesn't serve
any time in prison, what's to stop him from coming
right back? So you know, even Fox News was given
Caroline Lovett a hard time about this one because they're
thinking about it from that perspective of like, if this
guy's such a big criminal, like, of course you want
to prosecute him. Of course you want to get him

(38:54):
behind bars. So let me just play a little that exchange,
so you guys can hear how that went down.

Speaker 7 (39:00):
Can you shed some light on this because it was
a story that we all covered that he was the
East Coast leader of MS thirteen, So what was the
evidence that supported that proclamation by the Department of Justice
and the FBI.

Speaker 8 (39:15):
Here at the White House, we applaud the Attorney General
Pam Bondi, our FBI Director Cash Fattel for working hand
in hand with local law enforcement on the ground in
the Commonwealth of Virginia to detain and arrest this MS
thirteen ring leader. There was sufficient evidence to do so,
and now the case is in the hands of the
Department of Homeland Security, who will be deporting this individual

(39:38):
from our country. These agencies are working together in a
collaborative way to follow President Trump's directive to eradicate MS
thirteen and foreign terrorists from United States soil. So this
is an individual who was detained and arrested because of
the President's policies, and he will no longer be residing
in the.

Speaker 5 (39:58):
United States of America.

Speaker 7 (40:00):
I'm trying to get same for similarity on it, Caroline,
because you know, if indeed he is what we were
told he is, the East Coast leader of MS thirteen,
wouldn't it make sense to prosecute him for crimes related
to that. I know he was held on a gun charge,
but to make sure that any victims of MS thirteen
through his leadership, get their day in court here in

(40:20):
the United States and then send him to an El
Salvador in prison if he is deported and found guilty
on those crimes.

Speaker 8 (40:27):
Well, again, this administration is doing things differently, Martha. And
this President has made a directive to his agencies, but
particularly the Department of Homeland Security, to remove foreign terrorists
from America's homeland to protect American citizens. And we have
an incredible diplomatic relationship with the President of El Salvador
and his government who have been detaining these MS thirteen

(40:49):
ring leaders and violent gang members in their prisons. And
American taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for that cost.

Speaker 7 (40:56):
And so again the bottom line here in court said
that the Alien and Act could be used to remove people,
but they had to reach to do process first. I'm
only pressing on this because it was a huge story
and we covered it. Obviously, it would feel like that
person could lead to a lot of other evidence. The
DJ would be pressing to see this in court so
that other people could be exposed. And suddenly none of

(41:18):
that's happening. So can you explain why the change of
course in this particular case.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
She doesn't explain the change of course, But in any
case that's you know, in Fox News like okay, if
this guy's such a big deal, what are we doing?

Speaker 2 (41:32):
I do at least appreciate that because they got fooled, right.
They sent camera crews out there like they took it seriously.
They covered the arrest, They made this into a huge thing,
and you're like, so what, you just drugged me out
there to cover a gun charge. You know how many
gun charges there aren't this country. It's like, be serious, right,
and okay, you want to deport somebody for a gun charge? Okay,

(41:52):
yeah fine, but you know, be going around federal cases
like acting like this is some rico mo boss and
then just saying Oh, actually we're going to drop the case.
We don't actually have to prove any of this stuff
in court. There's a huge credit. I'm going to use
an old school Vietnam term which Ryan will love. Credibility gap.
There's a credibility gap that is opening with this white house.

Speaker 4 (42:15):
Wait until Fox News gets a hold of Drop Site.
This is me teeing it over to Ryan because that's
what should really be infuriating, I mean infuriates me the
way there are clearly deals being struck and these guys
are being used as pawns on a bigger drug.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
Yet Ryan, Yeah, story. Note, I still don't fully get it,
So can you just explain it?

Speaker 6 (42:35):
So basically, what's going on here? And we don't know
if that's this is exactly what's going on with this
kid yet because he's twenty four and so Boo Kelly
and MS thirteen struck a deal back around twenty nineteen
where bou Kelly would give better prison conditions to MS

(42:56):
thirteen members who were already locked up and other, you
know other. You can see this story that jose A
VARs and I wrote for Drop Site News, and in exchange,
they would stop killing and kidnapping people, and this is
not an uncommon tactic among South American or in Central
American presidents to FMLN had tried to do the same thing,

(43:19):
like back in twenty eleven or.

Speaker 2 (43:20):
Something like that.

Speaker 6 (43:21):
Part of the deal was that then MS thirteen would
support bou Kelly in his next election, and they did that,
and he woned a landslide, and then you saw this
kind of breakdown of the deal and he, you know,
he's become this much more aggressive, you know, anti gang dude,
and so he has he has denied up and down

(43:44):
that these negotiations ever took place, but the negotiations absolutely
did take place, and so there has been this push
and pull tug of war between the US and Bukelly.
Bu Kelly wants all of the MS thirteen members who
know about these negotiations in his dungeon. He does not
want them in open court in the United States talking

(44:04):
openly about the negotiations that they had with Bukelly, which
are a real lightning rod, a real political lightning rod.
In El Salvador, they wouldn't get attention here, but if
they had testifying court up here in the United States,
it would get a lot of coverage. In El Salvador,
and he generally has the media locked down. But if this,

(44:25):
you know, the media would cover something that happened in
a US courtroom in El Salvador. So this would be
a big problem for him. So that the price that
Bukelly demanded to take these venezuelans was, I also want
these MS thirteen guys that I've been trying to get
from you and that you've been keeping from me. And
so that's why we sent MS thirteen people along with

(44:46):
along with these venezuelans, so and what. And in order
to send them, they had to dismiss the charges, and
they did that with a bunch of them, you know,
back when they first sent them down. So that's what
this looks like. We don't know the details yet. He
would have been like eighteen when these negotiations were going on,
so maybe he has knowledge of the negotiations subsequent or

(45:07):
they just stitched up some random guy in Virginia and
the thing is all now falling apart. But that's the
backdrop that it could be part of this MS thirteen
leadership round up that Bukelly wants Trump to help him
effectuate and facilitate.

Speaker 2 (45:23):
Interesting wow, crazy stuff.

Speaker 1 (45:27):
Emily you're muted, you're mutiated, Emily not working. Okay, it's
all good. All right, Let's talk quickly here about mack
Mud Khalil, because this was important too. So you know,
the administration has made it pretty clear for a while that,
I mean, they have never said that Mackmud Khalil, who
of course was the Columbia student legal permanent resident Green

(45:48):
card holder who was arrested by Ice and shipped down
to was he Louisiana. I believe he was shipped down to.
And he was the real first big high profile case
of like, anyone who's anything about Israel that we didn't like,
we're going to round them up. If they're you know,
here on a visa or a Green card holder or whatever,
we're going to round them up, and we're going to
detain them and we're going to deport them. He was

(46:10):
the first big, high profile example of that. And the
administration has never argued that he committed any crimes, even
though many of their defenders have insinuated or insisted that
this was because of a legal activity, they have never
indicated that. And so the court has been asking them
to provide their evidence of why they believe that he

(46:33):
should be deported and effectively, you know they they so
the government files you know this, this submission, and there
is really no there there. I've got the key paragraph here,
he says, pursuant to these authorities, I've determined the activities
and presence of these aliens the US would have potentially

(46:54):
serious adverse foreign policy consequences, would compromise a compelling US
foreign policy interest. These determinations are based on information provided
by the DHS ice HSI regarding the participation and role
of someone else we don't know and Khalil in anti
Semitic protests and disruptive activities which foster a hostile environment

(47:14):
for Jewish students in the US. My determination for the
other person is also based on some other citations for
unlawful activity during these protests. But that's not Khalil, that's
this other person. They're claiming engagement unlawful activities. The public
actions and continued presence of these two in the US
undermine US policy to combat anti Semitism around the world

(47:36):
in the US, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish
students from harassment and violence in the United States. So literally,
the only thing that they cite here for Makmu Khalil
Sager is his participation in what they describe as anti
Semitic protests and disruptive activities.

Speaker 2 (47:54):
Mm. Interesting, isn't It definitely also fits with our anti
Semitic screening that we're doing. Now, Ryan, I'm sure you
saw that story. Oh wait, do we have the ice thing?
I haven't gotten to react to this yet. The thing
about ideas ideas, Ryan, you talk while I pull it up.
Let me find that. No, Like, yeah, they they asked.

Speaker 6 (48:15):
They were told they have to come up with some
evidence that he did something wrong.

Speaker 2 (48:18):
What's your case?

Speaker 6 (48:19):
Why is this permanent resident married to an American citizen
whose wife is about to give birth in like, in
indefinite detention without charge? And yeah, they they finally came
back with because Marco Rubio can lock up anybody who
he wants, who isn't a citizen for any reason. And
the reason that he's claiming.

Speaker 2 (48:38):
Is that he's.

Speaker 6 (48:40):
Anti Semitic, which is which is wild because you he
could bring if they actually wanted to try that, which
apparently they don't think they have to. He could bring countless.
It sounds like Jewish colleagues of his from Columbia, right, yeah,
to bet anti semitism.

Speaker 1 (48:59):
Like attesting to his character. And you know he was
going to shop at dinners. He was fighting antisemit. When
there was somebody who did say something anti anti simitic,
he was the first to intervene. So pullar opposite of
the way that he's being portrayed, right, which just.

Speaker 6 (49:14):
To argue, well, if you're critical of Israel, we we
we believe that that is anti semitism.

Speaker 2 (49:21):
Bingo exactly. Let's so as you guys could see herround
the screen. This was a real thing that was put
out by Ice. Quote. If it crosses the border illegally,
it's our job to stop it. People, money products, Okay, okay,
I understand ideas. Hold on a second, what whoa whoa
whoa whoa whoa?

Speaker 1 (49:44):
Right, we talked about that last one.

Speaker 2 (49:47):
What was that last one? Ideas, Like, what does that
mean exactly if it crosses our border illegally? Ideas, how
does an idea illegally cross the s border? And now
we're entering some difficult, difficult territory, aren't we, Ryan, And
that's where the car. Yeah, in the trunk of our car,

(50:09):
I've got your shine, Bob.

Speaker 1 (50:12):
Ideas, what's like the biggest apparently, Yeah, magic does this
woman have? Though for real, I don't know. We're all
referring to this Trump in the Oval office was like,
she's a fantastic woman. She's doing a great job. We
had a wonderful time. She has she's very dignified, she's.

Speaker 2 (50:29):
Very elegant, very elegant. I think it probably just has
good Probably is just a good dipple match. Probably talks
to them while on the phone. I mean, honestly, I
can't really think of an alternative. But Emily, we're talking
about Ice saying that they want to stop dangerous ideas
from entering the country. We just put that graphic up
from yesterday, and you're just.

Speaker 1 (50:48):
It's and that's the thing. It's like, it's the most
obvious point to make. But can you imagine if the
Biden Harris administration had done crazy half like you cannot
have but there would be such a mount on over it,
and understandably so, like it is truly Unamerican. It is
a truly Unamerican thing to say and position to hold.
And then the fact that you are clearly we also

(51:10):
just push put up the machmun Khalil court filing. That's
like h he was at a protest. That's why we're
going to deport him. No allegations of illegality. No, even
I thought they'd come up with something he said that
was a little edgy, you know, that they could put
in the butt. No, none of that.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
Just like he was, they even put like people from
the river to the sea. They didn't even be like
the well known anti Semitic phrase from the river to
the sea.

Speaker 5 (51:32):
Well that is their definition.

Speaker 4 (51:33):
Well, I mean it said like even by their own definition, right,
so they've accepted that definition. So they haven't even used
that successfully to I mean, it's just.

Speaker 5 (51:44):
The ideas thing.

Speaker 4 (51:45):
If you flip it around and you see the Biden
administration coming in and using this on Christians or people
who are opposed like turfs.

Speaker 5 (51:54):
I mean, it's just like the possibilities are endless. The
mind boggles, but they do need work.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
We need more turfs. Oh, by all means I call
for more turf, but I mean.

Speaker 5 (52:04):
That this is so.

Speaker 4 (52:05):
When I was I was reading through the document that
they submitted an evidence, the Rubio memo, I was just like,
it's so it's not surprising, but they really do have nothing.

Speaker 1 (52:16):
Well, and Ryan, they had said some something maybe Pam Bondie,
I don't remember. One of these people said that the
reason he was being deported was because he aligned with Hamas.
This document doesn't even mention Hamas, right.

Speaker 4 (52:28):
No, good point the DHS spokeswoman, Yeah, Tricia McLaughlin who
said that.

Speaker 6 (52:32):
Right, They can't even prove that.

Speaker 5 (52:35):
That's what I was.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
Funny, you know where Tricia came from. She used to
work for a vague mister ideas and mister debate. I'm
just saying, you know, some of us, some of us
remember things these are. It's a curse to actually remember
anything in this business and just be like, what the
talking you imagine?

Speaker 8 (52:50):
Mix up?

Speaker 2 (52:52):
Yeah, it's like he went from that to uh, miss idea,
mister we need to ban ideas? And well, can I
such a great point, Crystal about the Hamas. Thing is
they didn't even mention that. They just said he was
anti Semitic. Go ahead, Emily, Well no, but.

Speaker 4 (53:06):
That's why this is also frustrating because christ So, do
you remember we interviewed Mama du Taal on the show.

Speaker 5 (53:13):
Back in Well.

Speaker 4 (53:14):
His case is interesting because after he had gotten his visa,
he had been tweeting things about how the US Empire
he hates the US Empire. His goal in life is
bringing down the US Empire. And he's like the one
person from all of these cases like oz Turk for example,
and op Ed. He's the one person from all these
cases where like granted he'd said all of that after

(53:35):
he got the visa up. I was like, could you
have sussed that out in your interviews with him? Like
did you know that he wasn't super pro America when
you've said, here's a student visa, Like there are arguments
that would be within the realm of like reasonable debate,
and these are not them. These are like insane examples
of op eds and trying to tie him to these

(53:55):
posters that were handed out at protests, trying to tie
him to protests that got like violent.

Speaker 5 (54:02):
He was he wasn't there.

Speaker 1 (54:04):
It wasn't wasn't with Khalil. Wasn't there also an allegation
that he had lied on his green card application or
something like that. He admitted that's not here either.

Speaker 5 (54:17):
Yeah, he admitted that there.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
Was something about for the I thought it was the
U n like Unra.

Speaker 5 (54:23):
I thought it was the UK embassy.

Speaker 6 (54:25):
Because he had a joint job, like he had a
UK security clearance while he was working for unra mm hm,
which like I can't imagine why, like working for the
UK would be disqualifying for an America like somebody applying
for as the something.

Speaker 2 (54:44):
Maybe he's a spook. What if he's a spook.

Speaker 6 (54:46):
But he's a he's a there's a British spy is
double O seven?

Speaker 1 (54:50):
Yes, they should put that in the application for his
you know why he should be But it was wait,
it was thinner. I knew it would be thin because right,
the right has been digging through everything this man has
ever said to try to come up with something to
paint him. It's like always an anti Semitic, terrorist, loving monster,
and they came up with nothing. So I knew it
would be thin. This was thinner even than I expected,

(55:12):
because I thought they'd have the thing in there. Oh
he was lying on his application and know he said
from the River to the Sea, and oh, here's a
Hummus pamphlet. Remember Caroline Levitt did that whole thing. Of course,
I can't even bring that literature into the briefing room
because it was horrible. That was now, yeah, for sure,

(55:34):
the horrible literature that we you know, can't even like
the innocence of the American people.

Speaker 2 (55:39):
We saw.

Speaker 4 (55:43):
Men.

Speaker 1 (55:45):
It's a delicate flower.

Speaker 2 (55:47):
I actually wanted to see it. I was like, yeah,
you know, it'd be great. Actually I was. But yeah,
that's all right, that's what that's what I need my
government for. We moved to Dave Smith. You talk about
Dave Okay, I got ready to lips. So what do
you guys want to start with? Do you want to
start with his lived experience thing about how you have
to be able to have been to Israel?

Speaker 5 (56:06):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (56:07):
Before you talk about okay.

Speaker 4 (56:09):
Can we just say, though, at off the top here,
that what happened in this conversation is that Douglas Murray,
who probably was under enormous pressure from pro Israel folks
and people who are pro Ukraine and neo conservatives, just
stand up to Joe Rogan. He starts the interview by
asking Joe Rogan if he can ask him a question
about why he doesn't so, I just it's sort of
like the Oval Office meeting. That is genuinely important context

(56:32):
for this three hour conversation is that it started with
Douglas Murray challenging Joe Rogan about why he has he
had Carroll.

Speaker 2 (56:40):
Yeah, yeah, he coming into this. He's mad at Joe.
He's snippy and he's or what what did Trump say? Yippy? Yep,
he's yippy at Joe for quote not having enough pro
Israel or pro Ukraine folks on the show, which by
the way, is not even true. They're just a lot.

Speaker 4 (56:56):
He didn't even know some of the guests. Yeah, Joe
tick off all these guys. He's like, I think God's sad.

Speaker 2 (57:02):
He says, I've had pro Israel folks and you know
this one guy and I can't remember his name. And
you're like, oh, if you can't even remember the name
of the guy, you're calling anti Semitic. But okay, well anyway,
So what he does in the beginning is he first
of all, starts off with chastising Rogan for not having
enough pro pro you folks would.

Speaker 1 (57:20):
Preposterous so much if a guest came on our show
and was like, actually, I think here's how you should
produce your show, here's how you should do your job,
Like there is no worse way to start a conversation
with with anyone.

Speaker 4 (57:34):
Let's start with that of hosting. I Carrol like he
just had no relationship and was a little bit.

Speaker 5 (57:41):
It was a little bit off. I thought Joe handled
it really well and it turned into a.

Speaker 2 (57:44):
Pretesting DISCUSSI Joe really held as cool. And I will
say that Douglas is one of the smarmiest people I've
ever seen on this because he spends the entire thing
trying to but he tries to attack Smith's character, basically
lies that Dave Smith is doing this for views or
for clicks. Ridiculous. Dave has been in this business for

(58:06):
a long time. Dave's most viral moment is not even
anything to do with Israel. It's about vaccines from five
years ago. Not that Douglas would know anything about any
of that, but he's like, oh, Dave, your shtick is Israel, right,
like implying that he's doing this for career purposes. Someone
should tell me that because I don't remember my career
between all that well because of any Israel criticism. In fact,

(58:29):
it's the opposite of mister Murray, who went from you know,
this flitting about neo conservative has been to you know,
a little flack jacket tour vests all over Israel and
so protectionization, right, that's the context is the concern trolling
about quote expertise, and we'll get to that. But the
really the best part was this where he tries to

(58:51):
use a literal, woke style argument of if you've never
been to Israel, then you're not allowed to talk about it.
Dave handled himself incredibly well, in my opinion, in this
back and forth. So let's go ahead and take a
listen to.

Speaker 3 (59:03):
Some of it with no deficit of goods coming in.
I've been plenty of No there, there are plenty. How
have you been to the crossing points? When we ask
there at all, I've never been. You've never been?

Speaker 9 (59:21):
Well, I'm not am I not allowed to talk about it?

Speaker 2 (59:23):
Now?

Speaker 9 (59:24):
Have you ever been to? Have you ever been to
Nazi Germany? Are you allowed to have? You can't time travel,
but you can't? Okay, but so what, so what's the point? Like, No,
I find that lots of people have been there and
agree with me, and lots of people have been there
and agree with you.

Speaker 3 (59:37):
I don't want to spend a year and a half
talking about about a place you should at least do
the courtesy of visiting it, all right.

Speaker 9 (59:43):
I just think this is a non argument. Okay, No,
I think it's a non argument. But you have to
go and touch the ground. I think you have to see.

Speaker 3 (59:52):
I think it's a good idea to see stuff, particularly
if you spend a career talking about something. Yes, I
have a journalistic rule of try never to talk about
a country, even in passing, unless I've at least been there. Okay,
it's normal, it's a normal thing to do. You're talking
about Hang on, you're talking about crossing points, and not

(01:00:12):
only have you never been to a crossing point in
either Egypt or in Israel, but you never even been
to the region. Okay, it's not a non ars is.
It's not a non argument if you're insisting that you're
an expert of some kind or not claiming you're an expert,
but still talking about it, about the provisions going into

(01:00:32):
Gaza or not. If you've never seen any of this
going on, so.

Speaker 9 (01:00:37):
You're not amazing about things that you've read about. You
can only speak about things that you've seen with your
own eyes. You can talk about what you want as
you're proving.

Speaker 3 (01:00:47):
But that is a different matter from spending an awfully
long amount of time talking about an issue in a
region you haven't even had the to see the visit.

Speaker 4 (01:01:02):
Well.

Speaker 3 (01:01:02):
Developing all of these views about it. I mean an
idea where you're coming from. You've read about this blockade,
and so you imagine that that's what it is. I imagine
you've read all the people who say that Gaza was
a concentration camp.

Speaker 2 (01:01:21):
All right, we can call it there. This This is
the dumbest form of argumentation. And there's there's a layer
to this too. I actually texted this to Dave and
I was like, I kind of wish you'd said this, Douglas. Yeah,
I just want to be like, hey, Douglas, why do
you think you got to go to the crossing points?
My guy? Is it because you're on an ISRAELI bebe

(01:01:42):
sponsored tour to go in to see this so that
you go on the biggest platform in the world and
say everything is fine. Why don't we call Ryan, Why
don't you enlighten me and call as you have, some
of the people who live there and tell me what
they have to say who are not members of Go ahead, Ryan,
tell me what the people who were on the other
side of that crossing point have to say.

Speaker 6 (01:02:03):
They say they can't find food. Oh okay, and he
got it, and they have phone numbers. Has has he
spoken to them.

Speaker 2 (01:02:08):
Has he have you ever been to Gaza, Douglas, have
you ever been to Gaza? He shouldn't say anything about.

Speaker 6 (01:02:15):
They blocked on March second, they said we're not letting
any AID in.

Speaker 2 (01:02:19):
They said it publicly.

Speaker 6 (01:02:20):
Why does God Dave Smith need to go fact check
the claims by the Israeli government and the Palestinians on
the other side confirmed it. We have both sides saying
we're not letting AID in.

Speaker 1 (01:02:33):
But if Dave doesn't weird, go ahead, grissol. It does
remind me so much of like it truly is like
a very woke reminiscent argument because one of the things
the tactics that is used to shut down debate is like, well,

(01:02:54):
if you're not a member of that marginalized group, you
can't speak on issues related to that marginalized group. And
I'm not going to say that there's nothing too like
hearing someone's quote unquote lived experience, but that is a
common tactic to just say you're not allowed to have
a say at all. Don't care what you've read, don't
care what your opinion is, what your moral compasses, don't

(01:03:16):
care if you don't have these particular characteristics you don't
get to weigh in. I've always objected to that, whether
it was on the woke side, and it's the exact
same thing here. It's also very like, you know, I
don't know if he's all if he's always debated this way,
but it's a very Puresborgan panel debate tactic to just

(01:03:37):
they spend so much time just like attacking each other's character.
You're a racist, you're an anti semi, you haven't even
been there, and you know, it's the type of thing
that can play well in that format when you just
have like fifteen minutes of yelling to filibuster and try
to like out alpha the people on the panel, But
when you actually have to sit there and explain yourself

(01:03:58):
for hours on end, and everyone gets a chance to
see Dave be like, this is a non argument, what
are you talking about? It doesn't quite hit the same
way as when you're just on some like Piers Morgan yellfest.

Speaker 4 (01:04:10):
Well that's really interesting because they actually started the entire
podcast by Joe saying, the reason we wanted to do
this is because so many of these debates are held
on shows like Piers Morgan, and basically it's so theatrical
and it's actually somewhat so it's expert it's just this
deification of expertise, which is very disappointing from Douglas Murray,

(01:04:35):
by the way, who on wokeness, on media corruption, all
of that. He actually was with Tayibi side by side
in an Intelligent Square debate against Malcolm Gladwell and Ryan
Calmness in New York Times.

Speaker 5 (01:04:50):
Michelle Goldberg and wiped the floor with.

Speaker 4 (01:04:54):
Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg and Douglas Murray did some
heavy lifting in abs excoriating the corporate media.

Speaker 5 (01:05:02):
And its corruption.

Speaker 4 (01:05:04):
And here he's flipping around and saying that because Dave
lacks expertise. My favorite moment of this entire conversation is
when Dave goes, I'm a free American.

Speaker 5 (01:05:14):
I can say whatever I want.

Speaker 4 (01:05:15):
And I just was like felt like wrapped in the
American flag was going to like shotgun a. Miller lte
when he said that it was glorious, because that's his point.
His point is that the audience is smart enough to
make up their own minds if they are listening to
a comedian who's really interested in history or a you know,
ex military guy who's really interested in history do thirty

(01:05:38):
hours of a podcast. The audience is smart enough to
make up their minds to do additional research. They don't
need to be protected by expert gatekeepers in every situation.
And it's just I found it very unfortunate to see
that flipped again.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
It's also very selective because it's not enough. So he's
decided Dave Smith's not expert. But he's also decided that
is not sufficient for Dave Smith to read experts.

Speaker 2 (01:06:06):
Yes, exactly have studied this.

Speaker 1 (01:06:08):
Been to the region, et cetera. So it's, you know,
it's all very selective and very convenient when you get
to be the expert. What when the expert opinion matters
and can factor in and when it doesn't in his view.

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
Yes, this is the expertise part of whist which drive
drove me crazy. And so there's a specific, you know
part of this. Let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 10 (01:06:33):
Do also think that one of the bigger kind of
the bigger picture dynamics to all of this is that
we have at least since nine to eleven, been in
a state of perpetual war, and all of these wars
have been disasters. They have been so many lies involved
in selling all of them. I mean, the whole Iraq war,

(01:06:56):
the whole war in Afghanistan, lying the whole way through.
I mean I remember literally having conversations with green Brays
in the middle of the war in Afghanistan, and they're like,
George W. Bush is telling you that the army we're
building up there is really successful. This thing's going to
fall in a week without us. And then all through
the Obama administration it's just like lie after lie after
lie with disastrous wars. And so this does create a

(01:07:19):
fertile ground for people to say I wonder if they
were lying about all these wars. Sure, again, I'm not
really trying to argue about World War Two.

Speaker 5 (01:07:26):
I'd rather argue about the wars.

Speaker 2 (01:07:27):
I think the interesting question is whether you're busy watering it.

Speaker 1 (01:07:31):
We should you not talk about mistakes that were made overall?

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
Absolutely?

Speaker 11 (01:07:35):
Okay, you should absolutely right all four go back and
looking at missus.

Speaker 5 (01:07:39):
So what are you what is your argument?

Speaker 11 (01:07:40):
Then it's a very weird thing to go back zone
in on a man say this one thing is a
mistake and should characterize him, and you ignore everything.

Speaker 2 (01:07:50):
You're taking him out of context. Why when you're talking
about Darryl.

Speaker 1 (01:07:53):
Who's done what was it, thirty plus hours?

Speaker 11 (01:07:56):
So what thirty plus hours? But you take it, you
do that in a week.

Speaker 10 (01:08:00):
Yeah, but it's a very it's very very different. It's
very different.

Speaker 5 (01:08:03):
He's not doing a podcast like talking to.

Speaker 11 (01:08:04):
People, Okay, nor is he doing scholarly work, nor is
he working in the archives. Clearly, come on, I mean
this is he is not the historian of our era.

Speaker 2 (01:08:12):
He's not complaining to me the historian jelly, but.

Speaker 5 (01:08:20):
Work.

Speaker 11 (01:08:20):
What I'm saying because I don't need to consume endless
versions of revisionist history.

Speaker 2 (01:08:26):
I understand this vision history. Okay, So that was about
the Darryl Cooper thing. But that pop part I found
very illuminating is this he produced thirty hours of part
He goes, so what you do that? And it's like
Douglas is acting as if he is like one of
the professors at Oxford that he got his undergraduate degree

(01:08:48):
in English from. You were not that, bro. You have
written books about multiple different subjects. You are the definition
of like a journalist. Yeah, Dylan, you're little. Yeah, you
are an influencer diletant. You are a literal diletante who
flits about the world, writes neo conservatism and why we

(01:09:09):
need it and now madness of crowds and the strange
death of your It's like, are you a fucking expert
on immigration? Are you an expert on Western civilization?

Speaker 5 (01:09:17):
Because you yeah, have you been to the mortar listen?
He said he didn't listen. He said he didn't listen.

Speaker 2 (01:09:26):
It's sheer arrogance. And you know, Ryan, that was another
thing that I really found about these ziobots, like uh Murray,
is that this guy is pushing like completely debunked stuff
about October seventh, like it was fact, Like he talked
about like mass rape on October seventh, he was like
this close to talking about the baby's thing, right, And

(01:09:47):
it was so obvious to me that he has not
engaged with any even like surface level Horretz level criticism
of Israel. And that is his expertise, right, His EXPERTI
is that he's been there. It's just the purest form
of wokeism, of like concern trolling about expertise when you yourself

(01:10:09):
have absolutely none. And I will say, like outside of Twitter,
like Zionist Twitter, if you go look at the YouTube
comments or the general reaction or anything. This Murray's getting cooked.
People can see this level of like sneering and concern trolling,
and just people are like, oh, I wasn't in the
studio with Douglas, so I can't have an opinion about
how much of a dickhead he was, you know, just

(01:10:30):
like like that's the level of argumentation that he has,
you know that he brings us down to.

Speaker 6 (01:10:37):
It's ridiculous and it is comical in one breath to
say that, you know, Dave can't comment on Israel because
he hasn't been there, but he can comment on a
podcast that he's never listened to, right, because I actually
disagree with the other point, Like you actually probably should
listen to a podcast if you're going to have an
opinion on the podcast.

Speaker 1 (01:10:57):
Right because you actually thing of having opinion on the
podcast is like the content of the pop podcast. That's
kind of the whole thing if you want to.

Speaker 4 (01:11:07):
And nobody has done like listen, I disagree with Darryl
on Churchill. I just game with him on a lot,
but if you listen to the podcast, absolutely nobody is
doing what he is doing the level and Joe pointed
this out. His fear and loathing and New Jerusalem starts
from the emotional, visceral perspective of Jews who are fleeing pegroms.
It's just absurd to act as though that is being

(01:11:29):
put in the box of Pat Buchanan. It's not Pap Buchanon.
It draws from Pap Buchanan, but it's not Pap Buchanan.
And you don't know that unless you listen to it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:36):
That's another thing. I'm not even gonna go into the
By the way, I love Darryl. Darrel's one of my brothers. Yes,
I disagree with him. I actually text him often and
be like, dude, you're totally wrong about all this. He's,
you know, the guy who will send me books, obscure
books about that he has on the Battle of Singapore,
and so that you know, it's beyond the.

Speaker 5 (01:11:53):
Character a beautiful friendship.

Speaker 2 (01:11:56):
It is a beautiful friendship, just like Shinebaum and Trump,
but like beyond even the like surface level criticism find
if people want to have it for me? Is that
arrogance of Murray and a lot of these pro Israel
folks who resort to the most ad hominem and emotional
attacks concern trolling about expertise, and then someone like you, Ryan,

(01:12:18):
who actually has reporting expertise like knowledge and all that
of the region is dismissed completely out of hand. And
if someone like Dave, who is a consumer of your
work or of Horetz or any of that, is laughed
out of the room. You know, the idea is, you know,
and I genuinely would say this is that the mean
critic of Israel and of Israeli policy, and I mean

(01:12:39):
this in the commentariat space, in my opinion, is ten
times more informed on the conflict than anybody who is
just mindlessly sucking up their propaganda about October seventh or
the war in Gaza or the ends, you know. I mean.
The other thing that I found preposterous, Ryan, is that
throughout the podcast he's like Qatar is pumped money into

(01:13:01):
our university system. Ryan, does he even know that Netan
Yahoo is literally facing right, notch an allegation over probably not,
That's my point. He doesn't even know anything about the
place that he spent so much time.

Speaker 6 (01:13:12):
Right And that's a huge It's like the number one
story in Israel right now. But it's structurally, if you
are on the Dave Smith side, you you must constantly
engage with the pro Israel side because it is it
is the water that we're swimming in. If you are
on Murray's side, you can actually just not read drop site.

(01:13:35):
You cannot watch this program, like you can seal yourself
off and just never encounter that. And so that's how
you wind up with people repeating things that everyone already
knows has been actually debunked by like even say like
the BBC or somebody, but like not done it in
a high profile enough way that it penetrated the pro

(01:13:58):
Israel bubble.

Speaker 2 (01:13:59):
So or they do.

Speaker 1 (01:14:00):
There and they just want to and they just lie
and don't expect to get called on it because it's
emotionally uncomfortable to be like, well, actually there wasn't a
mass rape on October seventh, and then you look like you're,
you know, being a Hamas apologist or whatever. Like there's
some of that going on too. Let's not deny that
many of these people are happy to just lie or
just believe a reality even though it's been debunked, you know,

(01:14:23):
because it fits with their view of what's going on here.
And I just want to drill down on this point
a little bit more. I mean, two things. Number one,
it seems to me, I didn't watch the whole podcast.
I just watched the clips that you showed, so I
don't I don't want to opine on a podcast that,
by the.

Speaker 2 (01:14:37):
Way, listen to Crystal Don't subserve three hours everything you need.

Speaker 1 (01:14:44):
But you know, with the invoking of Ian Carroll, the
invoking of Darryl it also feels like, rather than dealing
with the arguments of the person who's right in front
of you, you want to construct a straw man of
you know, I mean Ian Carroll. There are some things,
Daryl Cooper, there are definitely some things. Okay, they're not there.
Dave Smith is there? What is his argument? Deal with
his arguments rather than these other superfluous people who have

(01:15:06):
been in the Joe Rogan podcast universe. Okay, that's number one.
Number two, I want to say this since this view
and this is the same thing I said when the
argument's about you can't have an opinion on certain things
if you're not part of that marginalized group whatever it is,
fundamentally anti democratic, small de democratic. Our government is sending

(01:15:27):
our money to bomb these babies. We're not allowed to
have an opinion because we haven't fucking been there, Are
you kidding me? Seriously, we're all about to pay taxes,
taxes are doing what four days? Yeah, we can't have
an opinion on that. B for real, we are obligated,

(01:15:47):
obligated to have an opinion on what our government is
doing in our name with our money to a trapped, starved,
bombed population. We like, if you are a citizen who
cares about the direction of the country in the world,
yes you should have an opinion about that. And it

(01:16:08):
doesn't require you going to the region, going to Israel,
going on Bebe's press tour, going to the crossings, auditing
what goods or No, you get to have an opinion
because this is a fucking allegedly democracy. So that is
why that thing pisces me off so much. And especially

(01:16:29):
this is the way also by the way that like
liberal Zionist shut people down too. Oh it's complicated and
you just don't understand. This is what they do on
you know, monetary policy, This is complicated. Just let the
experts handle it. You just don't know.

Speaker 5 (01:16:39):
I've got this all of the time. On gender stuff,
like from the from the left all.

Speaker 2 (01:16:44):
The time, and in too many genders. You understand.

Speaker 1 (01:16:47):
Well, no, it's very similars.

Speaker 5 (01:16:48):
You are not are you Are you a neuroscientist? Are
you a biologist? Yeah? Are you a psychiatrist? No, it's
it's it's a thing. That's a thing. It's just like
this blocking with the expertise.

Speaker 1 (01:16:59):
I look, I think that we experts are important. I
think it is really important to have people who have
deeply studied fields medicine, science, history. I think it is
important to take in that information. But they can't tell
you what your values are, right, They can't like chew
up your democratic food and spit it in your mouth

(01:17:21):
and eat it for you Like, you have to engage
with that content and think about the world for yourself.
And yes, you are allowed to do that. That is
like the base. That is like the foundation upon which
this country is allegedly built. And we follow shor in
many many ways. But when you just when you try

(01:17:42):
to dumb down the population, don't worry your pretty little head.
The experts over here they get it. You don't. It's
too complicated. You don't get to have an opinion that
is fundamentally anti democratic, It is anti populous. It is
like the you know, I am just repulsed by that
whole direction. And by the way, way, think of when
Dave Smith is talking about these experts that got us

(01:18:04):
into the Iraq war, right, how did that go? These
experts who you know kept us in Afghanistan for decades?
How did that go? These experts that were part of
you know, deregular and financial industry. He didn't make these
arguments on making these arguments and crash the entire like
global economy. How did that go? How has deferring to
experts and not worrying your pretty little head about these
overly complicated topics, how has that worked out?

Speaker 2 (01:18:26):
Yeah, COVID, you know, we can go on for it.

Speaker 4 (01:18:28):
Well, Douglas talked about COVID and that Taibi debate, if
I'm remembering correctly. And the last thing i want to
say is that I'm sympathetic to a point that Douglas
makes about losing the forest for the trees. I think
that's sometimes what we get into when we're debating like
gallipoly campaign and Churchill and all of that.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
I guess, oh, yeah, keep Gallipo out of your mouth. Yeah,
but you know what.

Speaker 1 (01:18:52):
I'm saying, You're not an expert. Amalie I wasn't there,
but I.

Speaker 4 (01:18:56):
Think that we said we do sometimes lose the forest
for the trees, because some of these trees have not
been you know, have not been well evaluate evaluated over
the course of the last century, and so in revisiting
them and saying, oh, the experts lied, we sometimes assume
that when we're looking at a tree, we're looking at
the whole forest, or we get lost.

Speaker 5 (01:19:14):
Man. This is a tortured metaphor. So I'm sympathetic to
that point.

Speaker 4 (01:19:17):
But the problem is the experts are the ones that
continue to just completely lose trust because they're wrong about
certain things, and then so to defer to experts, to
say the experts got COVID wrong, expert, but then to
defer to them on Ukraine and Israel and act like
anybody who is challenging those official narratives is siding with
anti Semites or with Putin.

Speaker 5 (01:19:38):
It is so unfortunate and it's very telling.

Speaker 2 (01:19:42):
I think that's a great place to leave it. I think,
great show, everybody, thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:19:47):
Well it was too, It's nice having the whole crew
or any last anything, last Ryan in particular, are you
looking at anything working on any reporting you want to
you want to highlight.

Speaker 6 (01:19:59):
Oh no, I should send this to Phil Emily. But
a very cool story in drop set that we published
yesterday afternoon. Interview with a top Hoothy leader who basically
responding to Trump and Hexath, who said, Hey, if the
Hoothi stop bombing American ships, will stop bombing the Houthis.
And they told drop Site, we will stop bombing American ships.
Then if you'll stop bombing us, they said, we will

(01:20:22):
continue to bomb Israeli ships.

Speaker 2 (01:20:23):
They're not allowed, they're not walking through. But American ship's fine.

Speaker 6 (01:20:26):
We have no problem with America. So now the question
will be did Trump and Hegseth mean Israeli ships under
the definition of our ships?

Speaker 1 (01:20:35):
We all know the answer to that. Yeah, we know that,
but it's good to have it clarified. Indeed. All right, guys,
thank you so much. Thanks to everybody out there. Appreciate you.

Speaker 3 (01:20:45):
Guys.

Speaker 1 (01:20:45):
We're gonna have some announcements next week. I'm just going
to tease that, some big announcements all around, So stay
tuned for that and have a great weekend. We will
see you back here Monday.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}4/11/25: Dollar Plunges, SCOTUS Orders Return of Deported Man, Douglas Murray Beclowned By Dave Smith

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

All Episodes

4/11/25: Dollar Plunges, SCOTUS Orders Return of Deported Man, Douglas Murray Beclowned By Dave Smith

40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season