-
Unknown A
Did you read Biden vs. Raskar in the third batch case? Did I read the case? No, of course not. You're laughing. You're laughing. It's completely true. He didn't read it. He doesn't know what's in it. He doesn't know how to define the core. And the truth is, court said that was acceptable. So it's.
-
Unknown B
So it's not acceptable when you're using a bird in order to stay read the case and you're telling them what's.
-
Unknown A
Acceptable under the case, what you are, and then obviously the throw it on. That time they blew them up at the base.
-
Unknown B
13, I believe moraines died.
-
Unknown C
Sean thinks that was the Taliban. Does Pisco know this?
-
Unknown A
He thinks it was the Taliban.
-
Unknown C
Oh, thank God.
-
Unknown B
Was Al Qaeda.
-
Unknown C
Oh, God. They're talking about the legal justification for Doji. Did I miss anything good?
-
Unknown A
By the way, the acting U.S. attorney on a fucking 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 policy. 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 the 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. But.
-
Unknown A
Okay, dude, so you're buying.
-
Unknown C
Did either of them read the memos? Did Pisco read the memo? They very clearly. Bovee very clearly said he was not making any statement on the authenticity of any of the actual investigative processes around the indictment itself. Bovee explicitly said he wasn't making any statement about the strength of the evidence.
-
Unknown A
At all in the narrative that this entire thing was a witch hunt. No, I didn't say it was a witch hunt. I said the exact opposition. Was it corrupt investigation? Was it 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 each minute.
-
Unknown A
It was not a corrupt investigation. It was not a corrupt investigation of a corrupt mayor who he thinks is guilty. And he's okay with a not corrupt investigation with Donald Trump. Why would you stop 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.
-
Unknown C
You don't think that, oh, he's going to say it. You don't think them dropping the chart.
-
Unknown B
If you were worried about an appearance.
-
Unknown C
Of corruption, why would you say nothing about Eric Adams flying to Mar a Lago and then being on Trump's side and then immediately having all these charges dismissed? Does that not appear to be a million times more corrupt?
-
Unknown A
Mayor Adams will sit down with President Elect Trump at his Florida home to.
-
Unknown B
Discuss New York City's priorities.
-
Unknown A
Mayor Adams schedule says he left New York for Florida yesterday and this meeting is expected to take place at 1pm today. The mayor has said a partnership with the federal government is critical to New York City's success. Trump has also said he would consider pardoning Adams if he was convicted on federal corruption charges. Appearance of corruption of writing in your memo that, hey, we want you to play ball. Immigration. That's how it said. What about the appearance of that is.
-
Unknown B
What do you mean?
-
Unknown C
That's not what it said in the memo. There shall be no further targeting of Mayor Adams or additional investigative steps prior to that review. And you are further directed to take all steps within your power to cause Mayor Adams security clearances to be restored. And the idea is basically, he's not going to be able to help Trump if he's not able. If he's facing all of these indictments. That's bullshit. How is he going to help Daddy Trump if he's facing all these indictments? Again, I'm not making this up, okay? This is just verbatim written in the request for dismissal.
-
Unknown A
Thinking on that. How about everyone, every Southern District of New York, U.S. 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.
-
Unknown C
True, they dropped it temporarily, just until after the election, just to make sure that Mayor Adams knows that they can always come back on that ass if you don't play ball. The defendant, Eric Adams, the mayor must agree in writing to dismissal without prejudice, meaning the charges can be brought again temporarily.
-
Unknown A
So if this is all the appearance of political bias that police worried about, why not drop it permanently? Why not pardon 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, 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 the correct memoir. And he's sitting here and telling you, that's not fucking corrupt. That's the length and just why this is relevant. That's the lengths people like this will go to defend the obvious blatant corruption of 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 Gavin is corrupt. I would have pursued 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 going to 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? Damian williamsofficial.com. anybody can look it 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 buy the regime's propaganda. So 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 fucking 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 fucking 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 a corrupt investigation. You think he's guilty? I think. I think mayor dropped the case.
-
Unknown B
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. So, yeah.
-
Unknown A
Why do you dispatch the allegiance? Why do you discount the line prosecutors?
-
Unknown B
I didn't say any of that. I said it looks like this guy's running for this position.
-
Unknown A
So.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, it's weird when your office indicts a guy before an election for a position that you intend to.
-
Unknown C
Yeah, but, like, it's weird. This is the criminal justice system. You need more than. It's weird for dismissing a federal case. You need more than. It's kind of weird. Like, that might be good enough for a YouTube video, but to dismiss a federal case where the. Where the voters of New York City's public funding for elections was allegedly scammed to the tune of, I don't know what, two to $10 million. Like, it's got to be more than. It's weird, bro. What the fuck? You know what's weird is Epstein dying in PR when Donald Trump was the head of the government. You know, it's weird. Is Donald Trump refusing to release the Epstein file, saying that some good people might get caught in the crosshairs? Like, those are weird things. Is that enough to throw somebody away in prison for life or to disbar somebody from, you know, from running for president or to impeach somebody?
-
Unknown C
Like, what do you mean? Like, it's weird? What a bullshit dog shit argument. Ugh.
-
Unknown A
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?
-
Unknown C
Crowds.
-
Unknown A
Which people?
-
Unknown C
He's not even going to answer. He's going to be like, I don't know. I don't even have evidence to say I'm. I would be. If he even answers a question, I guess I'll give him props or whatever, but barely.
-
Unknown A
The memo, the acting as attorney, the memo, the line prosecutor who said this is corrupt. 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 motherfuckers is signed this. Because you don't. You're all fired. That's. And you're saying on balance that what, you're indifferent to the outcomes, that if this wasn't Joe Biden and the IRS whistleblowers, he wouldn't be screaming from the fucking ledges saying, holy, look at this corruption. That police saw this, by the way, every second Joe Biden, there's some insider that says he whispered his.
-
Unknown C
He let him get away from it. That's what peace go shouts at me for. He didn't make him answer that question.
-
Unknown A
And these guys are screaming over the rooftops, interference, interference, interference. It's blatant in your face. You have no answer for it and we can move on.
-
Unknown B
But I already answered it.
-
Unknown A
All right, cool, cool. So what about guiding all the agencies? So these are statutorily enacted.
-
Unknown C
The Eric Adams that's a killer. I think that's probably the worst example so far of blatant authoritarian corruption from the president, from the executive branch. I think that there should have been a way bigger own at the end there of like I need you to own these positions. I need you to say that you will never be mad if a Democrat comes into office and dismisses all charges against a Democrat being prosecuted. Or I guess Eric's a Democrat. If anybody makes any political statement whatsoever afterwards. Like that's such an unbelievable position.
-
Unknown A
Agencies, the cfpb, just for example, they say we'll delete Elon Musk. Swim a billionaire oligarch. You're okay with usurping the legislative authors that right? They can put all their funny 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 going to 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 going to 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 C
What an unbelievable strawman and non response to what Peace Coach said. But okay said before.
-
Unknown A
I've always said that Elon Musk is a dangerous influence on the President. You're just assuming. But just to be a trillion 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 know.
-
Unknown B
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.
-
Unknown C
In a look at how he another talking point non answer or branch.
-
Unknown A
If the cfpb everyone fired, they close their offices and use them for immigration detention.
-
Unknown B
Do you think that that's used on offices for immigration?
-
Unknown A
So if it's. You can spike the hypothetical like they're.
-
Unknown B
Put them in the.
-
Unknown A
They've 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. The president has the unilateral, unilateral authority to get rid of the government.
-
Unknown A
So why are they, why are they, for example, saying they're going to do it? Why are they saying we're going to delete it?
-
Unknown B
Elon Musk said he wanted to delete.
-
Unknown A
The CFPB and Trump didn't.
-
Unknown B
Are you serious? Trump may have said it, but Elon Musk is the one who said it. They have not, they have not shut down the 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, but you said, by the way, is a real agency with power right now.
-
Unknown C
I don't know why they're focused on the cfpb. They should just look at what's happened with USAID or what's happened with the treasury payment freeze thing. Those are the two strong things. Maybe. Do they already talk about it or maybe they'll get to it.
-
Unknown B
Talking points changed that. It was a vague agency to a real.
-
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 on. Musk has effective control over a shit ton of American policies. That's fair, right? I don't think so. You don't think Elon Musk. So you do not think Elon Musk has had an effect on US Policy?
-
Unknown B
Right now he's here for examining the government.
-
Unknown A
You don't think that Elon Musk is influencing, for example, how much money goes.
-
Unknown C
What about all the. He's calling him a weasel. God, he's such a disgusting. What about all of the people that have already been fired or have had their funds frozen or the massive layoffs that happened? Wasn't this all done at behest of Doge of Doji?
-
Unknown B
You said effective control and now you're like, influence. There's a big difference, a giant valley between those two things. But of course, your weasel tactics. Because again, you have to defend any of the Biden policies. Notice how all of this is like.
-
Unknown C
Oh, Elon Musk, Biden is not the president right now. What is this? Well, I don't know what this debate is over, oh, Trump or Biden's, Whose policies are better? Okay.
-
Unknown B
Oh, can they get rid of significant influence? Does he have influence over the president? Yes, he's in the Oval Office again, you said control. You went from control to influence.
-
Unknown A
Can you point to a single thing that I did that was as corrupt as parting all the Dance Sixers? I'll wait.
-
Unknown C
Oh, he's gonna say pardoning his family. And Pisco already owns this point, so.
-
Unknown B
Pardoning his son. What, so you think pardoning his son, pardoning federal government officials with a 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, for every event for 10.
-
Unknown A
Years is unknown than to then to pardon the cowboys and Oath keepers that committed and were convicted of seditious conspiracy. So some of those. I want to hear you say some of those people.
-
Unknown B
Some of those people, like Stewart Rose had their convictions commuted. Do you think that they weren't actually.
-
Unknown A
More Corrupt to pardon 100 Biden?
-
Unknown B
Represent your own family.
-
Unknown A
So this is a guy who actually planned violence. It was proved 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 constitutionalism. He's not serious about democracy. Anyone can sit and 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 2500 people in a list that was given to minority murderers.
-
Unknown C
Had to do with people that were. Had to do with people who had had sentences commuted because they'd stayed at home during like COVID lockdown for prison. Sh. Some Covid related bullshit. Totally different than 1600 people that were convicted of an insurrection or not insurrection. I guess we could say rioting or violence. That was like in direct connection to your run for reelection. Totally not even remotely close to the.
-
Unknown B
Same thing that we're told to him to be nonviolent is the raw number of those people.
-
Unknown A
By your own retelling, he was liked to buy a leftist group, in which.
-
Unknown B
Case it certainly gave him that list.
-
Unknown A
And then he's just an idiot and.
-
Unknown B
Going off the left campaigned on pardoning and commuting the January 6ers. The American people voted for him and he enacted those promises.
-
Unknown C
Again, that's not responsive. You could run on. I'm running on unilaterally as the President of the United States, abolishing the Supreme Court and the Congress with a stroke of a pen. If he won the election, does that mean that he's allowed to do that? That he should do that? Can the president literally just run on anything and then do anything, even if it's unconstitutional? Is that the argument? What is this argument of like, they voted for him to do this? So. So the what? But it doesn't mean anything. You can vote for the head of your 5th grade student council and he could promise hot dogs for lunch every day and no more homework. That doesn't mean you can deliver on it.
-
Unknown B
Like what 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 man. Orange man bad Trump, bad Trump bad. January 6th. Where are you on January 6th? Do you have an alibi?
-
Unknown C
Why is AJW tripling down on January 6th? It just makes him look stupid. No, it doesn't. And the Trump crowd, this makes him look awesome. The. The Trump cult requires buy in to every single part of the everything of every part of the deep state narrative of the constellation of all the crazy beliefs that all the Trump people believe into. You can't break with any of these big points. So, like COVID lockdown bullshit, vaccine bullshit. Like Trump false prosecution bullshit. Like you have to be on point with every single one of these things. So you have to own all the J6 stuff, but they do it. That's fine. 2020 election stolen bullshit.
-
Unknown B
Orange man bad Trump, bad Trump bad. January 6th. Where are we on January 6th? Do you have an alibi?
-
Unknown A
That's all he's got. 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 voting on Republicans as well. Not the American Bipartisan Infrastructure act, the Inflation Reduction act, the TIPS and Science Act. These are pieces of legislation that invested in protecting the American worker. They're invested in our economy. You know, bipartisan gun legislation where, you know, even if you're a Second Amendment person, these are to stop like, you know, domestic abusers and 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, what bipartisan legislation are 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.
-
Unknown A
Are you like a war hawk now? By $150 billion. How is that responsible? How's that possible?
-
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 correlation by $2,200.
-
Unknown A
Classic. Classic.
-
Unknown B
And in addition to that, like these.
-
Unknown C
What is he even citing here? How do you measure this over a four year term with COVID I'm curious what he's citing through here.
-
Unknown B
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 Lions Energy. Now these buses catch fire. They break down. One of them stalled twice on route to pick up the kids. 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.
-
Unknown B
I'm sorry, run them for five years. Problem is they didn't work. They send them back to manufacturer, manufacturer again. A Canadian company, lines 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. 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 year. But you didn't take it shouldn't take 10 years.
-
Unknown C
How much time should it take for massive infrastructure building in the United States of America? What I love when people say that it shouldn't take this long. About how long should it take? What do you mean? What.
-
Unknown A
Oh, wait, you can say, you can say about the pace, though.
-
Unknown B
You can say the plan in two years. Just think about that. So forward. So you get 40 after 10 years at that pace.
-
Unknown A
That's horrible. 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 fucking 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 the economy. Yeah. A disaster? Yeah, of course, if they don't come down.
-
Unknown C
He won't. He won't. He'll blame the deep state.
-
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 up, it's February.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. What I'm telling you is, are you.
-
Unknown B
Still using statistics from January, like, you know how they use the eggs, like the price of exits as of January 15th. I want to be clear.
-
Unknown A
I 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, right by example, is talking about and 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 started asking 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
Really. You know, one of the major providers for energy in the United Canada exporters. Canada and who right now with like, relations with Canada have never been worse.
-
Unknown B
He's openly talking about once Canada is the province of the United States of America.
-
Unknown A
Oh, then he memes it away.
-
Unknown C
Hilarious.
-
Unknown A
Me bro, who right now, like, relations with Canada have never been worse.
-
Unknown B
He's openly talking 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 flippant elements like that where they're not taking it seriously. They have expansionist vision of this administration. For example, talking about owning Gaza. We think about that. Well, Al Rubio doubled down, doubling down on this. We think. I just think the posture more about atheist liberty, what we do.
-
Unknown C
Oh, my God. I didn't mean to click.
-
Unknown B
Well, that's where you start the negotiation.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, okay.
-
Unknown C
Oh, my God.
-
Unknown A
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.
-
Unknown C
Oh, it's all negotiation. It's all negotiations. Please, peace. Go. Bring up the fact that. Where are the hostages? I thought the hostages was supposed to be out by now. Yesterday afternoon. So does that mean his negotiation positions failed or.
-
Unknown B
To the United States of America, we will have access to all of their.
-
Unknown A
It's a meme because they think that this whole thing's a joke for them. It's about owning liberals. They have flipping comments like that where they're not taking it seriously. The expansionist vision of this administration, for example, talking about owning Gaza. We think about that. Well, Rubio's double down, doubling down on us. We think that you 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 an epic meme.
-
Unknown A
Bro.
-
Unknown B
Would you end NATO?
-
Unknown A
Would you end NATO to take over Greenland?
-
Unknown B
Would I end NATO to take over. We want to buy Greenland.
-
Unknown A
Okay. Denmark is not for sale.
-
Unknown B
Well, that's where you start the negotiation.
-
Unknown C
Yeah, okay, but what about negotiation, bro?
-
Unknown B
I don't want Gaza.
-
Unknown A
Benjamin Netanyahu has, you'd agree, a tremendous influence on Donald Trump there.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. And, oh, does he control or influence him? Because you seem to think that those words are interchangeable.
-
Unknown A
So just to be clear, I said that Elon Musk has effective control over.
-
Unknown B
A lot of policies, which he does there no influence.
-
Unknown A
He doesn't have control.
-
Unknown B
Influence.
-
Unknown A
So explain that to me so someone is 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, like, senile.
-
Unknown A
All his Handlers, you think that they didn't have effective control.
-
Unknown B
I know Joe Biden was the President of the United States of America and the Democratic Congress.
-
Unknown A
Semantical bullshit that you'll get into or not. That doesn't even use the word.
-
Unknown B
You're the one who's gonna get into the semantics. As soon as we argue on control again to just rewind the tape, he then switches to influen.
-
Unknown A
Right.
-
Unknown B
So he's one of the turns of the mountain, Bailey. So he goes out on the strong position and then when I push back on it, he retreats to a weaker one. This is the tactic that he's trying to go with.
-
Unknown A
The term 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.
-
Unknown C
This is why, if you look, by the end of it, this is why Sean is a person who's not worth engaging with politically because like you never have like a real conversation of substance. He is the one of the snakiest, most weaselly fucking persons like ever to debate with. There's never ever a debate on the substance of anything. It's always these cute, stupid little word games. It's meaning when he's cornered into position. Like, there's no conversation of substance ever with this guy. It's so stupid and boring.
-
Unknown B
So how can I say this more clearly so you stop asking the same question? Yes, but why does he say he has influence?
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
The Secretary of. Which secretary has influence? I'm sorry? Has control over policy.
-
Unknown A
Does he have effective control?
-
Unknown B
I think the Secretary of State has control over effective control.
-
Unknown A
Why does the Secretary have effective control?
-
Unknown B
The Secretary of State is a confirmed nominee to that particular office. I forget what position they are in. The line of succession of the government.
-
Unknown A
Serves the pledge of the President.
-
Unknown B
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 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 C
Well, but the cabinet level department, the Department of State is supposed to be what has control to some extent over the usaid. But USAID was being cut up by essentially, I mean, you could say recommendations from Elon Musk, I guess. But I mean, like, it's not like Rubio did any analysis what was going on in here. Right.
-
Unknown A
Doing this because the President is ultimately Supervising authority over I guess in your mind, every single employee in the executive branch. Well that is true.
-
Unknown C
Oh, the unitary executive theory. Nice.
-
Unknown A
I'm not even willing to say where an article to the Constitution it says there's a vesting clause.
-
Unknown B
Where in the Constitution does it say that they can create something in the executive branch that's above the President.
-
Unknown C
Above the President? What do you mean? That they can create offices that are separate for President and they literally have the clause. What's it called? Is it the appointments clause? They literally say that Congress. Why would you ask this question? Congress literally has the power to create things in the executive branch that the President does not have universal control over. What do you mean? Does he not, does he not think.
-
Unknown A
That Biden's Supreme Court President on that so Humphrey's executive order and there's another one recently by Roberts called state of law. You're aware of the President's fair. No. You're not aware of the precedents of unitary executive theory and on executives who are not immediately 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 of 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 Humphreys actors. They're talking about alternative that if you're willing to say here that it's so obvious the President can fire anyone he wants in the administration. The President, the premise that Trump wants.
-
Unknown C
The President literally cannot do that. I'm guessing the Supreme Court thinks he's talking about too. But the President can't like go down into the DOJ and just like fire base level employees. I don't think he even has the. I don't think he can do that. I don't think he is allowed to.
-
Unknown A
It's not legal. He wants to. That's why he's firing illegally all of these protected offices. That's why he's firing for example the heads of the fec, the heads 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.
-
Unknown C
Like this idea he like Sean is just going by memes on Twitter. Independent. They're not independent. It's all, it's all the President basically that. What do you like?
-
Unknown B
It's just retarded that there's these independent agencies. It's not real. Again, the president is not real. Like, okay, head of the executive branch. Even the inspector general 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 a check on its own branch. And so filing that 38 notice provision is extremely important because it's Trump trying to assert the limitations that Congress has put in the law. The Congress has said, you may only fire these people for such and such reason. And after 30 days notice to Congress, just like he's flagrantly flouting the Empowerment act on these spending forces, 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.
-
Unknown A
Only this amount of time. Yes, you can fire these people, but only through 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 C
Oh, no. Peterson's gonna kill himself on stage for this stupid argument. Well, how many days does it count if he's being illegal? Can you not do it for one day? 20 days? 40 days? Name the day.
-
Unknown A
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 fault is.
-
Unknown B
No. Well, I don't believe the Impoundment act is constitutional prior to not even a real law.
-
Unknown C
Notice how he cited it. And now he's like, well, I don't think it's constitutional, because if Trump does anything, he is the law. Trump is the law. Trump can do whatever the fuck he wants. And it's always better than whatever Congress's law says.
-
Unknown B
Yes, the Empowerment 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 US Aid legislation, which actually have it written down right here. Here, it's called Senate Bill 2438, you see multiple different authorizations, which is up to a certain amount or as is necessary to perform the function. So you actually do have the authority under the previous system to trim back.
-
Unknown C
Those funds to perform the functions with the, what is it? The full faith and credit? No, that's. Is that. What is it called? Or that the, that the President will perform. And there's a phrase for this that I should know.
-
Unknown B
But again, as long as you're accomplishing the necessary mission.
-
Unknown A
So what you said the Empowerment act is unconstitutional.
-
Unknown B
So what he is.
-
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 power right now to stop anyone who wants for an indefinite period of five, do you think?
-
Unknown C
I didn't say that. But you want to answer the question?
-
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. He does not have to spend the maximum authorized by Congress.
-
Unknown A
Does the theory that authority to stop.
-
Unknown B
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, I want.
-
Unknown A
To be 100% clear. So the Department of Education has been appropriated funds by Congress. Okay. So could Trump, if you wanted to, under your theory of executive power, halt, you know, only putting $1 to the department of Education and halt the rest of it for an indefinite period of time?
-
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 rid of it all together.
-
Unknown A
So then if that's the case, what can Congress effectively do about it if he decides I'm gonna pause it?
-
Unknown B
Well, he can pause funds, like temporarily under the impoundment.
-
Unknown A
You said that's unconstitutional.
-
Unknown B
I think it's unconstitutional, yeah.
-
Unknown A
So under. So what?
-
Unknown B
Constitutionally, we already had the legislation. So like that can be enforced, but we haven't even gotten to that 45.
-
Unknown A
Enforced by whom?
-
Unknown B
We haven't even gone to that 45 day period.
-
Unknown A
And you would go to the courts. 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 another 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 president to 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. He did.
-
Unknown A
He sent an ombre. He, of course, did not fucking send a special message because he believes. Trump believes at as actual Justice Warrior. Sean does that. That is my full government. You can check it. People at home can check it. They can that they believe the Impoundment act is unconstitutional. No one can argue that they're trying to follow the Impoundment Act. They are deliberately, just like they're deliberating the or deliberately flouting the requirements of firing and notice on firing, they're deliberately flouting 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 is that 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 gonna defy court orders and you're gonna 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 President. And speaking of defiance of court orders, the Supreme Court of the United States of America struck down.
-
Unknown C
Struck down. Joe Biden trying to dismiss $50 billion of student loans. And then Joe Biden said, I'm going to try to do it anyway, even though he looked for a totally different pathway to do it. And he acknowledged that the spring court struck down the one pathway that he did it. Sean's going to bring up this. They all, they love this one example. They always have their one go to.
-
Unknown B
Down affirmative action under the Biden administration.
-
Unknown C
Just kidding. He brought up affirmative action. They have two they like to go to. That was the second one. My bad.
-
Unknown B
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.
-
Unknown C
Okay, we got it. You.
-
Unknown B
I got there.
-
Unknown C
We got there.
-
Unknown B
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. 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 case?
-
Unknown B
Did I read the case?
-
Unknown A
No, of course not. Because obviously the old diversity type. You're laughing. You're laughing. It's complete trick. 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, is the court said you're allowed to consider adversity, you're allowed to do that in a kind of generic or an essay in.
-
Unknown B
The Department of Education as a code or 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 the same race.
-
Unknown A
You read the case and you're telling them what's acceptable under the case, what a you are. And then obviously 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 for universally if you don't have a Pell Grant, $20,000 universally if you do a Pell Grant. And that was striking at like millions, millions and millions of people. Very, very broad. And that was struck down. He never tried that. That 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 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 was on that one order, expanded to all orders.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. So I want to.
-
Unknown B
That was a 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, we're going after Trump over the Gaza thing.
-
Unknown C
I think peace go needs to be able to say four different things at the same time. Like, Jesus, we can get there, bro. My God.
-
Unknown B
Sense to actually posture strength on behalf of our allies rather than the wishy washy nonsense where Biden's like, oh yeah.
-
Unknown C
How could you ever say that Trump postures strength. Oh my God, are they going to get to the foreign policy? Does Pisco do perform policies much? We've. Oh my God, bro, the US Is a loser under Trump. We surrendered to the Taliban. It looks like the United States is going to surrender Ukraine to Russia without even inviting Ukraine to the talks. What concessions? With all of our bravado and all of our machoism and all of our strength, what concessions is the US Going to pull out of Russia here? Any guesses?
-
Unknown B
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 coming out on saying America's gonna own.
-
Unknown B
I think posturing that the Hamas. Let me answer the question. I think that posturing of the 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 status quo with Trump coming?
-
Unknown C
They should have taken territory from Gaza.
-
Unknown A
Jesus, yes or no?
-
Unknown B
I wish he would have said America was gonna own Gaza because I don't want it. So I disagree with that.
-
Unknown A
I disagree with it. It's a smart posture, I think.
-
Unknown B
What, do you not like, hear the words that I say? You just imagine I said it's a smart posture to. 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.
-
Unknown C
Oh, apparently Rubio said that they would be there.
-
Unknown B
Ukraine, Russia 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, you go, right, it was bad, it was bad. It was Bad for America to claim that they were going to 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.
-
Unknown B
Because when you lose a war, you should feel like you're going to lose something. And that actually increases the. 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 Trust them? If Trump is saying that just as a posture and it's not really going to be implemented and you want to take them over anyway, why would you disagree with and say it's bad?
-
Unknown B
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
Gaza lose it all and give it to America. Yeah, it does matter. Yes, it does matter. I agree with stupid policy. Also, I totally disagree with Trump being Benjamin Netanyahu's dog, which he goes around, pulls the seat out for him, and does anything that BB ask 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, so more so than Biden Fair?
-
Unknown B
No, not necessarily.
-
Unknown A
You think that Biden is more beholden to Israel than Biden actually received more.
-
Unknown B
Money from AIPAC than any politician in America.
-
Unknown C
I like that. What a pivot. Oh, my God.
-
Unknown A
So, first of all, APAC is not all pro Israeli funders. Fair.
-
Unknown B
APAC 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. I got more APAC dollars. I'm telling you.
-
Unknown B
Oh, okay. I got you like. All right. 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. And I want to be fairness, because I don't think you. I don't think that you agree with Netanyahu's amount of influence, as in America. Right?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, I don't Right.
-
Unknown A
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 influen 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.
-
Unknown B
I think Trump is more pro Israel than Biden.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. More influenced by Israel.
-
Unknown B
Fair.
-
Unknown A
And he's going to do what Israel wants.
-
Unknown B
I don't know necessarily. I don't know what this Gaza thing is.
-
Unknown C
Oh my God.
-
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 C
Like, I like how we can mind read every single thing that Biden is going to do based on these vague statements or these unreal statements. But when Trump literally says he's going to do a thing, then we're like totally in the dark and we have no idea what he might do. Like, it's impossible. These are unwinnable arguments. You can't do it. It like Trump is like a shadow boxer using a fucking jutsu that puts him in 27 places at once and you're trying to pick out which one is the real one. Meanwhile, Biden's not even in the room and he can point to him and say that's by like, it's just, it's an impossible debate. Like Trump can't be held to any standard, to any accountability, to any position whatsoever. It's just, it's a joke.
-
Unknown A
Let's look at the actual things they did that Abraham Accords. That was.
-
Unknown B
God, what a great mention of foreign policy victories for Trump. I mean, negotiating peace with, with bilateral peace agreements with Arab neighbors. What was it like the first time in 25 years that they got a piece of.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, yeah, you say that, but just to be clear, 100% the question was who's more influenced by Israel? And Trump gave Israel tangible wins and victories there helped, some say, by the way, had a positive effect on that horrible attack. Obviously Hamas bears completely total responsibility for the atrocious acts that they did and the terrorism and I fucking hate Hamas. And so I'm not supporting Hamas at all. But people point to that as a cause of effect.
-
Unknown B
The Abrahamic dumb people point to that as a cause. 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 a 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.
-
Unknown C
Like, it's funny because that's literally what happened when it came to recognizing the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem. It was literally like, holy shit, this isn't cool. Israel's got a lot of shit from the United States. Holy shit, this isn't cool. We're being abandoned. Yes, this is exactly what happened.
-
Unknown B
Yes, 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 a lot of the Shia groups, like Hezbollah and all that through Iran are funding them now, but I think this is a. Is a much.
-
Unknown C
Saudi Arabia was. Morocco. Were these people funding Hamas, like, better.
-
Unknown A
Strategy off aid for Palestine? What did I say that 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?
-
Unknown B
I might do some humanitarian aid. Like, whole, like, territory got blown up.
-
Unknown A
I mean, they paused all.
-
Unknown C
All. As opposed to what aid? Do you think we send military aid to Palestine?
-
Unknown A
All foreign aid?
-
Unknown B
Well, I mean, during 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 the humanitarian aid, sounds like you're in favor of it. Do you agree with the pause on all U.S. aid except for Israel and Egypt?
-
Unknown B
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 Ukraine and America continuing to have a relationship and not taking money away from Ukraine, which is what the 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 foreign 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.
-
Unknown C
Like, we're putting up a strong front.
-
Unknown B
In Ukraine own 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 know Trump gets 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.
-
Unknown C
Can somebody tell me, did Trump give lethal aid or I thought he just authorized weapons sales. Was there actually donations made or was it just approving sales of weapons? Somebody linked me that I don't know these people's work.
-
Unknown A
It's obvious that Biden is way more pro Ukraine. I don't, I'm not aware of line item they're referencing right now, like the specific lethal aid given prior to the invasion. What they do, they'll cherry pick like the specific line item that makes them out to be bad. Like 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're. If you're worried about China for Example, why are you giving all of these, you know, developing countries incentives to go into Beijing's arms by cutting off all their US aid? Why are you signaling that America is an untrustworthy ally by like in the middle, you think, talk about efficiency. At a drop of a hat, all the funding gets cut off. You know, we have boats that are supposed to be leaving with food and they're all fucking rotting on their.
-
Unknown A
How is that a good idea? How does that not embolden and strengthen China?
-
Unknown C
Like, I don't understand. Like, can somebody tell me, did this come from somewhere? Or I see Trump Admin approves new sale of anti tank weapons to Ukraine. $39 million sale of defensive lethal weapons to Ukraine. Nearly $400 million in military systems. You're going to be withheld. This was over the first impeachment thing.
-
Unknown A
You want me, come and get me.
-
Unknown C
I should look this up sometime. Sniper system says you're going to be coming for value of 41.5 million. Okay. I don't know if anybody has a link. I'm just curious.
-
Unknown B
In Russia, 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 diverting 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 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, we're talking about USAID 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 C
Freeze them all completely review them is not cancel and freeze like nobody would do. It's so stupid. This is so stupid. I don't even know why I'm like, even if we just look at this from, from a businessman perspective, like, you can do department reviews without freezing every single thing the department is doing. It's such a stupid talking point.
-
Unknown A
Do them while they're being frozen. Why don't I just review them?
-
Unknown C
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
And freeze them as it is also, by the way. But let's be fair. You're pure.
-
Unknown C
No, no, you should make him answer that question. Why not just review them then? Why do you have to freeze them?
-
Unknown B
Final nail in the coffin for you.
-
Unknown A
Well, for you, I think there's like some discretion for the President indefinitely, to spend all kinds of time. I'm just saying that's what it sounds like that you think it sounds like.
-
Unknown B
In your head based on the words.
-
Unknown A
You'Re saying that the Common Act's unconstitutional, Congress can operate statutes, limit the President, discretion that I don't know the difference.
-
Unknown B
Between influence and effective control.
-
Unknown A
So, like, you're fearful of China's encroachment, so it's weird to have.
-
Unknown C
Do you think AJW actually believes what he says? No, no, no. I think that he knows enough, like, bits and pieces of the arguments to know he's like, when he's searching for arguments, he's looking for, like, how can I weasel through this? Like, that's an intentional thought from him. 100%. You can just tell by the way that he speaks. When somebody only has, like a bit or a piece of information, you know, that they've come across the correct answer, but they're intentionally not saying it. Like, AJW is a deliberate bad faith interlocutor. Yeah.
-
Unknown A
Someone who has very strong financial ties to Beijing and China.
-
Unknown B
How come you don't respond to any of my Middle Eastern points? Why are we off that?
-
Unknown A
Which ones you want to respond to?
-
Unknown B
What?
-
Unknown A
I said the ones related to Israel, Palestine.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. I was defending the bilateral peace agreements, and you're saying no, Israel was just.
-
Unknown A
One of the last thing you said. Is that okay? Or do you think that, which is.
-
Unknown B
Why you're glossing over it?
-
Unknown A
No, I think that Trump's posture on Israel, Palestine, Biden's posture on Israel, Palestine was not perfect. I didn't like that. I thought it was far too deferential to bib. 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 comic 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 Abraham Accords, which established mutual recognition, which was the facto agreed. I mean, like they were traded, they had mutual interests. And that this formal signing, which some say incited tensions in the region, that it was worth, you know, the paper that was written on. And do you think that's huge victory fair?
-
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 it's a big component of establishing peace in the Middle east right now. And Saudi Arabia says we're not going to establish diplomatic relationships with Israel without a 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.
-
Unknown A
So you think they would have.
-
Unknown B
I mean, I do think, yes. If Trump would have won a second term, I do think they would have gotten the Abraham Accord signed.
-
Unknown A
Oh, that's. You think the invasion of Israel would not have happened under Trump's watch.
-
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.
-
Unknown C
With who? With Hamas, with Iran, with Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia.
-
Unknown B
Because that was something that the Trump administration.
-
Unknown C
Why would. Why would a deal with Saudi Arabia mean anything at all?
-
Unknown B
Was pushing for Biden promised a return to normalcy. And when he got into office, all of a sudden Middle Eastern part. I think Saudi Arabia would have recognized. I'm sorry. I think Saudi Arabia would become a party to the Abram Accords if Trump won a second term. This is what I'm saying. The October 7th attacks were in 2023. So we would had 2021, 2022, and most of 2023. That's what I said.
-
Unknown C
What. How would that have prevented the October 7th attacks?
-
Unknown A
Okay. I mean, listen, I think that. I didn't say he was enemy goes on, like I said, that there's a.
-
Unknown B
Different theory in Middle Eastern foreign policy under the Trump administration versus the Biden administration. And honestly, all administration that proceeded that peace must start with the Palestinians. That was not Trump's Theory, the foreign policy, and that's why he got the.
-
Unknown A
Abraham 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. Sorry, 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 it, he has so many deep ties to countries that could be. Or also internal actors that could be affected by how the government is funding. Tesla, for example, SpaceX, you know, he's leading the NASA fucking quote, unquote 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 he be in charge of those audits?
-
Unknown B
But in terms of NASA, specifically, like Elon Musk has done normally to save.
-
Unknown A
Should any other investigations.
-
Unknown B
In charge of the investigation, the audit.
-
Unknown A
Whatever you're calling them, the audit has 13 flow 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 the 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 Maddow, Tesla Vehicles.
-
Unknown A
Right?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, there was a report and they.
-
Unknown A
Actually follow that conflict. It's still not conflict because the acquisition happened under Biden. Is that fair?
-
Unknown B
No, the purchase order happened under Biden.
-
Unknown A
Therefore it's cleansed of the conflict of interest. But think about 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 Trump's, Elon is in charge of whether that funding goes through. He's in charge of getting the exemption.
-
Unknown C
Yeah, that's a good point. Like if the something judges said the appearance of corruption was important enough to dismiss the Eric Adams case, irrespective of the legal merit, it or any of the evidence, but the appearance of corruption, no matter how much it exists with Elon Musk, doesn't matter now we do letter of the law constitution. Even if it is defying Congress. Like what?
-
Unknown B
Why administration specifically causes that deal that was the subject of a fake report that you bit into on social media and now you're backing off of that?
-
Unknown A
No. That class has a example is a perfect example of conflict. It's a pristine example.
-
Unknown B
And they grow their contract after we.
-
Unknown A
Brought to their attention. Correct?
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. So he should not be leading this. And the fact that he won't say it, that he like should not be crazy. This guy, there's so many connections between. He's a fucking, you know, 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. You pretend it doesn't matter.
-
Unknown B
Identified. They should be addressed. Yeah, he's a special government employee like a bunch of different special government. George Source does have huge influence. I mean you brought up Alvin Bragg.
-
Unknown C
Oh my God, George Soros. And then he's gonna bring up Alvin Bragg and you're like, come on. I wish, bro. Fuck George Soros, man. I wish Soros was half the corrupt piece of shit that fucking Elon Musk is unbelievable. Like the gall to even breathe that name compared to Elon Musk. Holy shit.
-
Unknown B
First political campaign.
-
Unknown A
Imagine if Rachel Maddow Because Elon Musk here. Imagine if Rachel Maddow was in charge of the audits that were happening under a government watchdog. How these people would fucking cry pathetically every week.
-
Unknown B
Oh, they put. They would put an anchor actor in charge of it.
-
Unknown A
Like we know that it's a problem to have someone like Elon Musk either for the optics of impartiality. Before you say we had to hold prosperous. Yes.
-
Unknown B
I didn't say we had to. I said I wouldn't have. But I understand.
-
Unknown C
Oh my God, he's such a weasel. I got like two more minutes. I can't listen. This guy, he's actually such a fucking loser. I can't listen to this. I don't know. This is why I will never debate this guy. It's actually such a.
-
Unknown B
And the so gross trying to appear not political.
-
Unknown A
So you're saying you wouldn't have.
-
Unknown C
So you said that the clown mirror analogy or the clown mirror debate perpetrate tactic where you can never ever ever restate the person's position and you can't. With Sean. More than any other person I've ever seen online, you can never restate Sean's position or ask him, like, oh, so you wouldn't approve this? And I didn't actually say approve. I just meant that I wouldn't disapprove. Okay, wait. Okay, wait. So then you would be okay with this? I'd be okay with that. I just said I'd be okay with maybe something like that in a different universe. Like, it's ever. You can never restate a position. You can never restate a single thing he said. You can never get him to engage honestly with a hypothetical. You can never figure out, like, what he means because it's always, like, slippery. It's so. Ugh.
-
Unknown A
I've stopped the case against Alvin Bragg. No, no.
-
Unknown B
Eric Adams.
-
Unknown A
Would you have. Sorry, would you have a point that you almost had this dose?
-
Unknown B
I get the whole department is his idea or the agency or whatever.
-
Unknown A
Given the appearance of a conflict of interest, that was sufficient. Near my understanding least. What's going on with Mayor Adams? Why would he be the person you appoint to have this?
-
Unknown B
Because the agency was his brainchild and you need somebody to run it.
-
Unknown C
So, see, like, look at the. Like, the matter of fact. Like, why the appearance of impropriety matters with, like, why couldn't you just say, well, it's the job of the US Prosecuting attorneys to decide who to prosecute. Prosecute. Well, the appearance of impropriety is enough there to literally pump the brakes on that entire thing. Okay, but then for Doge. Well, he is what he is. Like, it's.
-
Unknown A
Good at.
-
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 is no conflict of interest. Too corrupt. No obvious blatant hypocrisy happening in front of you that they will not defend. And go to Matt. Defended. I mean, think about what did Elon do that would make you say, oh, he shouldn't do that?
-
Unknown C
And it's, like, so gross. Like, Sean can't own a single thing in good faith. Like, yeah, okay, yeah, maybe this is probably not. Okay, maybe this is probably not. Like. Like, the only thing he owned is, like, yeah, I don't want America to do this thing. But I don't even think Trump was serious about it. He's just, like, baiting on that, like, the owning Gaza shit.
-
Unknown A
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 home.
-
Unknown C
Like, he is so gross. Can you think of one thing that he could do that you. I don't know. I can't think of anything.
-
Unknown A
Corrupt. No obvious blatant hypocrisy.
-
Unknown C
You know why he won't do it too? Is because fucking Elon might actually do it. And then Sean would look like a massive hypocrite. So he can't even name a thing because he might accidentally do that thing. Now he looks like a really huge hypocrite.
-
Unknown A
They will not defend it. Go to that defendant. I mean, what did Elon do that would make you say, oh, he should be ahead of Doge? 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, or, you know, there's plenty of things.
-
Unknown A
If he hadn't granted that exemption to himself or, sorry, that had. Hadn't frozen that 400 million whatever million dollar. Of the Tesla fleet vehicles, if he hadn't done them, you say, okay, well.
-
Unknown B
He didn't freeze it. It was frozen by the Trump administration in response to the news.
-
Unknown C
Oh, my God, that representation, I don't know, it's frozen.
-
Unknown A
I thought it was on the State Department, and I think a lot of the State Department stuff is not covered by somebody. 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 if 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 Mattaw 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.
-
Unknown C
How did we get through this from a climate change perspective?
-
Unknown A
Jesus Christ, 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 strings. And you have no problem with fucking with it on whims or Congress still.
-
Unknown B
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 question you're not going through, but the fact that you're knowledge that it's marginal given the size of the overall budget to 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 mean 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, underwater basket weaving, that kind of shit. So they know that you guys are like, I mean, you're the one who.
-
Unknown B
Is a man to defend all this stuff.
-
Unknown A
I get really upset about it. You get really upset when anybody goes in the program you don't agree with. You don't understand that Congress has a discretion. But notice it is a small amount of the overall budget. And so what is this pretense that what they care about is a massive reduction 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 the Republican.
-
Unknown A
Donald Trump has said on the record that he is going to increase a lot of things.
-
Unknown B
He said that after the words. Then I want to have a sit down with Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and I. 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.
-
Unknown C
Waiting for the did he actually. Did Trump say that he was going to cut the military budget in half, or did Trump say he's going to cut the Pentagon's budget in half? Because at this point, I'm really not convinced that Trump even knows the difference between those two things. What did Trump actually say? Didn't Trump say cut the Pentagon's budget? Defense stocks drop after Trump says Pentagon budget or spending could be halved. Like, I don't even know if Trump knows what the fuck he's saying half the time. Like, I'm gonna say there's no reason for us to be spending almost $1 trillion on the military, and I'm going to say we can spend this on other things. Okay, he did say military budget, whatever that means, I guess.
-
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.
-
Unknown A
I support him on Ukraine and being super pro Ukraine way more than Trump is. I support Biden not fucking isolating our allies and attacking them and making, you know, causing friction between them where they've already had effects, potentially inflation, we don't know yet 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, prepping for a huge, massive terrorist of Europe. So in the Architect, there's nothing that.
-
Unknown B
Says you love your ally more than you want them to join your country as the next project Province.
-
Unknown C
Hilarious.
-
Unknown B
Canada. That's beautiful.
-
Unknown A
There's nothing that says that you love your epic meme agreeing to be a next.
-
Unknown C
This is like the. This is the thing that I'm saying where you have, like, liberals doom scroll, but to conservatives, it's just like, epic and based and hilarious.
-
Unknown A
That sounds like Putin. I mean, that's what we are now. We're turning 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 puts it to the Canadian perspective. It's like, oh, they're gonna say that they want to be respecting the sovereignty of Canada. Canada. You can still say you want Canada. We're not even.
-
Unknown C
Oh, it's just the thing he's saying, like, these are the endless word games, your allies.
-
Unknown A
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 you.
-
Unknown A
That's not relevant, bro.
-
Unknown B
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 gotta ask them out again. You gotta be more, you know, you gotta put in a little effort.
-
Unknown A
Bro, bro, like, like, what is this? How many times?
-
Unknown C
It's just a meme. Everything's just like a meme.
-
Unknown A
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 what they're in that contract.
-
Unknown C
I don't even think anything changed in Panama. I think Panama. Didn't he say they got some concession and Panama literally put out a statement saying literally nothing has changed. This is exactly what we were doing.
-
Unknown A
Before aspirations of Panama now.
-
Unknown B
I mean, we want to have not Chinese influence on Panama now, but I don't think we're going to take it over again.
-
Unknown A
Okay. I mean, so just to be clear, I'm wearing a foreign policy. I think a lot of these are fucking huge blunders. I think that it's absolutely.
-
Unknown B
You don't want Greenland.
-
Unknown A
I only want Epic. You 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 anti Americans are, right?
-
Unknown A
I'm 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, Ellis Stefanik, 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 political theory, Canada becoming an American state, fucking go for it. I want Puerto to become American state. I love spreading our constitution because I believe in that constitution, but not with a sword and not to these kind of weird tricks or pressure.
-
Unknown A
I think it's not. Okay, not acceptable right now. And I think that Biden did a good job stewarding Our allies in support of major things that occurred. For example, the 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 withdrawal Afghanistan, don't you?
-
Unknown B
I mean, there's ways to leave and then there's ways to leave.
-
Unknown A
You support the withdrawal Afghanistan.
-
Unknown C
Oh, Sean just realized he fucked up a little bit because.
-
Unknown A
Oof.
-
Unknown C
That was Trump negotiated. But he's just going to blame the everything on Biden somehow because it was kicked down the can to Biden's term.
-
Unknown B
Did I want US Troops to eventually leave? Sure. So we also had contractors in there that were. That would have stayed probably under Trump.
-
Unknown A
What would you have done differently?
-
Unknown C
For example, Trump would have left contractors in Afghanistan after a full US Military retreat. Really?
-
Unknown A
Trump said he would have kept back on air base in Afghanistan.
-
Unknown B
Trump said he would have killed the guy. He showed him a picture of his house. You never heard that story. If he killed one more person, Trump.
-
Unknown A
Said he would have kept background air base. Do you agree with Trump, yes or no? I don't know. You don't know? So what you've done differently?
-
Unknown C
Oh, he can't even answer this because it's so hypocritical.
-
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.
-
Unknown C
Yeah, none of them were met under Trump's term either. When Trump released like 5,000 Taliban fighters. Like, they didn't meet any of those conditions either.
-
Unknown B
But by the Taliban, who done it?
-
Unknown A
Biden did.
-
Unknown B
He was the commander in chief.
-
Unknown C
Oh, my God, bro. Yeah. We'll read our chapter.
-
Unknown A
There was an agreement with the Taliban, a unilateral agreement, just like he's doing right now with Russia. Right now he's in negotiations with Russia without Ukraine there or Europe there. So he had an agreement edging out the Afghan government. Government just with the Taliban. And they said they had an agreement. We're not going to attack American troops and we'll withdraw on this timetable and.
-
Unknown B
And attack American troops. So you shouldn't withdraw it on that time. They blew them up at the base. Thirteen, I believe Marines died.
-
Unknown C
Whoa. Sean thinks that was the Taliban. Oh, no. Does Pisco know this?
-
Unknown B
American troops. So you shouldn't have withdraw it on that time. They blew them up at the base. Thirteen, I believe Marine stuff died.
-
Unknown C
Does Piso know this?
-
Unknown A
He thinks it was a Talbot.
-
Unknown C
Oh, thank God. Damn. That's a kind of a big up. I mean, unless you don't give a about this deal.
-
Unknown B
But was it. What was Al Qaeda?
-
Unknown C
Almost one more.
-
Unknown A
I don't even know. Isis.
-
Unknown B
Dramatic pause. Oh, isis.
-
Unknown C
Whatever.
-
Unknown A
Palan. Wait, but that matters, right?
-
Unknown C
But it's all the same to him. It's all. It's all like Muslim terrorists, right? Isis, Al Qaeda, Taliban. Same, Right, Right.
-
Unknown A
That is. They didn't break that agreement. It was isis. You totally up. 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 the Afghan government.
-
Unknown A
What's that?
-
Unknown B
They overdo the Afghani government though.
-
Unknown C
Yeah, that wasn't part of the agreement. That was a problem.
-
Unknown A
Who? The Taliban? Yeah, you'd be playing by for that.
-
Unknown B
I mean we could have supported them with air power or something and got.
-
Unknown C
And violated the whole agreement and started fighting another war in Afghanistan again, kill me.
-
Unknown A
Do you want us to be more engaged and spend more money for them, you know, and giving them more weapons and more arms or do 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. They should have more support. But you also don't want to get too involved in Gaza. But you do want 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.
-
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 spend more money and 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 yet. Yes.
-
Unknown A
So I mean, I'd say if you're in favor of establishing that, then maybe.
-
Unknown C
Then maybe the Doha agreement should have included I've dead is 10 and the government, maybe, maybe, maybe in making sure.
-
Unknown A
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.
-
Unknown C
That's. You can't just use private military contractors as a substitute for your. For the United States military.
-
Unknown A
What?
-
Unknown C
What?
-
Unknown B
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 as part of his immigration policy. I was wondering why we're not going Immigration.
-
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. Yeah.
-
Unknown B
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.
-
Unknown A
The ultimate nimmies. So he wants us to assist Afghanistan, but not. It's going to cost us too much. And not that it's going to be an arc. We don't want to take these fucking losers who helped us in the war. I mean, we would want to impose.
-
Unknown B
That who they are. Like, again.
-
Unknown A
Yes. Why do we have a unilateral. Why would we just send them to.
-
Unknown B
A third party country? And like you said that like, it's a bad thing. I want to help our allies, but I don't want it to cost.
-
Unknown C
We haven't vetted them. When the military is literally using them on the ground as like fixers or for intelligence gathering purposes or for assisting in other. Like, do you think that the US Military just goes up to like fucking randos of the street. What does he mean?
-
Unknown B
A lot. Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly what I want to do. Not spend a ton of money. That's unnecessary. Number one. Number two, again, immigration policy remain in Mexico. Best immigration policy I've had. I've seen in like last.
-
Unknown A
How many migrants?
-
Unknown C
Yeah, how many migrants did this even help with?
-
Unknown A
Was it.
-
Unknown C
Was it like 50,000? It wasn't implemented until, I think like 2019.
-
Unknown B
In the last 10 years, we have a bunch of people defrauding our asylum. He has no idea we're going through a bunch of countries.
-
Unknown A
How many migrants do you think that that policy affected?
-
Unknown B
I don't know, 10 million? Well, it was instituted in 2029 and then we had the. I'm sorry, 2019.
-
Unknown C
There you go. 2019. So it wasn't even for the majority of his term. Okay.
-
Unknown B
And then we have the COVID emergency. So we're using Title 42 to what you call it, force people out of the country, but it should be expanded to.
-
Unknown C
And then in the last few months of Trump's. It might have been in the last year. The last few months of Trump's term saw more immigration, illegal immigration than we saw higher than peak any month under Obama. By the way.
-
Unknown B
For people that were.
-
Unknown A
Playing outside, I don't know if you have an idea of scale about how much it's effective, whether or not it was significant, as you say.
-
Unknown C
You just said remain in Mexico. Make him own this. He said remain in Mexico was one of the best immigration policies of all time in the past several decades. So he must have some idea of the scale, right?
-
Unknown A
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
Yes, it was, yeah, tens of thousands.
-
Unknown B
But again, it was instituted in 2019 prior to the COVID where we ended up using Title 42.
-
Unknown C
But then why did you bring that up as an example? That was your example, Chief.
-
Unknown B
Well, people 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 negotiate and which they have done so with Canada, a 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 have to think about it's a legality, whether or not we can even conceivably, you know, be sending what millions of people, Mexican, Mexico, to have their silent kicking heard. It's not the case. Mexico's not going to accept it. And it was never going to be a war 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 what it's about. It's a pretext.
-
Unknown B
It's a deterrent.
-
Unknown A
Yes.
-
Unknown B
I believe in deterrence.
-
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 fair.
-
Unknown B
I want them to claim asylum in the next safe country.
-
Unknown A
As 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 of men.
-
Unknown B
Men.
-
Unknown A
But at every turn, pro Trump sycophants don't care about the law. That it says that you have to go through asylum procedures, that it says you have to provide hearings to certain people, that you have to have credible fear determinations of people who are, you.
-
Unknown B
Know, does everyone have a right to claim asylum in the United States of America?
-
Unknown A
You have to be in a port.
-
Unknown B
How many countries can you pass through to claim asylum here?
-
Unknown A
Do you know this answer or are you asking it?
-
Unknown B
I'm asking you how many countries. Okay, so you're a great world.
-
Unknown A
So there's a distinction.
-
Unknown C
Epic. I can't watch. What time do.
-
Unknown A
I'm good.
-
Unknown C
Hold on. My favorite types of people.
-
Unknown B
Seven and a half months pregnant when the storm hit, Emily Russell says it was like a scary movie. The water started coming up, the vents.
-
Unknown A
In the house where the basement had completely got overtook.
-
Unknown B
And then you just started hearing parts.
-
Unknown A
Of the house getting tore off over there, and it started kicking in the doors from the pressure. It was just crazy.
-
Unknown B
But as fast as Tropical Storm Helene's floodwaters upended her world, volunteers swept in to help put it back together. We've had so many people just really.
-
Unknown A
Bless our family and we've had God with us every step of the way.
-
Unknown B
So when President Donald Trump talks about abolishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Russell is just fine with it.
-
Unknown A
I mean, honestly, it didn't. It's not helped a lot of us around here. So even if he got rid of fema, wouldn't hurt or help.
-
Unknown B
Nearly five months after Helene tore through the foothills of western North Carolina, many wonder why more hasn't been accomplished.
-
Unknown A
Well, if this is the way they.
-
Unknown C
Are, he ought to do away with them.
-
Unknown B
City and regional planning professor Miyuki Hino studies the impacts of climate change. She says Most of this frustration comes from misconceptions about what FEMA's role actually is.
-
Unknown C
Federal assistance is really designed to meet immediate needs for habitability. So it is certainly not the case that FEMA is going to come in.
-
Unknown A
And put everything back to the perfect state that it was in before. They will be the first to tell.
-
Unknown C
You that your homeowners insurance and your flood insurance should be your primary resources for recovering.
-
Unknown B
The agency says more than 153,000 North Carolina households are receiving Helene related aid.
-
Unknown A
18,000 have received money to repair primary homes, and thousands more are staying in FEMA funded houses. Russell complained about the Byzantine process for filing the claim. I thought we were going to be.
-
Unknown B
Lucky and get help from them because.
-
Unknown A
I filed it right away. We had an inspector out here within the first two or three weeks.
-
Unknown B
Parts of her claim have been rejected. Others are still listed as pending.
-
Unknown A
Government and FEMA wise, there's been no help.
-
Unknown B
But Hino says there are strict rules to follow in the aftermath of disasters. A lot of the administrative steps that.
-
Unknown C
Are taken are to ensure that assistance.
-
Unknown A
Is going to eligible households for eligible costs.
-
Unknown B
And those are processes that take time. Unfortunately.
-
Unknown A
Bailey got the maximum loss amount.
-
Unknown B
$42,500, and the offer of a FEMA trailer, but he says the money wouldn't buy him a real replacement. And the loaner doesn't cut it.
-
Unknown A
They say, oh, we'll get you a camper. But in 18 months they come and get it. How's that helping you?
-
Unknown B
And this right here is how far?
-
Unknown C
Only $42,000. Oh, no.
-
Unknown B
The water washed our land away.
-
Unknown A
The red dirt has been put back. It was down level with the rear.
-
Unknown B
Like Russell and Bailey, Vicki Revis lost just about everything. And like them, she has volunteers to thank for what comfort she now enjoys. Everything that we have here was donated.
-
Unknown A
Except my car, of course. It's the only thing that made it out of the flood is us in that car.
-
Unknown B
But unlike Russell and Bailey, she refuses to badmouth fema. They were good with me. I mean, I don't have any complaints. I mean, I guess they did the.
-
Unknown A
Best they can, but maybe some people.
-
Unknown B
Expect more or whatever.
-
Unknown C
Remember, FEMA is just supposed to be like, that's like emergency assistance. It's not supposed to make you whole. Like replace every single thing you've lost. Like that's, that's what insurance and other things are for. Like the government doesn't have the money, but that would be insane. Otherwise, what would be the point of ever having any insurance ever?