-
Unknown A
You don't think they're Adam's corrupt?
-
Unknown B
Oh, no, I definitely do.
-
Unknown A
But like, that's not. You agree that Mayor Adams is corrupt and you're saying that when the Justice Department comes out and says, hey, we're doing this, so he plays ball with us on immigration, you're saying you don't believe. It's not even denied that at least one of the major rationales is for immigration policy. That agreement, we're not going to attack American troops and we'll withdraw on this timetable.
-
Unknown B
And that's American troops. So you shouldn't have withdraw it on that time.
-
Unknown A
The Taliban attack American troops.
-
Unknown B
They blew them up at the base. Thirteen, I believe Marine side.
-
Unknown A
He thinks it was a Taliban.
-
Unknown B
Was it Al Qaeda?
-
Unknown A
You don't even know isis. Does that matter? Does that distinction matter that they didn't break that agreement and it was isis? You totally that up. Did you have no clue?
-
Unknown B
To Pisco for his opening statement. Thank you very much. Pisco, the floor is all yours.
-
Unknown A
Thanks, James. How much time do we have?
-
Unknown B
Five minutes.
-
Unknown A
All right. Sounds good. My dumb.
-
Unknown B
Wrong.
-
Unknown A
So in 1973, Richard Nixon fired Elliot Richardson and the deputy Attorney general because the subpoena that had been issued by the special counsel in the Watergate matter had been resisted by Richard Nixon. He wanted to be done. And it was considered one of the most profound constitutional crises in the history of the country. Nowadays, we don't even look twice at the scale of the corruption that Donald Trump has put our country in. It is an absolute disgrace that we have, for example, the city mayor of New York doing a corrupt quid pro quo, a political quid pro quo to do political favors for the sitting commander in chief in exchange for his personal freedom. I don't hear Sean to defend the mayor in terms of his corruption. Sean will acknowledge that Mayor Adams is corrupt. And yet Sean is quite all right, quite fine with, or apparently willing to say that it's not corrupt or that this corruption should be overlooked in favor of some political preference.
-
Unknown A
It is absolutely scandalous, the level of infiltration of the executive branch into the legislative prerogatives, deleting wholesale agencies like the cfpb, deleting USAID that was statutorily approved. You might disagree, for example, with some of the funding decisions by your congresspeople, but those are congresspeople's decisions to make. Donald Trump's decision to completely halt all federal funding, all spending whatsoever. This is a infiltration. It is a attack on our Constitution. And nothing that Joe Biden did in his entire four years in office pales at all in comparison to what's going on there. They told us in their Project 2025 handbook what they were planning to do. What they want to do is centralize authority, and that's exactly what they're doing. They're doing illegal firings of inspectors general. They're doing illegal firings of independent agencies. And why? To make the function of the bureaucracy stop. What Donald Trump wants to do is make it so he determines what his money is spent on.
-
Unknown A
He determines whether or not people are investigated politically. Joe Biden never, ever did anything like that. I am willing and happy to acknowledge certain actions that Joe Biden did that I do not agree with, that I've even called corrupt. I've called his pardoning of his own family corrupt. I'm willing to do that. But think about this. The sitting commander in chief, the President of the United states, let out 1500 terrorist thugs who attack our Capitol. Possibly the single most corrupt action taken by a president in the history of the Union. We have a president who supported these terrorists, these maniacs who attacked our Congress people and tried to overthrow the election. Some indicted for and convicted of seditious conspiracy. And you guys think it's a joke. It's not a joke. These people tried to upend the constitutional order, and now he's put out his deniable thugs into the world, some of them literally, who have been indicted recently.
-
Unknown A
And what is this all for? What is the purpose? The purpose is to install a king. That's what he wants to be. I'm warning you right now. He wants to be a king, and he wants to have the authorities of a king. You hear it in what he talks about. He just tweeted the other day, you know, quoting polling, and you guys think it's a joke. He's turned our country into Hungary. Joe Biden never did anything like that. And if you want to go down the policy, I'm happy to do it. Happy to talk about, you know, I'm a liberal. I'm gonna put my card on the table. You guys know that. So I'd prefer Democratic policies over MAGA policies. But how is your life meaningly improved at all in the time that Donald Trump has taken office? Have prices gone down? He promised on day one to make prices go down.
-
Unknown A
He's a liar. Because what he cares about is not efficiency. What Elon Musk cares about is not efficiency. What they care about is taking down this country's bureaucracy, taking down our agencies, and stopping Congress from doing its job and taking over that's what he wants. And what's coming next is so predictable. He is gearing up for, as they all have done and as the Chief justice of the United States and who I disagree with a lot on, has warned about, he's going to defy the courts. That's what they're prepping for. And what are you guys going to do when he does? What are you going to do, Sean? Are you going to call for his impeachment when he defies a court openly raising Arby, violating court orders? There was a US District Court at Rhode island where he acknowledged, yes, he violated the order. The plain text of the order and where it was open and obvious was no excuse for it.
-
Unknown A
And so that's what they're prepping for next. And these people are going to defend it all the way. They're going to make these absurd comparisons to Biden's student loans, absurd comparisons to overreaches by the Obama administration. I'm not here for it. I'm here for the Republic, for the Constitution. And that's why Joe Biden's policies are incredibly better than Donald Trump's policy corruption and sexualization authority.
-
Unknown B
Thank you very much for that opening piece. Go.
-
Unknown A
We are going to take it over.
-
Unknown B
To Sean for his opening as well. Can you guys hear me?
-
Unknown A
Oh, okay. I got this.
-
Unknown B
Okay. So I noticed in his opening statement, he didn't really talk about a lot of actual policies of the Biden administration. And the reason that he didn't do that is because there aren't really these great policies that you can point to to talk about the successes of that administration under President Trump, under his first term, because we have not just the 20 days of him being in office or whatever amount of days he's been office as of late, we have a whole first term. The median middle class income rose by $4,400. Now, the Heritage foundation, which is very biased, will of course say it's $7,000. Some naysayers will say that it's $2,200. But according to a CBS report which was trying to ding him because rich incomes went up faster, it was $4,400. That's everyday Americans being improved due to the economic policies of the Trump administration.
-
Unknown B
The Biden administration people lost $2,200 in income when it's adjusted for inflation. Obviously, when we talk about what the policies are and if they're better, the question should be better for who? And I think the who should be the American people. And in my opinion, that stat alone is one Example of the economic policies being better for the American Joe Biden. The idea that anybody's gonna come up here and defend him when especially you, who jumped on the bandwagon to force him off the ticket for another candidate is ridiculous. Like you didn't want this guy three months ago or however many months ago, just before the election and now you're turning around and trying to defend him and you're throwing the same exact pre election attacks against Trump. January 6th is what we heard about the pardons of Trump's people. And by the way, I didn't support every pardon that Donald Trump issued.
-
Unknown B
And yes, the Hunter Biden pardon is a bad pardon, but he also pardoned 2,500 other people that were supposedly nonviolent drug offenders. And included in these supposedly non violent drug offenders was Adrian Peeler is a man who killed a state's witness who was 8 years old and his mother in order to prevent them from testifying against his brother who was also a murderer. Biden pardoned him because some crappy left wing organization said that he was a non violent drug offender because he was serving federal time for drugs, even though he had that conspiracy for murder on his state record. Adrian Peeler is so notorious in the state of Connecticut, he's the reason why they have a witness protection program. Biden set that man free. He will be out by July of this year. An unrepentant double murderer. I know that some of the January 6th defendants are bad guys.
-
Unknown B
I would not pardon them. Trump had the sense to commute some of their sentences, which does not erase their felony conviction. But this guy was a double murderer. Absolutely terrible. And yeah, there's a lot of bad parts under the Biden administration I can get into. But again, in terms of policies, the Trump administration was a deregulatory administration which frees up the economy for people to engage, make choices for themselves. And we saw the results in that in his first term, as far as his second term, he's dinging him for prices not coming down in under a month. I mean, this is a guy who denied, deflected, went along with the Democratic narrative that inflation was transitory, was telling you that you were wrong because you felt like the economy was getting worse under Biden, which by the way, now they come out and admit that the American people were right and the supposed data was wrong.
-
Unknown B
This was in Politico, one of Clinton's comptrollers. So yeah, this guy Biden, again, he was so bad, they literally threw him off the ticket at a nearly Unprecedented move. And Donald Trump was so good that after experiencing Biden, people voted for him back into office. They were like, you know what? Going to get back with our ex girlfriend. That's Donald Trump. He cooks a little bit better. And that's where we're at right now. Thank you very much for that opening as well. Bring it right into the open dialogue. Gentlemen, the floor is all yours.
-
Unknown A
Will you condemn the corrupt quid pro quo of Mayor Adams and the Trump Justice Department on the stage, yes or no? Yeah.
-
Unknown B
So I'm not a yes or no. I'm not a fan of Mayor Eric Adams. I never supported Mayor Eric Adams. I know this is your big get. Like, what do you think about. Let me answer the question. So I would have pursued the corruption charges against mayor Eric Adams 100%. I do think he's guilty. But unfortunately, I read some of the rationale for postponing this past the election. And even though you're trying to frame it as a corrupt quid pro quo, it turns out that there's a little bit of an issue in that the State's Attorney, Damian Williams, is actually using this or was supposedly using this. I'm sorry, The District Attorney for the Southern District of New York was actually using the Adams prosecution, which his office filed as a way to run for mayor of New York City.
-
Unknown A
So this is the full administration. Do you condemn? You can go.
-
Unknown B
You can go to Damien.
-
Unknown A
You condemn.
-
Unknown B
You can go to DamianWilliamsOfficial.com and see his. Very much not a campaign website. And this is the problem. I definitely disagree with them postponing you can as corrupt. Well, I don't believe it's corrupt.
-
Unknown A
I don't believe it's corrupt. Okay, so you don't think that we're doing it in exchange for immigration policy?
-
Unknown B
I don't think so, no.
-
Unknown A
So you believe.
-
Unknown B
I think they're trying to make it. I think they're trying to make something seem. I think they're doing something that I hate in American politics, which they found this guy who's going to run for mayor against Mayor Eric Adams was one of the architects of this prosecution. I think the case is solid, good, and should be pursued. But in order to avoid the perception of this being political and biased, that they're going to postpone it because they have not dismissed.
-
Unknown A
Look at the length that they'll go through to defend this corrupt administration. We have a corrupt Democratic politician. He acknowledges that he's corrupt and he.
-
Unknown B
Well, it's alleged.
-
Unknown A
He's not gonna make it. You don't think Mayor Adams corrupt.
-
Unknown B
Oh, no, I definitely do. But, like, that's not.
-
Unknown A
You would agree that Mayor Adams is corrupt? That's correct. Right?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, I think he is, but he's not 100%.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. So we both agree that he's corrupt. And Donald. And you're saying that when the Justice Department come down and says, hey, we're doing this, so he plays ball with us on immigration, you're saying you don't believe him?
-
Unknown B
That's not exactly what they said.
-
Unknown A
Give me a. In the.
-
Unknown B
In the middle.
-
Unknown A
So Tom Holman comes on with him on Fox News and says, we have an agreement. And by the way, the acting U.S. attorney, district attorney, the acting U.S. attorney of the Southern District of New York said this was a quid pro quo. She points to the conversation. She. It's not even denied that at least one of the major rationales is for immigration. And you're sitting here and you're accepting some bullshit post hoc narrative about a website from the US Attorney at the time who had no influence on this investigation whatsoever, and you have no evidence of that, and you're willing to say that this exchange is not corrupt?
-
Unknown B
I mean, he has no. He had no influence except for the fact that he's campaigning and showing himself at the press conference where they're announcing the indictments.
-
Unknown A
But. Okay, dude, so let's be clear. So you're buying the narrative that this entire thing was a witch hunt? No, I didn't say it was a witch hunt. Wait, I said the exact guy. Was it corrupt investigation or is it.
-
Unknown B
English, not your first?
-
Unknown A
Was it a corrupt investigation or not?
-
Unknown B
I don't think it was a corrupt investigation. I think it is legit to go after Mary Eric Adams. I disagree with it.
-
Unknown A
It was not a corrupt investigation. It was not a corrupt investigation of the corrupt mayor who he thinks is guilty. And he's okay with a not corrupt investigation with Donald Trump. Why would you stop that investigation? Why would you stop that?
-
Unknown B
Well, they're worried about an appearance of corruption, which is what they're concerned about.
-
Unknown A
And you don't think that the appearance of corruption, of writing in your memo that, hey, we want you to play ball in immigration? That's how it said. What about the appearance of a political statement on that? How about everyone, every Southern District of New York youth attorney in, like, the past, I don't know how many years coming out and condemning it? How about the Friday Night Massacre we have there. You have nothing to say for that? You think that that's above board? You Think it's not corrupt to drop this investigation. And by the way, they didn't drop it permanently. They dropped it temporarily. So if this is all the appearance of political bias that police worried about, why not drop it permanently? Why not part of him? If that's the reason, the reason why they kept it open and it's not done permanently with prejudice, is because they want to hold it over his head.
-
Unknown A
Because they might indict him after, as they state after the election, we might still indict you. They said, by the way, we didn't even look at the facts or law in this case in their own memo. And he's sitting here telling you, that's not corrupt. That's the length. And just so you know why this is relevant, that's the lengths people like this will go to defend the obvious blatant corruption by the Trump administration.
-
Unknown B
Again, you're just asserting that it's corruption and monologuing about it. It could be corruption. It could be a problem. Again, I think Eric Adams is corrupt. I would pursue the case. I understand the rationale that one of the guys who's the head of the Southern District of New York, he's the one that is running for mayor or allegedly gonna run for mayor against Mayor Eric Adams. He sets up a campaign website for cases that he has influence on, including the Adams case. Again, it's called what's this Guy's first name? Damianwilliamsofficial.com anybody can look up for himself. So I have this. I have an issue where you have an appearance of corruption from the Southern District of New York. I don't think that's legitimate. I would pursue the case. But you're asserting that it's a quid pro quo because they're saying they'll examine it after the election.
-
Unknown A
You're naive. You buy regime's propaganda. That's what they're doing, right? Like, if you're a prosecutor, one thing the prosecutors do is run for elected office. And one thing they do is, hey, look at all this crime we stopped. That doesn't mean that just because we're, you know, I'm showcasing the crimes I stopped. Just like, by the way, you had an issue with Alvin Bragg listing the different things that he's done as a public servant. Sorry, dude, that's campaigning. By the way, if Trump ran for office, he would also campaign on going after people and having big cases. That's just how our system works. And you're acting like that's corruption because you're a Stooge. Stooge of the regime. And we can move on from it.
-
Unknown B
Just look at the use of the regime.
-
Unknown A
I mean, you just said it's not corrupt investigation. You think he's guilty?
-
Unknown B
I think. I think there's a website. There's a website. I think Mayor Eric Adams is corrupt. The website is just supporting evidence that the guy from the Southern District of New York is going to run for mayor of the City of New York.
-
Unknown A
So, yeah, why do you discount the allegiance attorney? Why do you discount the line prospect?
-
Unknown B
Because I didn't say any of that. I said it looks like this guy's running for this position. So, yeah, it's weird when your office indicts a guy before an election for a position that you intend to.
-
Unknown A
On balance, if you had to pick right now between this whole exchange being corrupt or not corrupt, on balance, would you say it's corrupt or not corrupt? Which, given the evidence that you've seen of the memo, the acting as attorney, the memo of the line prosecutor who said this is. They can't even find someone from the Integrity Office to file the motion. And they have to put them all in a room and say, one of you mother, sign this. Because if you don't, you're all fired. And you're saying on balance that what, you're indifferent between the outcomes, that if this wasn't Jo Biden and the IRS whistleblowers, he wouldn't be screaming from the ledges saying, holy shit, look at this corruption. We saw this shit, by the way. Every second Joe Biden, there's some inside the sense he whispered that he's upset with Garland and these guys are screaming from the rooftops, interference, interference, interference.
-
Unknown A
It's blatant. In your face. You have no answer for it and we can move on.
-
Unknown B
But I've already answered it.
-
Unknown A
All right, cool. Cool. Cos. So what about guiding all the agencies? So these are statutorily enacted agencies, the cfpb, just for example, they say we're going to delete Elon Musk's whim. A billionaire oligarch, you're okay with usurping the legislative authority, is that right? They can put all their fine out of one on the President's unilateral discretion. Is that right?
-
Unknown B
So Elon Musk said that he wanted to delete the cfpb. They haven't done that yet. Again, they're examining it, they're auditing it. I remember somebody named Donald Trump who ran for president and he said that they're gonna set up this Department of Government Efficiency. Prior to him taking office, people like you were like, this is a joke agency. It's not real. Nothing to worry about. This isn't gonna do anything. And now, because the talking points have changed, it's President Elon Musk. Oh, no. He's going after all this different spending and whatnot.
-
Unknown A
And this characterizing what I said before, I've always said that Elon Musk is a dangerous influence on the President. You look at mistakes, you're just assuming shit. But just to be a trillion percent clear, you think it would be acceptable if they reduce, for example, the cfpb funding to $1, or they fire all the employees in that agency because, you.
-
Unknown B
Know, so the CFPB gets its funding from the Federal Reserve rather than from Congressional appropriations, which is an issue onto itself. Like, that's an agency that essentially exists in a fourth branch.
-
Unknown A
If the cfpb. If the cfpb, everyone fired, they close their offices and they use them for immigration detention.
-
Unknown B
Do you think that that's used offices for immigration detention?
-
Unknown A
So if it's. You can fight the hypothetical.
-
Unknown B
Like they're gonna put them in a state.
-
Unknown A
They stated their desire to end the cfpb, to end the department.
-
Unknown B
You can have a desire to end the. Yeah. The Republicans have been running on any Department of Education to get rid of.
-
Unknown A
The Department of Education. So why are they. Why are they, for the example, saying they're gonna do it? Why are they saying we're deleted?
-
Unknown B
Elon Musk said he wanted to delete.
-
Unknown A
The CFPB and Trump didn't. Are you serious?
-
Unknown B
Trump may have said it, but they have not.
-
Unknown A
You said they cannot shut down the.
-
Unknown B
CFPB if they fire the people there. Anybody in the executive branch can be fired by the president.
-
Unknown A
So just to be clear, Elon Musk, who's the head of the ccp, which you said, by the way, is a real agency with power, right?
-
Unknown B
No, I said you're talking points changed, that it was a fake agency too.
-
Unknown A
Well, the question is whether or not it's an authorized agency, whether or not it's statutorily, you know, properly enacted, and time will tell on that front, but he absolutely has effective control. You agree? Elon Musk has effective control over a ton of American policies. That's fair, right?
-
Unknown B
I don't think so.
-
Unknown A
You don't think Elon Musk. You do not think Elon Musk has an effect on US Policy Right now.
-
Unknown B
He'S damning the government.
-
Unknown A
You don't think that Elon Musk is influencing for example, how much money goes.
-
Unknown B
Now you're like weaseling around the terms. You said effective control and now you're like influence. There's a big difference, a giant value between those two things. But of course you're trying to use your weasel tactics because again, you just have to defend any of the Biden policies. Notice how all of this is like, oh, Elon Musk and the cpc. Oh, can they get rid of influence? Does he have influence over the press? Yes, he's in the Oval Office.
-
Unknown A
Nobody said that.
-
Unknown B
Again, you said control. You went from control to influence.
-
Unknown A
That. Can you point to a single thing that Biden did that was as corrupt as pardoning all the dance sisters? Oh, wait.
-
Unknown B
Pardoning his son. What, so you think pardoning his son, pardoning federal government officials at the preemptive pardon that dates back 10 years, three years before any of the offenses.
-
Unknown A
I just want to be clear. You think that it is more corrupt? It is more corrupt. I agree it's corrupt. You agree it's more corrupt to pardon Hunter Biden for his tax related offenses.
-
Unknown B
For all events, for every event for 10 years, including offenses unknown, than to.
-
Unknown A
Than to pardon the proud boys and oath keepers that committed and were convicted of disuspinspirit.
-
Unknown B
Some of those people, like Stuart Rose, had their convictions commuted.
-
Unknown A
Do you think that they weren't actually more corrupt to pardon 100 Biden?
-
Unknown B
Yes. Your own family.
-
Unknown A
So this is a guy who actually planned violence. It was true. I was able to overthrow the government. And he's saying that it's more corrupt to pardon your son, which is corrupt, than the people who tried to overturn the 2020 election. That shows you he's not serious about constitutional politicism. He's not serious about democracy. Anyone who can say that with a straight face? And to say, to say that. Everyone. 1500 people. How do you defend that?
-
Unknown B
1500 people? Yeah, he pardoned 1500 people. Joe Biden pardoned 2,500 people in a list that was given to my organization, including murderers that were told 10 to be nonviolent. By your own retelling is the raw number of those people.
-
Unknown A
By your own retelling, he was lied to by a leftist group, in which.
-
Unknown B
Case it certainly gave him that list.
-
Unknown A
And then if he's just an idiot and going off the left, as you're.
-
Unknown B
Suggesting, as your campaigned on pardoning and commuting the January 6ers, the American people voted for him and he enacted those promises again. Day one of the Trump presidency. Something that people don't usually see for the politicians, he had an hour long session where he was going over all the different orders that he was doing in order to show the American people that he was keeping to his word for five minutes. And again, notice the lack of defense of any of Joe Biden's policies from this one right here. Let's go, Orange Man. Bad Trump. Bad Trump. Bad. January 6th. January 6th. Do you have an alibi?
-
Unknown A
So Joe Biden, 100%. So immediately, instead of focusing on centralizing executive authority, Joe Biden was going after bipartisan legislative wins. Bipartisan legislative wins are voted by Republicans as well. Not the American Bipartisan Infrastructure act, the Inflation Reduction act, the Chips and Science Act. These are pieces of legislation that invested in protecting the American worker, that invested in our economy. You know, bipartisan gun legislation, or even if you're a subsequent amendment person, these are to stop, like, you know, domestic abusers from access to guns and things like that. So we can talk about legislative ways that he pursued honorably, as the President should. And yeah, I mean, by what legislature are we waiting for for Trump? We're waiting for massive tax cuts. And he wants to defund Medicaid. They're telling you he wants to defund Medicaid. He wants to increase the military budget. Are you like a war hawk now?
-
Unknown A
By $150 billion. How is that responsible?
-
Unknown B
The military budget goes up under every administration, number one. Number two, the tax cuts put money back in the American people's pockets. And the proof of is in the results of the economic policies. Again, incomes for ordinary people went up $4,400 under Biden. And all those investments in the American economy, what did we get? A decline in your income, adjusted for correlation by $2,200. And in addition to that, like these programs like the Inflation Reduction act, which is really about climate change, you can look at all the different ridiculous programs that they've done under the guise of climate change. I mean, I just did a story about Maine where they were gifted four electric school buses in a school district from a company called Lyons Energy. Now these buses catch fire, they break down. One of them stalled twice en route to pick up the kids.
-
Unknown B
And this guy who's the driver of this bus had to veer off into a snowbank in order to prevent himself from crashing into an intersection. So that was given through an EPA program. And by the way, this is one of the reasons why they're trying to examine all these different various grants under the Biden administration. And there were free buses under the condition that the school district had to run them for four or, I'm sorry, run them for five years. Problem is they didn't work. They sent them back to the manufacturer, manufacturer again, a Canadian company, Lions Energy. They say that they're fixed, return them back to the school, and they're still broken, they're still busted. And now these school districts across the country are stuck due to this ridiculous environmental program. Another ridiculous environmental program from the Biden administration. Again, the bipartisan Inflation Reduction act, that's actually a climate change bill, is building an electric car charging network around the country.
-
Unknown B
Now, we're only a few years into this program, but it had a full budget of $7.5 billion. And after three years, they built eight a year.
-
Unknown A
But shouldn't take.
-
Unknown B
It shouldn't take 10 years.
-
Unknown A
You can say about the pace, though.
-
Unknown B
You can say the plan in two years. Just think about that.
-
Unknown A
So four.
-
Unknown B
So you get 40 after 10 years at that pace. That's horrible.
-
Unknown A
You can say the plan sucks, but you're acting as though it's not going according to plan. They're trying to do private public partnerships and not just work everything like fiat because we recognize that there's a. It's a complex system that we live in. But you talked about prices. I want to talk about that. So if prices don't come down in the next four years, are you going to call the policies of Donald Trump to expect the economy. Yeah. A disaster if they don't come down, you expect the prices.
-
Unknown B
He promised that prices would drop and he said he was going to do things to help prices drop. So, yeah, if prices is up, it's February.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. What I'm telling you is are you.
-
Unknown B
Still using statistics from January that was like the price of exits as of January 5th?
-
Unknown A
I want to be clear.
-
Unknown B
They blame.
-
Unknown A
I just want to be clear. You should not expect your prices to decrease. You should not expect your price to decrease. So we'll see you again in two years when prices have not decreased. And where Trump, for example, is talking about in edging for these massive tariff wars, you guys saw that, right? Where he's having these fake propaganda victories where nothing of any consequence happens. And so you should not expect those prices to come down. So I'm very, very looking forward to when you post that video in two years saying Trump's policy, this price have not come down.
-
Unknown B
I think you can expect some of your energy prices to come down and that will have some downstream effects on the economy.
-
Unknown A
Oh, really? You know, one of the major providers for energy in the United States, America, of Exporters, Canada and who right now, relations with Canada have never been worse. He's openly copying.
-
Unknown B
Once Canada is a province of the United States of America, we will have access to all of their.
-
Unknown A
It's a meme. It's a meme because they think that this whole thing is a joke for them. It's about owning the liberals who have flipping comments like that where they're not taking it seriously. The expansionist vision of this administration, for example, talking about owning Gaza. What do you think about that? Well, Al Rubio doubling down on it. I just think it's a posture. You just think it's fake.
-
Unknown B
Well, I do think it's a posture. I hope it's a posture because I don't want anything to do with Gaza now. Greenland. That is a vision for the future, and I'm definitely on board.
-
Unknown A
Would you end NATO? Would you end NATO to take over Greenland?
-
Unknown B
Would I end NATO to take over Greenland? We want to buy Greenland.
-
Unknown A
Okay. Denmark is not for sale.
-
Unknown B
Well, that's where you start to negotiate.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. Okay, but what about Gaza?
-
Unknown B
I don't want. I don't want Gaza.
-
Unknown A
Benjamin Netanyahu has, you would agree, a tremendous influence on Donald Trump there.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. And. Oh, does he control him or influence him? Because you think that those words are interchanged.
-
Unknown A
So just be clear. I said that Elon Musk has effective control over a lot of policies, which he does there.
-
Unknown B
No influence.
-
Unknown A
He doesn't have control.
-
Unknown B
Influence.
-
Unknown A
So explain that to me so someone's able to.
-
Unknown B
He's a special government employee. He serves at the discretion of the president.
-
Unknown A
He has effective control over lifestyle.
-
Unknown B
I don't think so. No.
-
Unknown A
Not even effective control.
-
Unknown B
No. Because Congress is going to have to examine the things that he's doing, especially with these departments that are all his handlers.
-
Unknown A
Who do you think they didn't have effective control?
-
Unknown B
I know Joe Biden was the President of the United States of America and the Democratic.
-
Unknown A
You're the one who's gonna get to the semantics.
-
Unknown B
As soon as we argue on control again, to just rewind the tape, he then switches to influence.
-
Unknown A
Right.
-
Unknown B
So he's what turns the Mott Bailey. So he goes out on the strong position, and then when I push back on it, he retreats to a weaker turn. This is the tactic that he's trying to go.
-
Unknown A
The turn is effective control. Yeah.
-
Unknown B
And I said, no, no, no, I disagree. I don't buy into your premise. I'm not on board with it. So how can I say this more clearly so you stop asking the same question?
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
So why does I say he has influence?
-
Unknown A
Does the Secretary of State have control over policy? Yeah.
-
Unknown B
The Secretary of which secretary has influence. I'm sorry? Has control over our policy.
-
Unknown A
Does he have effective control?
-
Unknown B
I think the Secretary State has control over effective control.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. Effective control.
-
Unknown B
Why does the Secretary say the Secretary of State is a confirmed nominee to that particular office? I forget what position they are in the line of succession, the government. Well, the Secretary of State is a cabinet level department, again, doing duties that are authorized by Congress. Elon Musk is a special government employee and that can only work for 130 days in a 365 day period. So what are you talking about? So what we're talking, a cabinet level department in the line of succession is the same as a special government employee.
-
Unknown A
What you're doing is because the President is ultimately the supervising authority over, I guess in your mind, every single employee in the executive branch.
-
Unknown B
Well, that is true. I'm not even willing to say.
-
Unknown A
I'm not even willing to say where in Article 2 of the Constitution it said there's a vesting cloth.
-
Unknown B
Where in the Constitution does it say that they can create something in the executive branch that's above the President?
-
Unknown A
Well, there's Biden's appropriate precedent on that. It's called Conference executor. And there's another one recently by Roberts called State of Law. You're aware of the President's there. No. You're not aware of the presence of unicorn executive theory and on executives who are not mutually favorable by the President. You're not aware of that, but you're talking about it. And so it's a foregone conclusion that article to the Constitution works the way you think it is because you're talking out of your ass. Because you've never actually read these cases or have dealt with the argument.
-
Unknown B
I don't know the two cases that you're referring to, but yeah, they're the.
-
Unknown A
Most famous cases on the most. They're talking about overturning it. But you're willing to say on here that it's so obvious the President can fire anyone he wants in the administration. The President, the premise that Trump wants you to have, he wants you to think that everything's under his thumb. That's why he's firing illegally, all of these protected offices. That's why he's firing, for example, the head of the fec, head of the eoc. He wants these agencies and independent agencies to stop functioning.
-
Unknown B
They're not independent agencies. They're under the executive branch. Like this idea that there's these independent agencies just not real. Again, the President is the head of the executive branch and even the inspector generals that you brought up in the open, like, did you explain what is supposedly illegal about their firing? He's supposed to give them 30 days notice that he's firing an inspector general.
-
Unknown A
Those notice provisions are important. Why are they important? The notice provisions are put there for a reason. To prevent these kinds of situations where the President of the United States is at the drop of a hat, firing the people who are responsible for internal compliance, firing the people who are responsible for being attacked on its own branch and so violating that 30 day notice provision is extremely important because it's Trump trying to usurp the limitations that Congress has put in the law. The Congress has said, you may only fire these people for such and such reasons. And after 30 days notice to Congress, just like he's flagrantly flouting the Impoundment act on these spending procedures, what he wants to do is take away power from Congress, which has delegated some authority to the President on conditions. They say, yes, you can impound certain funds, but only through these procedures, only this amount of time.
-
Unknown A
Yes, you can fire these people, but only for these procedures.
-
Unknown B
And when you say we haven't even hit the limits of the Impoundment Control act, It's something like 45 legislative days.
-
Unknown A
They'Re full on talking. So first of all, in order to be compliant with the Impoundment act, you need to send a special message to Congress. Is the impoundment acting faultless or not?
-
Unknown B
Well, I don't believe the Impoundment act is constitutional. Prior to the Impoundment act, it was expected that the President would trim back the funds if it was appropriate in such a way that Congress gave a cap. And in the USAID legislation, which actually have it written down right here, it's called Senate Bill 2438. You see multiple different authorizations, which is up to a certain amount, amount, or as is necessary to perform the function. So you actually do have the authority under the previous system to trim back those funds again, as long as you're accomplishing the necessary mission.
-
Unknown A
So let's see what he just said. The Impoundment act is unconstitutional.
-
Unknown B
So what he Act? Yeah.
-
Unknown A
So what he's suggesting to you is that it would be constitutional for the President to stop any appropriation passed by Congress. Okay, so do you think that Trump has the power right now to stop any funding who wants for an indefinite period of time?
-
Unknown B
I didn't say that.
-
Unknown A
Do you think that's power?
-
Unknown B
I said if Congress appropriates money on a maximum cap like you are to spend like the classic example that goes back to Washington is if you were to authorize, if you were to authorize the, the President to purchase, you know, 10 gunships and you gave them back in the day, it'd be like $20,000 and the president can get that for $15,000, then he does not have to spend the maximum authorized by Congress. This is the theory of authority to stop any amount under the circumstances that I just laid out where there's a maximum spend amount, if you can accomplish it for less money, then yes.
-
Unknown A
So I want to be 100% clear. So the Department of Education has been appropriately funds by Congress. Agreed. Okay. So could Trump, if you wanted to, under your theory of executive power, halt, you know, only put in $1 for the Department of Education and halt the rest of it for indefinite period of time? Yes or not.
-
Unknown B
First of all, it's. What did I just say? If the legislation offers a maximum cap for appropriations and the President can go.
-
Unknown A
Under it appropriate a specific amount of money. I'm asking you that question.
-
Unknown B
If it's appropriating a specific amount of money, then no, the President wouldn't be able to just get R. So should he have to.
-
Unknown A
So then if that's the case, what can Congress effectively do about it if he decides I'm going to pause it.
-
Unknown B
Well, he can pause funds like temporarily under the impoundment.
-
Unknown A
No, because that's on Constitution.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. I think it's unconstitutional. Yeah.
-
Unknown A
So under.
-
Unknown B
So what could Congress constitutionally already had the legislation. So like that can be enforced. So we haven't even gotten to that 45 days.
-
Unknown A
Enforced by whom?
-
Unknown B
We haven't even gotten to that 45 day period. And you would go to courts.
-
Unknown A
So the 45 day period is constitutional but not denied.
-
Unknown B
Oh my God. The current law, regardless of what I think is constitutional or not, since you needed to hear English says 45 legislative days. So we haven't even gotten to that point to even have this discussion about the Impoundment Control act after the 45 legislative days. Under the Impoundment Control act they can take the presidents in court.
-
Unknown A
So that is only for rescissions, not deferrals. And to be 100% clear, they have to have sent a special message to Congress which you agree he did not do fair?
-
Unknown B
I don't know if he did.
-
Unknown A
He sent an omb. You just asserted that I want to represent. He of course did not send a Special message because he believes, Trump believes, as actual Justice Warrior Sean does that. You can check it. People at home can check it. They believe the Impoundment act is unconstitutional. No one can argue that they're trying to follow the Impoundment Act. They're deliberately, just like they're deliberating the or deliberately fighting the requirements of firing a notice on firing. They're deliberately fighting the congressional limitations on the Impoundment Act. And so it's such a pretense to sit here and, like, think that they're complying when they're openly defying Congress. And what they're trying to do is what they're hoping for. If the court orders will go their way, a lot of them won't. And what will happen is just like they're gearing up for. They're going to defy court orders and you're going to sit here.
-
Unknown B
And because of this, Joe Biden's taxation policy is better. Like, again, notice how he can't actually argue the practice of debate. And speaking of defiance of court orders, the Supreme Court of the United States of America struck down affirmative action under the Biden administration's Department of Education. They were advising universities as a way to do an end around the Supreme Court decision by telling them to stop looking for racial diversity and start doing these adversity scores. This is well documented from the Department of Education. Biden's like, he even had a little bit of a speech where he talked about how, oh, the Supreme Court may have struck this down, but diversity still our strength. Similar thing happened after student loan forgiveness was shut down by the courts. The Biden administration turned around and started expanding other relief programs. He even gave a speech where he said, oh, the Supreme Court shut this down because the Republicans and the attorney generals ended up suing.
-
Unknown B
And then what did he do? He expanded eligibility through the executive branch for a bunch of different programs to try to get some of this done and buck the Supreme Court.
-
Unknown A
Did you read Biden's Nebraska from the vaccine case?
-
Unknown B
Did I read the case now?
-
Unknown A
Of course not. Because obviously those adversity type. You're laughing, you're laughing. It's complete true. He didn't read. He doesn't know what's in it. He doesn't know if defined the core. And because the truth is, the court said you're allowed to consider adversity. You're allowed to do that in a kind of generic or an essay that.
-
Unknown B
They use in the Department of Education as a code for racial diversity.
-
Unknown A
The court said that was acceptable. So it's.
-
Unknown B
So it's not acceptable when you're using it to subvert in order to get the same ratio.
-
Unknown A
You read the case and you're telling them what's acceptable under the case. What a joker you are. And then obviously the case completely. I mean, what does that have to do with what Biden did? What Biden did was initially tried to have a policy that affected, you know, $10,000 universally if you don't have a Pell Grant, $20,000 universally if you do a Pell Grant. And that was striking out like millions of millions, millions of people. Very, very broad. And that was struck down. He never tried that shit again. He expanded existence. So did different things. He expanded the.
-
Unknown B
But you just went after Trump. And in your opening statement, you went after Trump for supposedly defying Rhode island judge. But the Trump administration's justification for that was that the OMB memo is what was rescinded as per the court's request. However, they had a different executive order that they were using to free specific funds, and they didn't believe that the court's decision on that one case, which is on that one order, expanded to all orders.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. So I want to.
-
Unknown B
That was the legal theory. Like every legal theory for the Biden administration is valid and good and honest and genuine. Every single one of the Trump administration is corrupt. And again, we're also not talking about economic policies or anything of the sort because you can't defend it. You talk about foreign policy. If you're going after Trump over the Gaza thing, I think it makes sense to actually posture strength on behalf of our allies rather than the wishy washy nonsense. We're Biden's like, oh, yeah, so we're going to support the Israelis, but also we're going to, like, not give them the 2,000 pound bombs. We're going to freeze that temporarily. Like, it's nonsense.
-
Unknown A
You agree with them coming out on saying America's going to own.
-
Unknown B
I think posturing that the Hamas terrorists. Let me answer the question. I think that posturing that Hamas terrorists might actually lose something they care about, like territory as a consequence for their actions, rather than just get a ceasefire, a reset and repeat, which is the standard in the Middle east, is a better strategy on a foreign policy stage than what was the.
-
Unknown A
Do you agree with Trump coming out and saying, America, I would own, I don't Gaza. Do you agree with them coming out saying yes or no?
-
Unknown B
I wish he wouldn't have said America was going to own Gaza because I don't want it So I disagree with that. I disagree with it.
-
Unknown A
It's a smart posture, I think.
-
Unknown B
What, do you not, like, hear the words that I say?
-
Unknown A
You just imagine I said it's a.
-
Unknown B
Smart posture to tell Hamas, this organization that is the governing authority in Gaza, that they're going to lose something for their actions. And in this case, it's territory. What I disagree with is I don't want Gaza. I don't want the Americans to say that they want Gaza. I would say I would have backed Israel. I would have backed Israel, like saying that they would take it rather than us, because I don't want that problem now. Do I even want the Israelis to take Gaza? In truth, probably not. It's not something that I care about. That's a foreign overseas conflict. But you posture on behalf of your allies.
-
Unknown A
You go, it was bad. It was bad.
-
Unknown B
Oh, my God, it was bad for America to claim that they're gonna own it. Because I don't want it. It's good to tell Hamas that they're going to lose something they care about because they don't care about their civilians, but they do care about their territory.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, but because when you lose a.
-
Unknown B
War, you should feel like you're going to lose something, and that actually increases or decreases the chances that you will attack again. Because what happens in the Middle East, Hamas attacks or whatever organization attacks, the Israelis strike back, international pressure goes on, The Israelis, they initiate a ceasefire, and that never leads to peace. We just get rinse and repeat. And the reason why is that international pressure ends up lowering the consequences for initiating force against Israel. And that's why the cycle keeps going.
-
Unknown A
Why would you disagree with Trump's posture then? If Trump is saying that just as a posture and it's not really going to be implemented, you don't want to be taken over anyway. Why would you disagree with things?
-
Unknown B
It's bad for the reasons that I said. I want to say two times or three times, I don't know.
-
Unknown A
Well, you basically said you need to tell them they're going to lose something.
-
Unknown B
Yes, lose territory. But I don't want America to have.
-
Unknown A
To lose it all and give it to America. That distinction.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, yeah, it does matter.
-
Unknown A
Okay, yes, Then it. I agree with this stupid policy. I totally disagree with Trump being Benjamin Netanyahu's dog, which he goes around, pulls a seat out for him and does anything that BB asks him to do. You know, he's funded by a bunch of pro Israeli donors. And let's just be clear about that. He's going to do what Israel commands him to do. Fair.
-
Unknown B
No, not necessarily.
-
Unknown A
Okay. More so than Biden. Fair.
-
Unknown B
No.
-
Unknown A
You think that Biden is more beholden to Israel than.
-
Unknown B
Oh, Biden actually received more money from AIPAC than any politician in America.
-
Unknown A
That's what I asked. APAC is not all pro Israeli funders. Fair.
-
Unknown B
AIPAC is not all pro Israeli funders. Are there anti Israel people in the American Israeli political action committee?
-
Unknown A
I didn't say. No, no, you said that Biden got more APAC dollars. I'm telling you.
-
Unknown B
Oh, okay. I got you. Like I. No, no, no. I understand what you're saying.
-
Unknown A
And I didn't get that money. And so the real question is, and I want to be clear, I don't think you. I don't think that you agree with anyhow whose amount of influence has. In America. Right.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, I don't.
-
Unknown A
Right. So. So why do you think that Biden is more beholden to Israel than Trump?
-
Unknown B
I don't think that they're. I think the both parties in the American politics are influenced strongly by Israel.
-
Unknown A
It's a relative question who's more influenced?
-
Unknown B
I think Trump is more influenced by the Adelsons because he gets more money from the Adelsons.
-
Unknown A
So, okay, they're both. You can't say who's more.
-
Unknown B
I think Trump is more pro Israel than Biden.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. More influenced by Israel. Fair. And he's gonna do what Israel wants.
-
Unknown B
I don't know necessarily. I don't know what this Gaza thing is.
-
Unknown A
Okay. I mean, they're signaling now.
-
Unknown B
I think Trump was more likely to signal that he's going to do what Israel wants, which I think is important.
-
Unknown A
Let's look at the actual things they did. Abraham Accords and recognized that was what.
-
Unknown B
A great mention of foreign policy victories for Trump. I mean, negotiating peace with bilateral peace agreements with Arab neighbors. What was it like the first time in 25 years that they got a peace.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, you say that, but to be clear, 100% the question was who's more influenced by Israel? And Trump gave Israel tangible wins and victories there, some say, by the way, had a positive effect on that horrible attack. Obviously Hamas bears complete and total responsibility for the atrocious acts that they did and the terrorism. And I Hamas. And so I'm not supporting Hamas at all. But people point to that as a causative effect.
-
Unknown B
The Abrahamic dumb people point to that as a cause.
-
Unknown A
You don't get that effect.
-
Unknown B
No, I don't. I think that if Hamas gets the opportunity to attack Israel, they do it like I don't think negotiating these bilateral peace agreements made Hamas more violent. They were always a violent terrorist organization.
-
Unknown A
You don't think that it was isolating the Iranian proxies, that it was isolated, that Hamas in Iran, in conjunction with Hezbollah, wanted to take one off?
-
Unknown B
So you think, like, Hamas was, like, sitting around and they're like, gosh, you know, like, us and the Israelis are good. Holy crap. They're getting these bilateral agreements now. We really hate them. Like, they always hated the Israelis. They were always attacking them. There's a dumb theory of Israeli or Middle Eastern foreign policy that all peace has to start with the Palestinians. That's not true. The Trump administration, ingeniously, in his first term, realized that it made way more sense to cut off the Palestinians from some of these people, some of these countries, and negotiate these bilateral agreements. And then maybe you'll get to a point where the Palestinians aren't being funded by all these different, various groups. And I know that a lot of the Shia groups, like Hezbollah and all that through Iran, are funding them. I think this is a. Is a much better strategy to negotiate.
-
Unknown A
Cutting off aid for Palestine.
-
Unknown B
What? Did I say that?
-
Unknown A
Do you. I'm asking.
-
Unknown B
Well, I don't want the American taxpayer to fund them.
-
Unknown A
So you do support cutting off aid for Palestine?
-
Unknown B
I might do some humanitarian aid. Like, whole, like, territory got blown up.
-
Unknown A
I mean, they paused all foreign aid.
-
Unknown B
Well, I mean, they're in the middle of a war. You said end it, like, altogether.
-
Unknown A
I mean, so I just want to be clear in terms of humanitarian aid, sounds like you're in favor of that. Do you agree with the pause on all U.S. aid except for Israel and Egypt?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, well, I would. We haven't paused Ukraine, actually. We're still supporting them.
-
Unknown A
So I wouldn't.
-
Unknown B
I wouldn't cut off an ally in a war.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so you would be in favor, for example, of. Of Ukraine and America continuing to have a relationship and not taking money away from Ukraine, which is what Republicans in Congress want to do next.
-
Unknown B
I mean, they're saying that they want to do that, or Trump campaigned on doing that, but that's not what's been the effect. And speaking of Ukraine, another genius Biden foreign policy blunder was reducing lethal aid to Ukraine as the Russians were amassing troops in Crimea, which he was doing, and I believe it was June of 2021. Trump, actually, during his first administration, was increasing lethal aid to points that the previous Obama administration, which is not relevant to this particular conversation, because we're doing Trump versus Biden again. You should start defending Joe Biden anytime something right. And Biden was reducing it because every president, and this is really unfortunate. And by the way, Trump did a little bit of this in his first term, has this idea that you could do a Russian reset. It's one of the dumbest conventional wisdom things in American policy, and I just can't stand it.
-
Unknown B
So, yeah, we ended up reducing as a country under Biden administration aid to Ukraine, lethal aid prior to their invasion, which again, signals weakness. And that's what I'm against. Now, ideally, would I want to reduce funding to Israel 100%, Ukraine 100% over time. But you don't do that during a war because you have to think about the broader game. You don't want the Chinese to be incentivized to go for Taiwan.
-
Unknown A
So you have to put up a.
-
Unknown B
Strong front in these regards with our known allies, even though it sucks and I don't like our money going out the door in order to deter us from getting involved in future conflicts.
-
Unknown A
On the Ukraine stuff, you know, I'm man enough to get something right. When Trump gave lethal aid to the Ukrainians, I think that is correct that he was the first president to give lethal aid in that context. And yeah, he was right for doing that. But if you look at the body of these people's work, it's obvious that Biden is way more pro Ukraine. I'm not aware of the line item they reference him right now, the specifically filet given prior to the invasion that they do. They'll cherry pick like the specific line item that makes them out to be bad. What's going on now is obviously. And as Ukraine is signaling, they're cutting Ukraine out and they're signaling that they want to take away funding from Ukraine. And I don't know where you. If you're worried about China, for example, why are you giving all of these developing countries incentives to go into Beijing's arms by cutting off all their US Aid?
-
Unknown A
Why are you signaling that America is an untrustworthy ally by like in the middle? You think about efficiency at a drop of Hatties, all the funny gets cut off. You know, we have boats that are supposed to be leaving with food and they're all rotting on their boats. How is that a good idea? How does that not embolden strengthen China and Russia?
-
Unknown B
Well, for the Chinese, yes, there is the chance that some of the cuts from US Aid could create a vacuum for the Chinese. But like right now we're in a pause. We're reviewing this stuff and I do Believe a lot of times some of our foreign aid is counterproductive. And again, to be clear, under our democratic system, people voted for this, for the Trump administration. As far as subverting China, this is what the whole Panama Canal drama was all about. Because the Chinese, there's a Chinese company, technically it's a Hong Kong based company, but since China took Hong Kong in Trump's first term, that has positions on both sides of the canal. And we're trying to put pressure on the nation of Panama again to get them out of our backyard. American foreign policy that dates all the way back to Monroe Doctrine so that they can't potentially block off the canal.
-
Unknown B
So yeah, we are trying to subvert China. We're also trying to re examine the programs that we have in places like, like usaid. And there's not everything that they're doing that I'm going to absolutely love. Like I am going to be against certain things that are strategically valuable for the United States of America. But we don't know if usaid, because none of us, let's be real, were talking about US Aid three weeks ago or two months ago, really, we don't know how effective any of these programs are. So it's fine to review them in my opinions.
-
Unknown A
Freeze them all completely. Review them while they're being frozen. Why not just review them and then freeze them as needed? And also, by the way, I think Congress have to do it. But let's be fair, you're Congress would have to.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, I'm gonna put the final nail in the coffin for you as well.
-
Unknown A
For you, I think there's like some discretion for the president. Indefinitely suspend all kinds of. I just saying that's what it sounds like that. Do you think that the only limits.
-
Unknown B
What it sounds like in your head.
-
Unknown A
Based on the words you're saying that the Common act is unconstitutional. Congress cannot break statutes, limit the President's.
-
Unknown B
Discretionary, you know, the difference between influence and effective control.
-
Unknown A
So like, oh, bro, that's so weak. So to be clear, you're fearful of China's encroachment. So I think it's weird to have someone who has very strong financial ties to Beijing and China.
-
Unknown B
How come you didn't respect any of my Middle Eastern points? Why are we off that?
-
Unknown A
Which ones you want to respond to?
-
Unknown B
What I said?
-
Unknown A
The ones related to Israel, Palestine.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, I was defending the bilateral peace agreements and you're saying no Israel.
-
Unknown A
Is that okay? Or do you think that you want me to go, which is why you're.
-
Unknown B
Glossing over it No, I. I think.
-
Unknown A
That Trump's posture on Israel, Palestine, Palestine was not perfect. I didn't like that. Was far too deferential to Bibi Netanyahu. I do think that. And I think that Trump is worse than that. Respect. And I think that we agree that they have too much influence on American foreign policy and so on. That I think there's common agreement on that. So I don't know what the big deal is in the sense of acknowledging that Trump is worse with respect to Israeli influence. But what you're saying is the Abraham Accords, which established mutual recognition, which was de facto agreed. I mean, like, they were traded, they had mutual interests. And that this formal signing, which some say incited tension in the region, that it was worth, you know, the paper that was written on, and you can execute truth there.
-
Unknown B
I think that those bilateral agreements are good. And it also demonstrates that this theory in American foreign policy that's gone on for way too long, that the key to peace in the Middle east is to settle the Israeli Palestinian issue is just not true.
-
Unknown A
I mean, what does it look like now? It sounds like that's a big component of establishing peace in the Middle east right now. And Saudi Arabia says we're not going to establish diplomatic relations with Israel without the Palestinian state. So it sounds like.
-
Unknown B
I mean, they were already working on this prior to the October 7 attack.
-
Unknown A
Saudi and Israeli relations. But the Saudi position now is that.
-
Unknown B
Right now, during the war, do you.
-
Unknown A
Think they would have. I mean, if that's.
-
Unknown B
I do think, yes. If Trump would have won a second term, I do think they would have gotten the Abraham Accords signed.
-
Unknown A
Oh, that's also. You think the invasion of Israel would not have happened under Trump's watch? What happens to that?
-
Unknown B
You're talking about Hamas attacks.
-
Unknown A
Sorry, the Hamas attack into Israel?
-
Unknown B
No, I think that they would have continued the work on the Abraham Accords and they would have gotten a deal like with Saudi Arabia, because that was something that the Trump administration was pushing for. Biden promised to return to normalcy. And when he got into office, this all of a sudden Middle Eastern part, I think Saudi Arabia would have recognized. I'm sorry, I think Saudi Arabia would have become a party to the Abram Accords if Trump won a second term. This is what I'm saying. The October 7th, the text was in 2023. So we would had 2021, 2022, and most of 2023. That's what I said.
-
Unknown A
Okay. I mean, I think that.
-
Unknown B
I said that there's a different theory in Middle Eastern foreign policy under the Trump administration versus the Biden administration. And honestly, all administrations that proceeded that peace must start with the Palestinians. That was not Trump's theory. The foreign policy, that's why he got.
-
Unknown A
The average report is Trump is transactional and Trump is doing things for his personal interest and not for the nation's interest. So. And so are the other cronies and oligarchs in his administration. So, for example, as I raised before, Elon Musk has direct financial ties with China. Why is he the one who's leading these audits? Why does it make sense for someone so conflicted to be. Isn't that by itself showing that this is a wrong process? The fact that he's heading there when he has so many deep ties to countries that could be or also internal actors that could be affected by how the government is funded. Tesla, for example, SpaceX, you know, he's leading the NASA audit. How is that okay? Are you okay with that?
-
Unknown B
I mean, look, there are potential conflicts of interest and as they arise, I think they should be addressed and like he should be removed.
-
Unknown A
Should be in charge of those audit or no.
-
Unknown B
But in terms of NASA specifically, like Elon Musk has done more money to save should investigations. In charge of the investigations, the audits.
-
Unknown A
Whatever you're calling them, the audits as pertains to the spending freezes, the Doge activities and the other spending freezes and the audits that you're saying Doge is doing, should Elon Musk be in charge of that? Yes or no?
-
Unknown B
He's a special government employee.
-
Unknown A
Should he be in charge?
-
Unknown B
I think he should be in charge of it. And when conflicts of interest come up.
-
Unknown A
Have they been addressed?
-
Unknown B
There was a fake one that came up and the way that the Trump administration dealt with it I actually think was quite admirable. From Rachel Maddows, right? Yeah, there was a report from them and they actually paused that.
-
Unknown A
Confidential. I think it's still not confident. Interest because the acquisition happened under Biden. Is that fair?
-
Unknown B
No, no. The purchase order happened under Biden and.
-
Unknown A
Therefore it's cleansed of its conflict.
-
Unknown B
I didn't say that, but think about.
-
Unknown A
That for two seconds. Right. Elon Musk is deciding which programs and which expenditures get exemptions. And so whether or not the expenditure happened under Biden's watch or Trumps, Elon is in charge of where that funding goes through. He's in charge of getting exemption.
-
Unknown B
Trump administration specifically caused that deal. That was the subject of a fake report that you bit into on social media. And now you're backing off of.
-
Unknown A
No, that plus has a fleet example is a perfect example of a conflict. It's pristine.
-
Unknown B
And they grow that contract after it.
-
Unknown A
Was brought to their attention. Correct? Yeah, yeah, so. But he should not be leading this. And the fact he won't say it, that he should not be this crazy. This guy, there's so many connections between. He's a military contractor and he's going to be in charge of all of the government or at least, sorry, having significant influence on charge. They make recommendations that are having the force of law.
-
Unknown B
They make recommendations to the president again.
-
Unknown A
That he's accepting wholesale.
-
Unknown B
Well, I don't know.
-
Unknown A
You pretend that it doesn't matter. Your pretend that doesn't matter.
-
Unknown B
That look identified. They should be addressed like, yeah, he's a special government employee, like a bunch of different special government employees.
-
Unknown A
Imagine if anyone.
-
Unknown B
George Soros does have huge influence. I mean, you brought up Alvin Bragg. He paid for his political campaign.
-
Unknown A
Imagine if Rachel Maddow, because Elon's also a media figure. Imagine if Rachel Maddow was in charge of the audits that were happening under a government watchdog. How these people would cry pathetically every week.
-
Unknown B
They would put an anchor actor in charge of it.
-
Unknown A
Like, no, it's a problem to have someone like Elon Musk even for the optics of impartiality, before you said, yeah, we have to hold, you know, stop this prosecution from Bragg for the optics.
-
Unknown B
I didn't say we had to. I said I wouldn't have. But I understand the optics and like this idea of what you are trying to appear not political.
-
Unknown A
So you're saying you wouldn't have. So you said, for example, you wouldn't have stopped the case against Alvin Bragg. Would you have a. Sorry, Mayor Adams, would you have a point? You almost had this sto.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, the whole department is his idea or the agency or whatever.
-
Unknown A
Even the appearance of a conflict of interest, that was sufficient. You might understand at least what's going on with Mayor Adams. Why would he be the person you point to, head this?
-
Unknown B
Because the agency was his brainchild and you need somebody to run it.
-
Unknown A
So having audiences.
-
Unknown B
He's good at downsizing. Look at what he's done with his company. He's good at downsizing. That's the goal.
-
Unknown A
This is where we're at, folks. I mean, there's no conflict of interest. Too corrupt, no obvious blatant hypocrisy happening in front of you that they will not defend it. Go to Matt. Defended. I mean, think about it. What could Elon do that would make you say, oh, he shouldn't be ahead of dosh, like, what could he do?
-
Unknown B
There's plenty of things that he could do. I can't think of anything right now, this second. I mean, he could grant himself like a hundred billion dollar contract out of nothing. I mean, there's, or, you know, there's plenty of things.
-
Unknown A
If he hadn't granted that exemption to himself, or, sorry, that hadn't frozen that 400 million whatever million dollar of the Tesla fleet vehicles. If he hadn't done that, he'd say.
-
Unknown B
Okay, but he didn't freeze it. It was frozen by the Trump administration in response to the news articles.
-
Unknown A
So by the way, I'm taking that representation. I don't know this frozen, I thought that was under the State Department and I think a lot of the State Department stuff is not covered by some of the exemptions that they're applying. So I'm taking you on good faith that that stuff has been frozen. So I don't know that to be true.
-
Unknown B
Good faith for once.
-
Unknown A
$400 million, I don't know that to be true. But suppose that he hadn't frozen it. Would you say, okay, I mean, that's.
-
Unknown B
A contract that was put out there for anybody to bid on. Elon Musk, Tesla was the only company that bid on it. But again, like, I would have frozen that on a different account, which is we don't need all of our State Department armored vehicles to be electric. I mean, this was the big red flag for when Rachel Madder was reporting the story that it was total nonsense. Because what administration is like, oh, you know, the armored security vehicles, those should be green and carbon neutral. These are obviously Democratic policies. So they should be frozen by Trump's executive order that you're against as it relates to EPA spending. Lee Zeldin should crack down on that nonsense.
-
Unknown A
If there's evidence of fraud and waste, you present it to Congress. It is not for the President to decide with his buddies, his rich, corrupt oligarch buddies, that he gets to say, what's fraud, what's waste? It is Congress's discretion. Don't talk about core executive power, core legislative authority to appropriate Congress. That is their key responsibility. The most important power that Congress has is controlling the purse, purse strings. And you have no problem with it on whims or.
-
Unknown B
Congress still controls the purse strings. And we're talking about like marginal parts of the budget, like 1% of the budget. It's like nothing right now. The fact that, yes, like Congress will Put out a budget of their priorities. This audit will be, will hopefully at least incentivize them when they put out that budget to cut off funding where it needs to be cut.
-
Unknown A
The fact that you acknowledge that these quote unquote cuts that they are cuts is one that's damning because you're not supposed to cut unless you go through the compound, which you're not going through. But the fact that you're acknowledging that it's marginal given the size of the overall budget should tell you what's going on here. They don't care about overall reduction in the deficit and the debt. What they care about is having this kind of signaling war, this meme war, talking to you guys, talking your ears often and trying to signal in. Because they have policies they don't like. They don't like it when it goes to, I don't know, trans daycares or whatever, you know. Oh, yeah, that stuff should underwater basket beefing, that kind of shit. So they know that you guys are.
-
Unknown B
Like, you're alone as a master defend all this stuff. Right?
-
Unknown A
You get really upset when anybody goes into the program you don't agree with. You don't understand that Congress has this discretion. But notice it is a small amount of the overall budget. And so what is this pretense? What they care about mass production if they're not even touching military spending? Military spending.
-
Unknown B
They haven't got some military spending and you'll be against it when they get there.
-
Unknown A
Donald Trump has said on the record that he is going to increase defense.
-
Unknown B
Donald Trump said a lot of things. He said that after the words. Then I went ahead and sit down with Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and I, let's cut our military budgets in half. That was a quote from him this week. It's not just like his statements, like, yeah, the guy says a lot of things. We all know that. Again, can you defend the Biden administration? It's Biden versus Trump policies and I'm waiting for the defense.
-
Unknown A
So we're going down the path. You want to talk about foreign policy? We went there. I want to finish this last word.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, you said like you didn't support a bunch of Biden's foreign policy. So where's the person?
-
Unknown A
I support him on Ukraine and being super pro Ukraine way more than Trump is. I support Biden not isolating our allies and attacking them and making, you know, causing friction between them where they've already had effects potentially inflationary on, you know, Canadian Mexico trade. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with him. You know, going out and using and basically attacking Europe and prepping for huge, massive terrorists of Europe. So in that respect, there's nothing that.
-
Unknown B
Says you love your ally more than you want them to join your country as the next province. That's where Trump's offer. Canada. That's beautiful.
-
Unknown A
There's nothing that says that you love your country more than agreeing to be annexed by your neighbor. That sounds like Putin. I mean, that's where we are now. Turn our country.
-
Unknown B
I know you have trouble listening, but I was saying there's nothing that says you love your ally more, as in from the US Perspective than saying you want them in the country. And then he flips it to the Canadian perspective. It's like, oh, they're gonna say that.
-
Unknown A
They want to be respecting the sovereignty of Canada.
-
Unknown B
You can still say you want Canada. We're not invading.
-
Unknown A
So. So something about respecting allies is like, if they say, hey, we're Canada, we don't ever want to be America, or hey, we're part of Denmark, we don't want to be part of America.
-
Unknown B
Are you married?
-
Unknown A
Stop.
-
Unknown B
I'm just asking.
-
Unknown A
That's not relevant.
-
Unknown B
Bro, I'm asking you, are you seeing someone?
-
Unknown A
I'm seeing someone, yeah.
-
Unknown B
Okay. I mean, you know, sometimes you get a little rejection and you know, you got to ask them out again. You got to be more, you know, you got to put in a little effort.
-
Unknown A
Bro, bro, like, like, what is this? How many times will they have to say no before he gets the picture? And will you continue to defend it when he's like calling for an invasion of Panama? Actually, yes, he will.
-
Unknown B
No, he's already gotten the Chinese companies to touch about. They're in that contract.
-
Unknown A
So you don't think they have any more aspirations in the Panama?
-
Unknown B
I mean, we want to have not Chinese influence on Panama Canal, but I don't think we're going to take it over again.
-
Unknown A
Okay. I mean, so just to be clear on where I stand on foreign policy, I think a lot of these are huge blunders. I think that it's absolutely.
-
Unknown B
You don't want Greenland?
-
Unknown A
I only want. I only want Greenland. If Greenland wants to be.
-
Unknown B
What do you want?
-
Unknown A
I want to respect Greenland's sovereignty and Denmark sovereignty. I want to respect NATO as well.
-
Unknown B
Do you want Greenland, though? Listen, would you be against the Louisiana Purchase? How am I American purchase?
-
Unknown A
I'm going to be based for a second and say, listen, I am a big manifesting person. I love America, but I don't want to be an empire. I don't want to spread it where it doesn't want to be spread. And I think one of the biggest mistakes of the neocons who ran the Republican party for a long time was. And who by the way are still in position of high authority under this administration. Marco Rubio Eliza, to say nothing like Pete Hagseth who was a major supporter of Iraq war was this notion that we can just spread democracy using pressure all the time. And so I am fine with in theory, if we're doing this in like little theory, Canada becoming the American state, go for it. I want Puerto Rico to become American state. I love spreading our constitution because I believe in that constitution, but not with the sword and not with these kind of weird tricks or pressure.
-
Unknown A
I think it's not okay. Not to Florida now. And I think that Biden did a good job stewarding our allies in support of major things that occurred. For example, Ukraine war. He kept NATO together. He got a lot of European countries, for example Germany.
-
Unknown B
He kept Afghanistan's government a lot. Oh, wait, no.
-
Unknown A
You support the wisdom, don't you?
-
Unknown B
I mean there's ways to leave and then there's ways to leave.
-
Unknown A
Do you support the wishlist Afghanistan?
-
Unknown B
Did I want US troops to eventually leave Afghanistan?
-
Unknown A
Sure.
-
Unknown B
So we also had contractors in there that were. That would have stayed probably under Trump.
-
Unknown A
But what would you have done differently? For example, Trump said he would have kept background air base in Afghanistan.
-
Unknown B
Trump said he would have killed the guy. He showed him a picture of his house. He never heard that story. If he killed one more person, Trump.
-
Unknown A
Said he would have kept Bagram Air Base. Do you agree with Trump, yes or no?
-
Unknown B
I don't know.
-
Unknown A
You don't know. So what would you have done differently?
-
Unknown B
I would have if they were. Oh, I would have left in the fighting season. I think timing it so that you withdrawal near the 20th anniversary of 9 11. You say who timed it Again, they had a procedure under the Trump administration, but there were conditions for that withdrawal that were not met by the Afghanis or not met by the Taliban.
-
Unknown A
Who timed it?
-
Unknown B
Biden did. He was the commander in chief.
-
Unknown A
Wait, there was an agreement with the Taliban, A unilateral agreement, by the way, just in case you're seeing right now with Russia. Right now is in negotiations with Russia without Ukraine there or Europe. So he had an agreement edging out the Afghan government just with the Taliban. And they said that agreement, we're not going to attack American troops and we'll withdraw on this timetable. And that's American troops, so you shouldn't.
-
Unknown B
Have withdrawed on that time.
-
Unknown A
The Taliban attacked American troops1.
-
Unknown B
They blew them up at the base. Thirteen, I believe, Marines died.
-
Unknown A
He thinks it was the Taliban. Who was it?
-
Unknown B
Or was it Al Qaeda?
-
Unknown A
You don't even know. It's isis.
-
Unknown B
Dramatic pause. Oh, isis. Whatever.
-
Unknown A
Taliban. Wait, but that matters, right? Does that matter, that decision matter, that they didn't break that agreement and it was isis. You totally that up because you have no clue and you think that you guys all saw it. I mean, the Taliban did not. They kept to their word. They didn't attack American troops.
-
Unknown B
They overthrew government. They overthrew the Afghani government, though.
-
Unknown A
Who, the Taliban? Yeah. You blame Biden for that?
-
Unknown B
I mean, we could have supported them with air power or something.
-
Unknown A
So I'm a loss. Do you want us to be more engaged and spend more money informed, you know, and giving them more weapons and more arms? Are you not?
-
Unknown B
I don't want to create vacuums. I never put myself up here as an isolation.
-
Unknown A
You're in this little Goldilocks position where no matter what you do, you're criticizing if they withdraw, you know, it wasn't enough. It should have been more support. But you also don't want to get too involved in Gaza, but you do want to support Israel and you want support your allies, and so you want to support.
-
Unknown B
I said I don't want America to own Gaza. Like, I clarified that so many times, and you're still misstating it.
-
Unknown A
You agree with funding Israel. Fair. Yeah.
-
Unknown B
You don't abandon your ally during a war.
-
Unknown A
Okay. You also agree that we should fund and send more money, send more resources in preventing the Afghan government's demise.
-
Unknown B
I mean, if we needed to stay to prevent them from collapsing so we don't show weakness on the world stage, then.
-
Unknown A
Yes. So, I mean, I don't know what to say. If you're in favor of establishing the Afghan government's legitimacy and making sure that it is stable and it survives, then the answer is don't leave.
-
Unknown B
I mean, we had contractors there under the Trump administration. You could get troops out and use contractors as a substitute in order to stabilize. Like, we left them with equipment that they couldn't use. And some of these people, like, you know, like, again, I know everybody's like, oh, we don't care about conflicts around the world. Some of these people helped our troops while we were over there.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. And guess what Trump just said it's part of his immigration policy. I was wondering why we're not being underground.
-
Unknown B
Oh, yeah, let's talk about immigration.
-
Unknown A
So as part of his immigration policy, he's not gonna let these. The people who helped us in Afghanistan through, like thousands of them.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, we should send them to do what we did similar, I believe it was in Vietnam, and send them to a third party country while we vet them before they get here. I don't know why this isn't a normal. But in terms of immigration, greatest immigration policy maybe in the last couple of decades, remain in Mexico, the ultimate enemy.
-
Unknown A
So he wants us to assist Afghanistan, but not if it's gonna cost us too much and not if it's gonna be an art. We wanna take these fucking losers who help us in the war. I mean, we want to postpone.
-
Unknown B
We have to vet who they are. Like, again, yes.
-
Unknown A
Why do we have a unilateral.
-
Unknown B
Why would we just send them to.
-
Unknown A
A third party country?
-
Unknown B
And like you said, that it's a bad thing. I want to help our allies, but I don't want it to cost a lot. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's exactly what I want to do. Like, not spend a ton of money. That's unnecessary, number one. Number two, again, immigration policy. We're made in Mexico. Best immigration policy I've had. I've seen in, like, last. How many migrants in the last 10 years. We have a bunch of people defrauding our asylum system that were going through a bunch of different countries on their way to the United States of America to claim asylum.
-
Unknown A
Roughly how many migrants you think that that policy affected, give or take?
-
Unknown B
I don't know, 10 million.
-
Unknown A
Do you have any clue of the scale of remain masculine, humongous?
-
Unknown B
Well, it was instituted in 2029 and then we had the. I'm sorry, 2019, and then we had the COVID emergency. So we were using Title 42 to what you call it, force people out of the country. But it should be expanded to more people that were playing asylum.
-
Unknown A
You have an idea of scale about how much it's affected, whether or not it was significant, as say you've had any idea of the scale.
-
Unknown B
I know you're gonna say it's like tens of thousands. Maximum.
-
Unknown A
It is tens of thousands of thousands.
-
Unknown B
But again, it was instituted in 2019 prior to the COVID where we ended up using Title 42 to expel people. It should have been maintained under the Biden administration, especially when they got rid of title 42.
-
Unknown A
It's limited by what Mexico is willing to accept.
-
Unknown B
And again, remain in Mexico is also a principle. It's the idea that you have to apply for asylum in the countries that you pass along the way, because asylum is. I'm in fear of my life. And you should apply for asylum in the next country that you would be safe in. Not your first choice for economic reasons.
-
Unknown A
As in statute, pursuant to bilateral treaties that the government can, can negotiate and which they have done so with Canada and safe third party country agreements. And so again, like, the nuances matter, in my opinion, statutes matter, procedure matters. But you like the policy because, you know, it's at the whim of the president and something basins. You don't think about legality or whether or not, you know, we can even conceivably, you know, be sending what, millions of people to me in Mexico to have their silencing heard. It's not the case. Mexico's not going to accept it. And it was never going to be a cure for the policies that I.
-
Unknown B
Actually don't mind if Mexico doesn't accept it. What I actually want them to do, and this is one of the goals, is to get them to stop facilitating all this illegal immigration through their country, the United States of America. Like, they know when they see the caravans of people headed for our border and it's being broadcast on the news where they're going, but for some reason, our ally just allows them to do that. That's nonsense.
-
Unknown A
He just told you this about. It's a pretext, it's a deterrent. Yes.
-
Unknown B
I believe in deterrent.
-
Unknown A
So it's not about.
-
Unknown B
It's a good policy on its own and it's a deterrence. Yes.
-
Unknown A
What he wants to do is stop prostitute in asylum claims. Fair.
-
Unknown B
I want them to claim asylum in the next safe country, as.
-
Unknown A
Do you want to process asylum claim as they arrive or not?
-
Unknown B
No, not as they arrive. I want to change how they're arriving.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. So that's. In this country, we pass these things called laws and these things called laws. We're a country of laws, not men. But at every turn, pro Trump's defense. Don't care about the law that says you have to go through asylum procedures, that says you have to provide hearings to certain people. You have to have credible fear determination for people who are, you know, does.
-
Unknown B
Everyone have a right to claim asylum in the United States of America? How many countries can you pass through to claim asylum here?
-
Unknown A
Do you know this answer?
-
Unknown B
I'm asking you, how many countries? So you're a great world.
-
Unknown A
So there's a distinction in the law. To apply for asylum, typically you have to be a port of entry or inside the country. There's a different refugee resellment program that applies the same terminology of refugee, but it's capped at certain amounts of people, you know, hundreds of thousands. But just to be clear, we are forced under our own laws to provide procedures to people and to give asylum termination.
-
Unknown B
How many countries should somebody be able to pass through in order to claim asylum in the United States?
-
Unknown A
Should ethically or should under the law?
-
Unknown B
I'm asking you, how many countries should people be able to pass through before they claim asylum in the United States? How many state alternatives should they be able to?
-
Unknown A
The answer is, obviously it depends. It depends on a lot of different factors. So if it's, if they're all persecuting people and none of them are safe countries, an infinite amount there you agree with that. Would you agree?
-
Unknown B
Yeah. If they're being persecuted, you're supposed to go to the next safe country.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so then when you ask this kind of general question of like, how many countries, you know, I'm asking in.
-
Unknown B
Your opinion, because I, it is fraud when you pass through all these safe countries and then you come to the United States because you're an economic migrant and you're trying to get into the asylum system. So how many countries before you think it's a bit suspicious? Is the answer 6? So is the answer 5? Is the answer 18?
-
Unknown A
If your question is how many of these are fraudulent asylum claims and how can you tell that?
-
Unknown B
How many countries should you be able to pass through that are safe countries with asylum law on your way to the United States?
-
Unknown A
The answer is it depends. Why does the answer depends why does that make you crazy? The answer depends because different claims of asylum are based on different founded, well founded fears of persecution. And so if I said to you 5, 6, 4, 3, that would be a much too broad answer because maybe there is well founded fear persecution of certain sexual minorities in five countries leading up to Mexico. Maybe there's not.
-
Unknown B
How many safe countries where you would not be persecuted, where they have asylum laws, should you be allowed to pass through on the way to the United.
-
Unknown A
States pursuant to the law? I think that if you revive a safe country, you should be required to seek asylum in that country pursuant to the laws as enacted by our Congress. But if it's actually the case, right. You have someone that comes up and says, hey, those are not safe third party countries. Because my asylum claim is whatever.
-
Unknown B
If they're not safe. That's not what my question applies to.
-
Unknown A
I understand, but people will take my statement, clarify for the audience. People take my Statement to be far too broad. I agree that if there's a safe.
-
Unknown B
Fair, people will take my statement to your very specific question, far too broad. I asked again, if the country is safe, whatever amount of countries that are safe that you can apply for asylum through, how many of them should you actually go through or be able to go through? I just answered because we see multiple people coming through all these different countries that they could apply for asylum on their way, but they're not economic migrants, so they're coming and using the asylum system. By the way, this was encouraged by Joe Biden during the Democratic primaries. He said that he would immediately surge these people to the border because that's who we are. He said it during a Democratic primary debate on abc. This was intentional policy by the Biden administration and it was disastrous. And then all these people get shipped around the country. And yes, his words have consequences because they immediately, immediately started searching when he was in office, when he looked at title 42, which again was something that he promised to do.
-
Unknown B
And guess what? We have to deal with that. We have to pay for that. And you won't even say a hard number that, yeah, you shouldn't be able to commit this obvious asylum for all.
-
Unknown A
So wait, wait. I just said if you pass through a safe country and if we're gods, right, we were omniscient, we know that it's a safe third party country and we know that we already have a.
-
Unknown B
Qualifier is that you need all, you.
-
Unknown A
Need to be all knowing.
-
Unknown B
If we're gods, the standard is we're all knowing.
-
Unknown A
So if we know to a certainty, because asylum claims are made differently, you don't want to accept that and you want to think that all asylums should be given the exact same treatment with respect to third party third countries. That's not case fair. It's not the case.
-
Unknown B
If they're safe countries, they should apply for asylum.
-
Unknown A
Agreed. So I did give you direct answer there.
-
Unknown B
No. Did I say we needed godly knowledge?
-
Unknown A
Wait, did I not say that if we know to a certainty that there's a safe country intervening in the middle, pursuing our laws, they should be forced to apply for asylum there? I did answer that, didn't I? Did I answer that it's a one country, but if there's a single third party country in between and properly the.
-
Unknown B
First country, if there's a single. Wait, I'm answering it there, yeah, single country, yeah.
-
Unknown A
But the truth is the matter. The truth matters. We don't have all those bilateral treaties of those countries, so it has to be pursuing. Should we follow the lives for now.
-
Unknown B
We don't need a bilateral agreement with Colombia we don't need a bilateral agreement with Colombia that when somebody comes from Venezuela through Colombia that they should apply for asylum in Colombia. Why are you mentioning bilateral treaty treaties?
-
Unknown A
Have you read the ina?
-
Unknown B
Why are you mentioning. Why are you immigration. Why are you mentioning bilateral treaties? I'm talking about somebody from Venezuela who passes through Colombia and now you're asking something hyper specific. A very debate bro tactic. I got it. If you go through Venezuela, you're leaving because the socialist regime is collapsing and all that and you intend to claim asylum in the United States of America. Why are you not claiming it in Colombia? And why does the United States government need a bilateral treaty with either country for that person to apply for asylum in Colombia?
-
Unknown A
Where do you put them?
-
Unknown B
First stop over.
-
Unknown A
Where do you put them?
-
Unknown B
If you need to flee oppression in Venezuela, you don't get your first ideal magical choice when you buy you go apply for asylum the next country over you apply for asylum in Colombia.
-
Unknown A
Do you put. Where do you. So they're your country, these people who. Where do.
-
Unknown B
I don't care where Columbia puts them. What are you talking about?
-
Unknown A
Where do you deport them?
-
Unknown B
I don't care where Columbia puts them. When they go for it.
-
Unknown A
Where do you deport them?
-
Unknown B
What the you talking?
-
Unknown A
If someone from Colombia comes to America claiming asylum and they've passed through a safe in your mind safe third party country and you think they shouldn't have asylum, where should you from back?
-
Unknown B
Send them back to Colombia.
-
Unknown A
You understand that there are connections against torture and withholding of asylum is different than rank of asylum which prevents by law America from sending certain classes of asylum who are not asyles under the law but prevent our just, you know, giving forth all these people to the country who are being persecuted. You understand that send them back. So send them back in violation law. Send them back.
-
Unknown B
You're violating our law.
-
Unknown A
Do you think they should be sent.
-
Unknown B
Back to country people who commit asylum fraud?
-
Unknown A
So should you send back asyles who claim asylum but went through a record party contract in violation of the law? Should we deport them?
-
Unknown B
We should deport people who commit asylum.
-
Unknown A
Should we violate the law. Are you willing to say now that.
-
Unknown B
You not asylum fraud is violating the law if you commit asylum? That's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm describing America.
-
Unknown A
I'm talking America. America violates.
-
Unknown B
America should deport people who commit asylum fraud.
-
Unknown A
Should the president of the United States.
-
Unknown B
America, should they violate immigration law? Claiming asylum fraudulently is a violation of our.
-
Unknown A
So would be sending them back to place.
-
Unknown B
They just keep them forever.
-
Unknown A
I'm asking you a question. I just want to ask a question. I want answers. That question, should the American government send back.
-
Unknown B
Should deport people who commit.
-
Unknown A
Should they violate the law in doing so?
-
Unknown B
I don't think it is a violation.
-
Unknown A
Of the law if it is.
-
Unknown B
If they committed asylum fraud, yeah.
-
Unknown A
So the answer yes, you should violate the law.
-
Unknown B
No, if they violate the law, they should go back.
-
Unknown A
Wait, but I'm asking you if the sending them back is itself also against the law, would you.
-
Unknown B
Then you're two conflicting laws. It makes no sense.
-
Unknown A
It's not necessarily conflicting.
-
Unknown B
It is conflicting.
-
Unknown A
They're not conflicting. You don't grant them asylum, they don't have Asylum is a pathway to a green card.
-
Unknown B
All right?
-
Unknown A
Asylum is a specific thing. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Just being in the presence is not asylum in the country. My question for you, it's not conflicting. There's no conflict. My question is, would you violate the law?
-
Unknown B
If you can't send them back to whatever country, then you can ask a specific question. Would you violate direct violation of a. An existing law, Then you have to change the law.
-
Unknown A
Would you violate the law?
-
Unknown B
I just said you have to change it. The answer question would be, no, I wouldn't violate the law. You have to imprison them forever.
-
Unknown A
And also in favor of our government violating the law. You have a lot of people who haven't really read the law don't understand it is they lie to you and they don't know the law. They don't understand why things are the way they are. And if it took two seconds to look it up, they maybe would have a more well informed audience when they make their bullshit videos. Are we good?
-
Unknown B
Juicy.
-
Unknown A
To say the least.
-
Unknown B
We'll jump into the Q and A. This has been so entertaining. And I'm sure the Q and A will be as well. Gentlemen, this has been so enjoyable. I don't know if I've enjoyed a debate last as much as this one. So you can line up here, folks, in this left eye and then we'll just back up to that piece of tape right there. Send them to Guantanamo Bay, obviously.
-
Unknown A
Oh, yeah, we can talk about that.
-
Unknown B
Very fun. So thank you very much. What's your question?
-
Unknown A
Next question is for Pisco. So what? Can you maybe name a specific policy or a specific issue where Biden did better than Trump? Maybe I missed it so the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, I think is a wonderful law that we're seeing the fruits of already in terms in our states. You can follow the trackers of all different projects that have been improved and they're actually being done right now. I think also the TIPS and Science act was great and I think that that seem domestically is wonderful. The NLRB was incredibly pro labor under the Biden administration. I think that the FTC commissioner, Leon Khan was going after monopolies and was trying to prevent monopolistic pressures on prices, which is wonderful for the administration. I think that Biden's policies vis a vis Ukraine already talked about, I think were excellent and he stood by our allies. He rally the allies on Ukraine.
-
Unknown A
Those are some examples that people more like.
-
Unknown B
So I agree some of those are good.
-
Unknown A
But that equates to him his policies.
-
Unknown B
Being better than Trump's policies.
-
Unknown A
They're better because I think it's wrong, for example, to the contrast. Right. So while Biden is empowering a lot of these agencies that are going after big billionaire oligarchs like the cfpb, Trump is gunning the cfpb. He's stopping these organizations from keeping the powerful to account. Whereas, you know, the Biden administration is empowering someone like Lina Khan to take on the monopoly. Trump is again pushing forward people who are pro monopoly, pro oligarchy. So it's a complete night and day difference. It's gonna have a profound effect on our lives. You're gonna see prices go up. You are. And so it's a delusion to think that he's gonna have a negative pressure on price. And you're already seeing excuses starting. And so that's what's gonna happen, I'm telling you now. So you're ready. Inflation's a big issue. Do you think that's Trump's fault, Biden's fault, the Federal Reserve's fault?
-
Unknown A
Question for both of you, where if he was a pie, who gets the biggest wedge or you can throw Congress in there? Yeah, I think it's a great question and I'll throw it over to Shafter. I think the Federal Reserve deserves enormous credit for bringing inflation down. I think that monetary policy is critically important. So, for example, raising interest rates. We had a soft landing after massive inflation that occurred. And I think Federal Reserve deserves a lot of credit under Biden. I'm glad that Biden didn't, for example, pressure the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, which he's doing right now. He's pressuring the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. Was going to obviously have an inflationary effect. I'm going to be frank with you guys. I think that some of Trump's policies may have inflationary effects in terms of the tariffs and potentially. Right. But I can't be proved right now.
-
Unknown A
Tongue. I can't be proven. Now, if he's like worse on health care and worse on diseases, then the birth fluid it's allowed to spread, that could also have effect on John chickens and that kind of thing. But I think that by and large, we're in an inflationary period largely has an outgrowth of. I think that Trump will make things worse. I think that Biden's spending early on probably had a marginal effect on inflation, but not to the degree that people claim it did. And he got so much language for when really America was better off, respected president of the rest of the country and had a soft landing, no recession. And so, yeah, that's my answer.
-
Unknown B
That I should answer the question, too, because he's asking both of us. So I don't blame Biden per se, for the inflation. A lot of it was the production, you know, stopped because of COVID if we're being perfectly clear about that. However, the. I think it's the American rescue plan that he passed in March, I think did make it worse because it slowed down production even further when it was unnecessary. In March, again, we had the magical vaccine that was actually being rolled out. You could have opened things up, but instead we had a delay, an expansion of those $1,400 payments. I believe the COVID unemployment was also expanded, so you had less people returning to work, and you essentially extended the period of time where, of course, like, we weren't producing stuff and inflation is just too many dollars chasing too few goods. Obviously, everything was spent during the COVID period as well under the Trump administration.
-
Unknown B
These were bipartisan bills, but it was a crap ton of spending in order to keep it afloat. So you can assign some blame for that money to Trump as well, like to Congress. And you could also assign some blame, in my opinion, to the Democratic governors who were locking down their economy, keeping people out of work on purpose in order to make things worse in the lead up to the election.
-
Unknown A
So.
-
Unknown B
And they were doing it for political reasons, not for science reasons.
-
Unknown A
Okay, but the mayor, Adams. That's not political. You know, it's not political or is it political? I'm gonna say that's political.
-
Unknown B
Does that have anything to do with.
-
Unknown A
You just said it was obviously political when people were. Yeah, when.
-
Unknown B
When the teachers union is Pushing to not have their teachers return to work in, like, 2022. Like the Chicago Teachers Union was political reason. Even though we knew from the science from Scandinavia that you could send kids to school, we knew from Florida and DeSantis was attacked mercilessly over this that you could send kids Back to school. Yes. 100. Yes. The politicians acting as politicians is political.
-
Unknown A
So you said the union fair, the.
-
Unknown B
Teachers union and the Democrats that operated on behalf.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so that's obviously political. But the Mayor Adams, quid pro quo and declaration.
-
Unknown B
I haven't seen that there's allegations of a quid pro quo. If it comes out that that's occurred, then, yeah, it's political.
-
Unknown A
Would that be impeachable?
-
Unknown B
Would it be impeachable? I don't know. Anything's impeachable.
-
Unknown A
Wait, if it was a political deal.
-
Unknown B
Anything is literally anything.
-
Unknown A
No. Would you. Would you support impeachment based on. Hey, we're not going to prosecute you if you agree to do immigration policy according to our wins. Would you say that's. That Trump should be removed for that?
-
Unknown B
I would remove the head of the Department of Justice for that. If they issue the memo, Pam Bondi, you're gone. Matt Gates, you're coming back.
-
Unknown A
Is that a jailer?
-
Unknown B
I think it was the second in command, technically, but whatever. Allegedly.
-
Unknown A
It's such a joke to say that's not Trump. I mean, Trump is literally bringing Mayor Adams into Mar A Lago. It's clear that it's this.
-
Unknown B
I mean, Mayor Eric Adams is going to Mar A Lago.
-
Unknown A
Mayor Adams is from Mar A Lago.
-
Unknown B
I don't know if he's going there. He's not from there.
-
Unknown A
Oh, that's why I heard about it. How you doing? How you doing? The questions towards you. Okay, so you mentioned, like, Doge not. Not having, like, legal access to a lot of these companies.
-
Unknown B
Right.
-
Unknown A
A lot of these agencies. Right. I think it's not known whether or not they have legal access to do everything that they've been doing. Okay. So based off that, I just want to tell you that a federal judge is. Has. Was Got allowed access to them having to at least three agencies. Yeah. So to be clear, so there are fighting TROs and injunctions right now. I'm aware of some of them. So, for example, there's a Treasury access one where Doge has been stopped from accessing certain treasury records. Some have been released. I know, recently. So I'm not saying that it's a foregone conclusion that everything that Doge is doing is illegal. What I do think is legal on constitutional usurping Congress Authority under Article 1 to appropriate funds. And that's undoubtedly what's going on with respect to the spending freeze at a bare minimum and their proportion to delete agencies.
-
Unknown A
They're saying they're doing it and they're trying to fire everyone in the USA. They're literally trying to fire like 99% of the staff. And it can't be the case. The President can just decide on a day to end the agency that's been enacted by Congress and do it in even a cute way where he, he's like, I'm just gonna fire everyone, close the offices and say it's a leader, but it's not officially. That can't be allowed.
-
Unknown B
And two, because, like, he's not keeping.
-
Unknown A
With the constitutional design. There was a separation of powers for a reason, to protect them. Like, as Anthony Scalia said, your rights don't mean shit if there's not a separation of powers. What protects your rights, your right to gun ownership, your right to your First Amendment is to prevent the centralization of authority. That's what the framers talked about. That's why there's this federalism system where we have different states. That's why there's a bicameral Congress. It's to protect the separation of powers. And when you say, yeah, I think it's basic because they don't agree with trans programs. And so I think that Elon should be able to delete it and nuke it at a whim without following the law. You're saying you want a king and you don't care about the procedures of law or foundation or history of the country. Yeah.
-
Unknown B
And. And, oh, yeah, if you have a hole.
-
Unknown A
Sorry, I just like to say. And the Fed. And the Fed.
-
Unknown B
But yeah. But two, like, I'm. He's the lawyer, so he can, he can confirm this if I have it backwards. But like, just so you guys know, when you see stuff about temporary restraining orders, that's like a first step where I don't even think they have the opposition there. So it's temporary restraining orders, then preliminary injunctions, and then they're actually going to hear the case. So, like, any of these, like, one judge ruling this or that, as of right now, we're in the very early stages of this being fought out in the courts. Also, quick clarification of Biden pardoned, like, his whole family, not just his son. I don't know how I forgot.
-
Unknown A
I just want to be clear. I've Said on the record that Biden preemptively parted his family, which there's no evidence of any crimes by Sans. Hunter. Hunter. There's sufficiently evidence. But the other ones where he pardoned on like the last day, there's no evidence of their crimes. I have said on the record that that's impeachable. I said that you won't say that it would be impeachable for the Trump administration to have this corrupt dealing with Mayor Adams. Oh, you don't think it's impeached?
-
Unknown B
He pardoned them on his last day. I guess you could impeach him after the fact.
-
Unknown A
Well, what I'm trying to say is I think that I have standards. I've tried to hold them honestly. And I've said when I think things are corrupt, when we've done illegal things. For example, when he did the border. Pause. He closed the border purportedly on his own initiative. I thought it was a very weak move. That was one of the worst moments where he's breaking the law. And he said, for the longest time, I need Congress in order to act because that would be illegal to do otherwise. And then he changes his mind. That was a horrible moment in my friend. I thought it was against the law. I'm going to call him out and say that's bad, that's corrupt. I'm going to say that his impeachment, you're not willing to say on the record.
-
Unknown B
To be clear, the Biden pardons, you say they're corrupt. I don't think they're impeachable. He does have the pardon power. Like he vested that in the President.
-
Unknown A
Come on. I started with that for a reason. So Nixon, obviously you agree, right? Nixon has the power to fire the attorney general and we're going to impeach him over that.
-
Unknown B
All right, so impeachment is a political process. I just don't think you should impeach somebody over parted.
-
Unknown A
So you don't think the British. Nixon should have been.
-
Unknown B
He wasn't impeachment.
-
Unknown A
I'm asking, do you think he should.
-
Unknown B
Have been honestly, like, by today's standards, probably not. He was like super, like, yikes.
-
Unknown A
Ready. So agw, you kind of skirted past the ethical implications of this. So with bilateral laws between the US and other countries.
-
Unknown B
Countries, they're pretty important example. If you have an individual from Peru.
-
Unknown A
Fleeing Peru due to the physical threats of their life, if they come to the US and we eventually deport them.
-
Unknown B
Where do we ship them to?
-
Unknown A
If we ship them back to Peru, we're basically throwing them back to the wolves. But if we don't have bilateral agreements with other countries, we can't just drop them off in like Colombia. What do we do at that point?
-
Unknown B
So again, the reason I was avoiding that at the time is because he was not answering the question about whether or not the person who's leaving should apply in the next safe country over. So that was the issue. Obviously, like, these agreements are important and I don't support sending people back to like dangerous zones. That's why when he was asking me if I would violate the law to send them back, I said, no, the law should be changed. Well, because again, we're talking about two different things. And like he liked to this thing where you asked the same question over and over and over again as a method to grandstand to obviously the fact that you had like no points in defense of Joe Biden. But you know, that's neither here, you know, but anyway, so yeah, yeah, these bilateral agreements are obviously important. And I mean, I know there was an issue with sending people back to Venezuela and then we would have to find a third party country in order to send them to.
-
Unknown B
So, yeah, obviously they're important in that regard. Like, I didn't mean to, like, I guess misstate that or give that impression.
-
Unknown A
So currently, if that situation happened right.
-
Unknown B
Now, we didn't have those bilateral agreements.
-
Unknown A
Would you ship them back?
-
Unknown B
No, I wouldn't ship them back. It's in violation of the law. And again, if you're like legitimately like fearing asylum, like, I'm not, you know, I'm more upset about the fraud in our silence system and if we could change them to the next country over, I'll be in favor of that.
-
Unknown A
Hi guys. Sort of question for both of you and not much of a question, but I read. Excuse me, Excuse me, guys, sorry. Not much of a question, but I'd like to some Two things I read on Twitter this morning before I got here. The first thing was the Taiwan semiconductor is in negotiations with intel and that Biden had spent something like $280 million to try to do this, only it's happening now because of the threat of tariffs. I don't know if that's true or not. I don't know whether you think of that. The second thing is this. I believe there was a change in wording for something with the State Department or something that supports the independence of Taiwan. Whereas before in the Biden administration, that wasn't the case. Do I have any of that now? Remember, I just scrolled These on Twitter, I can't say they're true or false.
-
Unknown B
So I know this is going to sound not very America first so like kill me over it if you will. I'm actually not big on luring the semiconductor of these like high end chips from Taiwan to the US one it's going to take, it's going to take years in order to do it. But also what you call it like this is like what's called like Taiwan's like silicon shield. And essentially what protects them from being invaded and like they are an ally of us is that nobody produces these level of chips. So us pulling that away like and I know Trump is like wants to tariff his way to that. I know they passed the chip acts before and I know after Covid some of these companies wanted to move some of their manufacturing here. I actually think it's disastrous for Taiwan because that's like a free way to keep them defended because even the Chinese rely on the chips from them.
-
Unknown B
And it's not like this like level of production and intellect can be recreated. I totally spaz on your second point.
-
Unknown A
Was about the wording the State Department thing. I think, I think it's a red herring. I'm not 100% red but from what I saw they were just stating America's decision, which is long standing that China considers their maps, things like that you're not allowed to call Taiwan Taiwan.
-
Unknown B
We have a policy of like strategic ambiguity. So we like pretend in certain cases that there's one that we agree with the one China policy. But in other cases we say that we don't or that you know, we want them to not know exactly what we're going to do. So like I don't know if that's real that change but if it is, it does like flout the image ambiguity. And if there's no justification for changing that, I'm not on board with it.
-
Unknown A
In general I'm concerned about Chinese encroachment in domestically. But also like I do think that they try to interfere elections. I do think that they are trying to, you know, get closer to a lot of developing countries in America should take an interest in for their own actions. Yeah. In the view of the entire global community. They absolutely lied about Hong Kong China. Right. I think that China are liars. I don't like them in the sense of geostequally who's the better person. Yeah. So I think that Biden has shown a willingness to stand by Taiwan. Biden increased the amount. I think some terrorists are kind of a Good idea by Trump. I'm not saying that everything Trump does is bad and Biden increased some of those tariffs. And so for me, the concern for about China influences a lot of Elon Musk stuff, because I know Elon Musk has a lot of investments in China and I know that the TikTok situation, right, TikTok, the ban, you have to have your own opinion on that.
-
Unknown A
The Supreme Court Rule 9O that it was constitutional. I happen to agree with that opinion. I don't know that I agree with policy. I haven't really thought about that or haven't come to that determination yet. But Trump is illegally my opinion extending the allowable time for that TikTok, you know, ban or the best method to stay in place. And so I think that there's a lot of concern there, especially when he changed his stance on TikTok after he was like charmed by the TikTok investors or some TikTok messengers. And so I don't know if there's an official change in stance. I don't know if that's true. But I am concerned about financial interests that are aligned with China and are maybe having the potential potentially change policy.
-
Unknown B
Listen, I watched the congressional hearing with that Tick Tock CEO and one thing that he emphasized time and time again is that he's from Singapore.
-
Unknown A
No, the investor. The investor. That's a guy who like, not the CEO. But yes, it was fine. So you brought up the quote from or the tweet from Donald Trump recently. Yeah, he who saves his country does not violate any law. Everyone knows that it's attributed to Napoleon.
-
Unknown B
From right before he declared himself emperor.
-
Unknown A
I mean, I don't know how else to interpret what he's saying here other than how you explained it. How do you interpret this?
-
Unknown B
I mean, Trump says a lot of things. It's just. It is what it is.
-
Unknown A
Is it concerning?
-
Unknown B
I figured you said that, too. Does it concern me? I don't know. Did he watch Napoleon, the recent movie that came out like 10 minutes before reading that? I mean, look, when press, after all this talk about whether or not they're going to like, flout the court orders, when J.D. vance was signaling against judges, Trump came out and like people, some people gave him credit for it, some people found reasons to attack hornets, that he always abides by the court decisions and like, they're just going to go through the appeal process. So, yeah, Trump says things like, you know, I mean, he tweets things or truths them on his new platform, which I will.
-
Unknown A
You're not concerned of executive over.
-
Unknown B
I feel like I've known him for like 10 years in terms of politics and like these statements don't concern me, actions concern me.
-
Unknown A
Okay. I haven't known him personally.
-
Unknown B
I'm just saying he's been like a main feature of American politics.
-
Unknown A
He's had a track record of, at the bare minimum, you know, this entire book debate not to hear that complaint. I mean, he's, he's done actions and taken steps that show that he doesn't really give a. The rule of law. Wouldn't you agree?
-
Unknown B
I mean, listen, he says a lot of stuff. He said that he was going to build a wall, Mexico was gonna pay for it. And like, I mean, let's be real, that's not.
-
Unknown A
The prices were gonna fall on day one. So why, I mean, that's a salesman move right there you're fine with in line.
-
Unknown B
Yes, listen. Day prices are gonna fall. Day one. I mean, that's metaphorical.
-
Unknown A
I'm sorry for it to be me again. The one thing I'll note this is I've not heard a single right leaning person make any statements about the price of things. They made their statement about immigration, they've made their statement about energy independence. They've made their statement about law and order criminality. It's sort of, it's very popular with the left wing to bring that up, but it doesn't seem to be the motivation. I mean, what I see on Twitter is people saying, I don't care how expensive eggs are, I want to close border, I want people deported. So I'm giving you harm on the price. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying it's not important to people.
-
Unknown B
Obviously prices are important.
-
Unknown A
What I'm saying is it's not the prime mover. It's not why they voted for it. They voted for him for many other reasons. Well, first of all, I think a lot of people, they listed price success as one of their biggest issue. Yeah, okay. It was the most important issue of the election. Do you read that?
-
Unknown B
No, I think it was the 10th.
-
Unknown A
15Th, most important issue. By polling or by your intuition? Oh, yeah, fair. But what I'm suggesting is I happen to agree with you that they stop caring about the maga. I think people still care about prices. I think that's like a fundamental. But the MAGA influencers, the MAGA elite, I call them, they surely don't care about prices. And I think that's right. And it shows that they never cared about prices when they were Telling you they cared about prices. That's what it shows you. It shows you the hypocrisy of the liars behind it. Both Trump, Vance and everyone else was pushing that narrative the entire time that Biden was solely responsible for inflation, which not even Sean agrees with. And so, yeah, I think it's indicative that what they care about is power, control, corruption, and they don't care about prices. In fact, they'll say, you know, we're going to sacrifice prices for the sake of corruption, for the sake of centralization, authority.
-
Unknown A
And so, yeah, I agree. I don't care about it.
-
Unknown B
I mean, I would say, look, it's political, obviously, like, the Democrats were downplaying price increases before the election. Now that Trump's in office, like, that has moved off, but also very important. Important, like influencers online, on Twitter, on social media. That's not reality. Like, the people who did move the election, the people who, you know, went from Trump to what you call it, to Biden and then back to Trump in the election, like, they were voting on economic issues. Like, maybe some of them in certain pockets were moving on immigration issues. We've seen some movement in blue cities where people are experiencing the issues with immigration. But overall, like, the number one driver is the economy. And famous quote from, like, the Clinton administration is the economy, stupid. So, like, just because, like, people have changed up their talking points, that doesn't mean that Americans don't care about those issues.
-
Unknown B
And like, the people who say, I don't care about the price of eggs, regular people care about the price of eggs. And like, yeah, it's up.
-
Unknown A
They're telling you to buy chickens, they're saying, go buy chicken.
-
Unknown B
I mean, economy.
-
Unknown A
The economy is about an overall.
-
Unknown B
Listen, but that's, but that's like the economy is all of us engaging, like, in economic activity and how that relates. And it's a worldwide thing. But, like, the way people interact with the economy, the way people assess how they feel about the economy is indicative and basic things like that. So you could say eggs aren't the economy. But the fact is people see prices going up. That's a reason why they were so mad going to the election. And one of the basic things, even though, again, energy is a worldwide thing and like, there's broader, like, economic factors that, like, who cares? But when people see gas pump price high, they get mad.
-
Unknown A
Like, that's different because that's what we don't. We're not allowed to draw our own oil things. Like, what I'm suggesting is that the price of eggs isn't as important as the long term positive effects of. I happen to think that there's a lot of cherry picking of economic stuff that I think ajw, sorry, Sean, you're completely correct about and that people take politics with it. But, you know, I also think that that political article you cited as stupid as hell. It's saying that, you know, this basic, like the youth reemployment is, you know, misleading or something, but they didn't compare how the other factors or calculations of underemployment changed over time. And so those are examples of propaganda pieces that are run in, frankly, not too impressive in my opinion. Journals and articles and like Politico, I don't respect them that much. And yeah, that's what happens.
-
Unknown A
People play games with the numbers. They play games with the statistics. And they did with egg crisis under the Trump campaign. They made it a cornerstone of their pitch. Trump literally specifically talked about egg crisis. So I'm not going to have it be heard that we're not gonna apply that standard to Trump, that we're not gonna hold him to his campaign promise because it's just a sales pitch and that we're not gonna talk about eggs. When he talked about eggs, I think we can't have these double.
-
Unknown B
I mean, you could talk about eggs, but like, the reason we had a giant shock in the Biden administration in like 2022 was the bird flu. Bird flu's back in what you call it in 2022.
-
Unknown A
Inflation in 2022.
-
Unknown B
No, no, I'm not, I'm not talking about the bird flu in for specifically eggs.
-
Unknown A
And I'm talking about COVID under Biden and Trump. That's what caused inflation, inflation around the world. But you guys are willing to blame Biden for inflation or not? Some people are willing to blame Biden for inflation, but you're willing an understanding of the chicken flu or bird flu with respect to the price of eggs.
-
Unknown B
And so I think, no, I'm saying eggs specifically. Like, you know, obviously inflation overall, like it's gonna, like it's slowed. I think we're at 3%. The Federal Reserve wants it to be at 2%. But like, yeah, like inflation. Like, look, Trump's made a lot of promises, but I do think that the American people right now in this moment are giving him a break on that. And that's represented in his approval ratings. I think he's at like 53%. So like, there's a period of time though, where prices remain high and gas remains up and eggs remain up that Trump is going to go the same way that Biden goes. If all those factors are unchanged, if incomes don't, like, start rising faster than the cost of living and all these other things.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. And you'll call them an economic.
-
Unknown B
If you fail in economic metrics, then.
-
Unknown A
Even if it's not at fault, even if there's like a calamitous pandemic of the bird flu that gets even worse.
-
Unknown B
Than Covid, let's say I'm that specifically with eggs. But unless you're saying it's going to be.
-
Unknown A
I think the degree of fault over someone's policy should relate to their state of mind and the effect that policy has on the outcomes. And that's why I hate this kind of, like, analysis of the policies better and worse on, like when the invasion of full military happened or when Hamas invaded Israel and killed.
-
Unknown B
That wasn't my basis.
-
Unknown A
I'm making a broader point that, like, people will point to specific bad things happen under Biden and blame him for it, but they don't apply that same standard to Trump. And I think that's absurd.
-
Unknown B
You should blame him for things that. If he has policies that airplanes. He has policies that signal certain things and then that creates a negative outcome, then.
-
Unknown A
Let's talk about airplane crashes. The airplane crashed. It happened to his watch. Do you blame him for it?
-
Unknown B
I mean, he was president for like three weeks.
-
Unknown A
Okay.
-
Unknown B
If he had any. I mean, if he had anything to do with that. But their problems in the FAA predate the Trump administration, The first Trump administration.
-
Unknown A
You apply this analytical framework, which I think I respect.
-
Unknown B
I apply the framework to Biden.
-
Unknown A
I don't know that.
-
Unknown B
People do. Whose people? Like you're asking me?
-
Unknown A
99.99% of magic people, including you. Most interesting.
-
Unknown B
Including the Democrats who killed his presidential ambitions for a second term. Good old Joe. They threw him under the bus.
-
Unknown A
Are you more concerned about that, actually, which, by the way, I want to be clear about this. Do you think that the Democratic Party should have thrown out all of the certified delegates in their primary contests?
-
Unknown B
No, I think they should have left the old man in his position and let him fight another day.
-
Unknown A
Hang on. So Biden withdrew. Fair.
-
Unknown B
I mean, he withdrew under immense pressure and I think it's very questionable. And I'm still waiting on those campaign votes.
-
Unknown A
Are politicians not allowed to pressure other.
-
Unknown B
Politicians for their own waiting on those campaigns votes?
-
Unknown A
I mean, Trump does this as a. He does it to other Republicans all the time. He influences people, he pressures people. And so for you to act that's so illegitimate for Democrats to pressure their own president. When you would pressure him and have.
-
Unknown B
Some kind of process in order to some kind of actual democratic process.
-
Unknown A
But the democratic process process was the primary contest.
-
Unknown B
And Biden won it. He crushed it. He killed it. They were like, that's my guy. Let's run him again. But you turned your back on him. And now that Kamala Harris has lost and been cast aside to the dustbin of history, all of a sudden you're like, you know, Joe's not so bad. I'm gonna defend his record on stage. You didn't want him. You betrayed him. You're out of order.
-
Unknown A
So just be clear. Just to be clear, Joe Biden, in his recent months, not the case. I've been having this rosy feeling of Joe Biden. I felt worse about Joe Biden because Joe Biden broke his most important promise, which is to restore the soul of the country, which he failed by ushering in this tyrant. Who you're going to see and keep an eye on what's going on in the courts and how he's listening to these junctions in the TRO's. I'm telling you now, he's going to defy the courts. He's already defying Congress's explicit desires, and there's going to be a state standoff. And mark my words, when it happens, you know, you can all come back to me and say you were right, but I know you won't, because then some of you will be agreeing with them. What do you mean Congress agrees with him.
-
Unknown B
How does he define the Congress? You're talking about the last Congress and the last appropriation.
-
Unknown A
Does he not have to follow the will?
-
Unknown B
But he's not defying the Congress. We're going to see in the legislative process what is actually going to be implemented in terms of Congress's domain.
-
Unknown A
The previous appropriations were defined, and some.
-
Unknown B
Of them, they were paused.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, illegally. You're not sure about that. If they were. If they were. And Trump continues freezing.
-
Unknown B
We gotta fight it out in the courts, like. And Trump said he'll abide by the courts, so we'll see.
-
Unknown A
Is that what you would say if Joe Biden came after your guns?
-
Unknown B
Joe Biden coming after abide. Have any guns? I live in New York. They already took them from me.
-
Unknown A
So what would happen?
-
Unknown B
Muscle felon. I'm not allowed near school. This is technically the time that, given that folks might have to get up for work, to.
-
Unknown A
Kidding about that.
-
Unknown B
I hate ending this because it has been, in my opinion, the Best debate of the conference. I have enjoyed this so much. But like I said, I don't want to keep people past time, and some of them may have to get to work in the morning. Wait, are we, are we closing?
-
Unknown A
If you guys would like closing, go ahead. You bet. Thank you. First of all, thank you, Sean, for doing this. You know, I get very fiery in my Twitter and with Sean because I really love the country and my parents were immigrant. I was born in states. And, you know, I'm a lawyer. I love the Constitution. And I want to tell you that when you see my passion, when you see me, like, upset about something that's real, I'm not lying to you, and I do, you might think I'm deluded, but I think that there's a significant threat from this presidency. And I could even grant. I don't, but I could even grant all of the specific policy points we've had. I could grant that Trump is better on the economy. I could grant that Trump is better on immigration, he's better on foreign policy. I could grant that he's better on Israel, Gaza.
-
Unknown A
I don't, to be clear, but even if I did, it would pale in comparison to the Project 2025 policy of centralization of executive authority that is the death knell for republics. We don't want to turn this country into Hungary. Please don't. And all the signs are there. He is obviously implementing spending and hiring freezes for the purpose. Purpose of politicizing the bureaucracy. It's not. Yes, it's true that bureaucracy sometimes can have capture that there can be problems with it, but he's explicitly going out of his way to politicize and to make sure that everyone's beholden to him. Everything's like that. The same thing, by the way, with, you know, the reinstitution of Schedule F, the desire to get rid of all these internal IGs. Why is he getting rid of IGs? Because they would be checks on his own authority. Why is he getting rid of people that Elon Musk is investigating?
-
Unknown A
Because they're investigating them. They don't want people to be internal attacks. Why is he getting rid of the Office of the Special Counsel, which is right now is in litigation and there was a recent circuit opinion about it. Because he doesn't want Office of the Special Counsel because they gave out corruption. All of these actions show you that what he's trying to do is centralize authority and he's attacking both branches of government with his surrogates like Charlie Kirk and others in pool Say, defy the courts. They're not even. They're brazen about it, right? They're saying it. They're gearing up for it. We already have a court ruling from federal court in Rhode island which said that he violated the plain tax of the order. There was no. They had noticed of it. There was no reason to violate it. And he's gonna do it again.
-
Unknown A
And obviously going after Congress with attacking the agencies and he funded. You might think it's based. Get rid of US Aid. You might. I might even agree with you on the move. Line is they're stupid, but the process matters. We're a government of laws, not of men. And what Trump is trying to change our system into is disgraceful and despicable. It's not in keeping with what we're doing. So don't fall for the swan song of authoritarianism just because you want to own the libs like me. Right? Because that will only go so far. You know, my tears will only taste so good until the next day you realize your government is, you know, just an open factory for bribes, an open factory for the most brazen sense of corruption, like we saw in Arabs. I opened with that for reason, because it's in your face.
-
Unknown A
They're calling on Fox and they're saying it's revolving for immigration. What more could they do to signal to you we're in danger? This is a crisis, and that's why that's the most important policy. But I am willing to.
-
Unknown B
All right, Cool. All right. I mean, you know, I'm happy to be here. I hope this was the experience that you're asking for. He sent me a very lovely tweet. He said it's the honor of his life. It makes me feel a little bad to. To read you how this was pitched to me, because James said, I got you a lefty named Pisco. He's one of Destiny's orbiters, which is just rude. It's just. It's just rude. James, I knew who he was. The man has some pride. Like pitch him on his own merit. That means that I did have a fun time here. All joking aside. As for the expansion of potential authoritarianism under the Trump administration, I'm against it. I think you should follow the courts. It seems like Trump himself, despite what Charlie Kirk or Tim Pool or any of these media personalities are saying he should do, is on board for that.
-
Unknown B
I mean, he was asked directly about it. He answered it, but he is Trump. He says things. As for the order that he brought up the OMB order. We already talked about that. The Trump administration said that they had another executive order that they didn't think that that was bound to. So that's just an honest mistake. Everybody gets one in my opinion. And look, I am concerned about the expansion of executive power where illegitimate. It has been the project of many a president presidents in our nation's history to expand the power of the presidency. I mean FDR was notorious for this. This happens repeatedly throughout our country's history. And it's just not something and FDR not only did that but extended power the federal government. It is something to be concerned about. And to the extent that those concerns are real, I, I wish you like you know, I hope that your feelings get alleviated by that.
-
Unknown B
And I think the effects of the Trump administration will show that he seems to want to get rid of power that is centralized in the federal government. We talk about the unelected bureaucrat that is Elon Musk. All these departments are filled with unelected bureaucrats that are making policy for every law that the Congress passes they do something like 18 regulations. And I don't know what your position was on the Chevron deference case right the there but that was to go after the heart of the way that the executive legislates. This power has already been usurped and we're trying to work our way and we have to do it through Congress to where everything goes back to where it's appropriate. And yes, testing the limits of like this 30 day before you could fire this official under you and all that is a part of the process of claiming legitimate power for the executive while also restoring that power back to the legislature.
-
Unknown B
But again I will emphasize the reason I definitely 100%, 10,000% won. This is this man spent barely any time defending Joe Biden. All he did was Orange man bad. And if you can't defend the affirmative on your position, then I say you're out of order and this is done. Thank you everybody and have a good night. Thank you very much. Thank you for that closing as well. Sean. I made the rules for this.