1/28/25: Warhawks Doubt Tulsi Spying Flip Flip, Trump Demands California Voter ID For Aid, AOC Rips Biden To Jon Stewart, Bill Gates Furious With Elon
01:00:01 Share

Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our

Full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com. All right, let's get to confirmation, and let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. This is a huge week for confirmation for some of Trump's nominees. Today, this morning, actually, after the show is finished recording, RFK Jr. will take and testify to the Senate Health Commission.

and Human Services Committee for his confirmation hearing. He actually will appear first before finance, which is one of the two committees with jurisdiction, and then again on Thursday. So they'll have multiple opportunities to question him. Then you will have Kelly Loeffler, who will be at the Small Business Administration. I forgot that. Yeah, before SBA. I forgot that too. The failed candidate in Georgia. She had some kind of insider trading situation. I don't know if it was insider. She just had a sketchy background.

She worked as the CEO of a crypto platform before she became the senator from Georgia. And then she lost famously in that Senate runoff and has been hanging around Mar-a-Lago since then to try and get something. She was accused of selling $20 million in stock a week after a coronavirus pandemic briefing. That's right. I remember that. Yeah, because it wasn't just her. There was also Richard, blanket on the name, senator from North Carolina,

Burr. Burr, there you go. Senator Richard Burr. He's the one, remember he had his phone seized? That's right. And all of that. There was David Perdue, also a former senator from Georgia, CEO of Dollar General. I think he's going to be our ambassador to China. Oh, great. That's lovely. All right, Thursday, we will have Kash Patel from the FBI. He will testify before the Judiciary Committee. And then also on Thursday, this is really the big one, which is Tulsi Gabbard, who will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee tomorrow.

for her confirmation as the DNI. Right now, the biggest question marks are around RFK Jr. and around Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard in particular has faced huge opposition from a lot of very pro-surveillance states, both Democrats and Republicans, and still faces a really, I think, tougher path to confirmation

taste of what that looks like. John Brennan, the former CIA director, campaigning against her on MSNBC. Let's take a listen. Well, when there are National Security Council meetings that the president chairs in the White House Situation Room,

Usually the first person to speak would be the director of national intelligence and the director of CIA. They lay down the intelligence basis for any type of policy discussion that ensues. And so if that intelligence basis, that briefing is going to be skewed or is going to be lacking some very important critical information, the policy decision that ultimately comes out of it is also going to be disingenuous.

baseless. And also, you know, it's going to be potentially threatening to our national security. So again, it's the President's Daily Brief, but also the role that the Director of National Intelligence, Director of CIA play in order to ensure that the people who have to make those decisions in National Security Council are fully informed about what the reality is, what the intelligence is, what our intelligence gaps are,

And if they withhold things or if they skew things, it really is going to be detrimental. Real quick before we let you go, director, do those agency heads have in that moment you're describing in that room have that realization that, wait a minute, that's not what we told you? I mean, in other words, how does that coordination come out, become undone?

when the person who's putting the final brief is skewed the information? Well, I like to think that Secretary of State Rubio, who is very familiar with the intelligence profession, is going to be speaking up because you have the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, others who are going to be there. So you want to make sure, again, that you have people who are informed, but also people who want to know the truth. And not just people who want to give

President Trump what he wants to hear. That is so, so dangerous.

So there we go. That's the taste of the deep state against Tulsi Gabbard. John Brennan, of course, would never manipulate intelligence. He would never do any of the things that he just laid out. He would never lie about maybe an international scandal. I mean, obviously, we could go on forever. This is part of the problem that Tulsi really faces, though, is that that is the mainstream view in Washington. You know, the very reason of her suspicions previously for 702 and then having to flip on that is just was crazy to watch because this is like

I think you said this, you can say a lot about her flips on a lot of issues. That was the one I think we were all agreed, we're skeptical. - It's pretty consistent. - Yeah, I thought we were pretty skeptical of these things. I think they're bad, but the view from Washington is clear. If you wanna get confirmed, this is it. And you know what's really crazy is this, put this on the screen. The current Republican swing vote, Susan Collins, is unconvinced that she's actually flipped.

So her position is that Tulsi's flip on 702 and FISA authority seems insincere to her, and she just can't in good conscience, perhaps, support somebody who has even in the past voiced concern about Section 702 and FISA spying. I should note, by the way, because you floated this as well. Yeah.

RFK Jr. is also a sleeper problem, potentially, in terms of his confirmation. While he's got a lot of MAGA votes, the fact that McConnell came out and voted against Pete Hegstaff, that was a big deal, right? Because that shows pretty clearly he's been dropping hints like nobody's business that he doesn't like.

Tulsi Gabbard. If Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, who's already unconvinced, it would take J.D. And then there's just one more Republican, let's say both on Tulsi Gabbard and our RFK Jr. If they defect, then they're not going to get confirmation. So those are some pretty big questions. I would rather be RFK Jr. right now than I would Tulsi Gabbard, just because I think that the FISA element is so difficult. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's possible that a Democrat or

or sorry, at the very least, Democrats for Tulsi, it's an absolute non-starter. Correct. Many of them would not even vote or meet with her because they think she's a traitor for not being a former Democrat. RFK Jr. maybe has a better chance of all of that. I still, you know, really remains to be seen. But those two really do seem to be the ones who could be in trouble.

I do think they'll probably still get confirmed just because of the pressure the Trump administration has been willing to bring to bear. But if they do get confirmed, it's very likely to be with J.D. Vance as the tie-break vote. With RFK, I could see some Democrats crossing over. I was thinking the same. I could see—

John Fetterman voting for him, whereas I cannot see John Fetterman voting for Tulsi Gabbard. Yeah, but what about Bernie? You know, Bernie could vote for RFK Jr. If he extracts some promises on... I don't think so. I mean, maybe, but I think there would be a lot of concern about his views on vaccines. The other one that I think could cross over is, what's his name from Colorado? Bennett? Yeah.

Maybe Colorado has a kind of like crunchy RFK Jr.-ish faction that's fairly significant, which their governor, remember, in the beginning, Jared Polis, was like, oh, I kind of like this guy. I wish he was still in our coalition so I could see that. I mean, even Cory Booker has made some sort of RFK Jr.-ish faction.

directional moves, etc. So you could maybe if you lose someone, like, for example, there's concern about the fact that RFK Jr. from the Republican side, there's concern that he is pro-choice. Now, like Tulsi, who was like, oh, Section 702, I totally I'm good there. Like everything's cool. RFK Jr. has also tried to reassure that he is going to support pro-life positions from his

post here, but it's possible someone is really concerned about that and he could lose a vote. But I mean, I think probably both of them end up getting through, but we'll see. I just have to say, I wouldn't personally vote for either one of those. Probably the one Trump nominee that I would personally vote for is the Labor Secretary, not because I think that she would be so great, but because I think she's the best you would get out of a Republican administration. And Republicans always oppose nominees

like they always stand up to Trump on like the worst possible issues. So there is a lot of upset over the labor secretary pick. Let's put this, we have this last tear sheet that we can put up on the screen here, guys, from Mediaite Rand Paul, but he's not the only one. Says he's going to vote against Trump's labor secretary because she's very pro-labor. God forbid you have a labor secretary that's pro-labor. Now her position

record with regard to labor issues is actually not good. The only thing she supported the PRO Act and voted for the PRO Act, which was the, you know, the big push in the Biden administration to make labor organizing a lot easier. She ends up being the pick of the Teamsters head who put Sean O'Brien, who pushes for her to be in there. So like I said, I think she's the best that you get out of a Republican administration. But she is now apparently in doubt because

So many Republicans are so oppositional towards any sort of actual support for labor and labor organizing. Again, I think she'll get through because you can have some Republican defections because I suspect there are a number of Democrats who will cross over to vote for her here. But like I said, I just feel like they the places where Republicans resist Trump are like always on like the worst in the worst direction. Like this isn't hawkish enough. She doesn't want to spy on America.

You're going to need Democrats to vote for her if she's going to get through. I also do think it's an important part of the Trump coalition. I mean, Sean O'Brien took a ton of shit for not doing an endorsement. And he was at the inaugural ball, for example. And he's been on, what was he on? Theo Vaughn. Remember that? If anybody who knows what time it is, it really is Sean O'Brien.

And he has played it well. That was one of the benefits that he got out of the Trump administration by not endorsing. That was one of the big political things that he had. But this is part of the problem with the current Republican coalition. So it's a question mark, too, for the Democrats whether they're going to come through and actually do this. You know, in terms of also the Maha agenda, this is another one which there's a fundamental tension at the heart of Maha.

Some of MAHA is not in tension with the GOP at all. Some of MAHA is very libertarian, which I'm fine with. Things like transparency, more studies. We're going to make sure that with the vaccine studies or whatever, we're going to publish it for everybody and increase informed consent. I'm like, okay, sure. We're going to increase parental choice. Okay, I think that's good. We're going to increase it. But...

It comes into tension with industry and also with government power when you talk about banning certain things. Yes. And that's part of the problem is that we don't live in a libertarian paradise. The government has power. We have regulatory authority. Their policy shapes our food. And so, for example, one of the things RFK Jr. has talked about

He's like, we don't need Ozempic for children. All kids need is three healthy meals per day. And I think the government should provide them. I'm like, okay, listen, I'm fine with that. But as we all know from Rand Paul and all those other people, are you saying the government is going to tell people what to eat? You know, it's like, oh, are we, the government program is going to be going out there and designing food?

for children the horror of that i mean remember how people reacted to michelle obama and the whole let's move thing that is very intention right whereas what's easier cut a check to a drug company uh which that's very in the line of the american tradition well there have already been a couple major betrayals of the quote-unquote maha movement for one thing a seed oil lobbyist is going to be chief of staff at usda yeah that's right as thomas massey pointed this out yep um

For another thing, I don't know if you noticed this. The PFAS thing, yeah, I know. Exactly. Trump rolled back. So the Biden administration actually moved forward to ban these. They're called forever chemicals, which are linked to cancer, to ban them. It's a huge problem because there's been massive runoff. It's in so many of our waterways and the water we drink, et cetera. And so he had actually signed an executive order to limit these forever chemicals, which is very much a step in the right direction. Trump rolled that back.

So, you know, the it already pretty clear those tensions, as you put it, and which side this Republican Party is ultimately going to fall on. And also, you know, there there was no backlash against any of these moves to speak of. So I think Trump feels very much like he can sort of, you know, by having RFK Jr. in there, he feels like he's satisfying Trump.

the demands of that coalition without actually following through on policy pieces that they would theoretically want in place. And then number one, Trump doesn't have to run again. Number two, people typically on the, you know, in that coalition just kind of fall in line and are like, oh, well, if he's doing it's fine or don't pay attention to the details or whatever. So I don't think he expects any backlash over this. And another one just on the labor front, I just saw this this morning. So, um,

One of the good things that the Biden administration actually did was the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, Jennifer Abruzzo, she didn't get as much attention as Alina Khan, but she was in some ways just as impactful and influential in terms of pushing for the ability for workers to organize in labor unions. The National Labor Relations Board under Biden was really quite good.

They made a number of decisions which were really important for Starbucks being able to organize, for Amazon drivers to potentially be able to unionize and be treated as employees versus subcontractors. These are really important directions. Well, Abruzzo has been officially fired.

And no surprise, but, you know, very indicative of a more regressive, less pro-labor direction. And just this morning, I see the news that Trump has ousted a National Labor Relations Board member, Gwynne Wilcox, despite law forbidding firing board members absent neglect or malfeasance. This is according to the labor reporter for Bloomberg News.

So again, taking control of the National Labor Relations Board and moving it much back in the pro-business, anti-labor direction of the first Trump administration. So I think very similar to like with RFK Jr., where he feels like he can put in Sean O'Brien's pick as laborer.

labor secretary and feel like he threw a bone to that coalition. But underneath the surface here, and in a lot of ways, the National Labor Relations Board is where the game is really played in terms of labor organizing. And all indications are that that is moving very much back to the standard Republican conservative anti-labor position. And of course, the presence of Elon Musk cannot be understated there as well. Elon and Trump were a

delighting in Elon's firing striking workers. He wants, he is in legal battles to deem the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. He is against labor unions, period, end of story. So it seems like that's the direction that they are moving in here.

Yeah, look, big tensions in this. Who will win or not? That's literally the open question. I am curious to see if Democrats, because this is a big question mark for Democrats too, in terms of what they decide, what fights they decide they will pick. If they decide to pick any. So far the answer is no. Well, they voted against almost all the Trump nominees, right? So the only Trump nominee to get any unanimous consent was Marco Rubio. Which is so telling. Yeah, I know.

Yeah, because in terms of collegiality and all that. But look, they all voted against Pete Hegstaff. I think most voted against Kiersey Noem. They had like 29 no votes against her. There were most voted against Scott Besant. So now it's like the question mark about labor. It's like, well, okay, what are we doing here exactly? Is it going to be all opposites?

because we all know who could easily get a 53 Republican votes. Some Heritage Foundation, Right to Work, you know, take some AG. What's the most Right to Work state in the country? Alabama, right? Probably take like the Alabama AG, put him up, it'd be easy. Well, last time. Biggest check mark in the country. At the beginning, that guy's name was like Puzder. Puzder, Andy Puzder. Yeah, who was like the head of Hardee's, Arby's, Hardee's. Is it Hardee's or it has another name?

I forget. - Carl's Jr.? - Carl's Jr., yeah. But I think it's two different names, one international and one national. Terrible food, but. - Yeah, anyway, it was him, and he's like obviously virulently anti-labor, et cetera. So yeah, I mean, like I said, I think she's the best you're gonna get out of a Republican administration, but it doesn't mean that you're gonna get like actually good labor policy. - Well, we'll see. Why don't we get to wildfires? Lots of news there. - Yes, indeed. So there has been an ongoing push

to tie federal aid for recovery from these horrific wildfires in LA to like forcing them to bend basically to Republican political priorities. Trump floated this in when he visited LA, I'll get to that in a minute, but Mike Johnson, Speaker Mike Johnson, obviously very sort of pivotal in terms of this direction, also saying that he agrees with the specifics of what Trump wants to tie this disaster funding to. Let's take a listen to that.

as a condition for aid to California. Is that going to be a red line for you? Can you insist on voter ID in exchange for aid to California? Yeah, we've got to work out the details of that. I have not spoken to the president about that issue since he said that. He'll be here tonight, of course, for dinner with us, and that's one of the topics of discussion. Listen, there are a lot of issues going on in California, and we have been lamenting the lack of voter security there for some time, election security.

We were deeply concerned about it in this last election cycle, and we saw three of our seats

frankly slip away from us in the weeks that it took to continue counting ballots in California when seemingly every other state and nation in America can get it done. It's inexcusable. Gavin Newsom provides, I think, such a lack of leadership there in so many ways. And it was highlighted by the disaster with the fires. It's so heartbreaking that California citizens are suffering because of the lack of state and local leadership on those issues. They did not manage the forest well. They did not manage the water well.

And everyone knew for decades that the eventuality that we've seen over the last couple of weeks here since the fire disasters began was foreseeable. They assumed the risk because of their crazy far-left policies. So we've talked about conditioning the aid that will go there to policy changes. I think that is a common-sense notion that is supported by the vast majority of the American people who do not want to subsidize crazy California leftist policies anymore.

that are dangerous for people. - This is of course echoing some of what Trump said when he was on the ground, also bringing up specifically voter ID. So not even anything to do with fire management, but just pretty directly tied to like, we don't like the way you vote.

You hear Mike Johnson there say like, oh, three of our Republicans slipped away. Like we lost these three races and we're upset about it. Pretty wild to just directly tie it to political outcomes that they're unhappy with in the state. Here is Trump when he was on the ground singing a similar tune.

I want to see two things in Los Angeles. Voter ID, so that the people have a chance to vote. And I want to see the water be released and come down into Los Angeles and throughout the state. Those are the two things. After that, I will be

the greatest president that California has ever seen. I want the water to come down and come down to Los Angeles and also go out to all the farmland that's barren and dry. You know, they have land that they say is the equivalent of the land in Iowa, which is

about as good as there is anywhere on Earth. The problem is it's artificial because they artificially stop the water from going onto the land. So I want two things. I want voter ID for the people of California, and they all want it. Right now you have...

don't have voter ID. People want to have voter identification. You want to have proof of citizenship. Ideally, you have one day voting, but I just want voter ID as a start. Voter ID as a start. And just a minor question. That was actually when he was on the ground in North Carolina later in the day. I believe he went to

I got one more clip from Trump saying that he is sort of floating the idea of getting rid of FEMA altogether, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and leaving disaster aid solely up to the states, which is, you know, I mean, no state in the country.

is equipped to be able to handle the disaster relief on the scale of what we're talking about when you're dealing with these repeated climate crises. Let's take a listen to what Trump had to say about that.

North Carolina gets hit, the governor takes care of it. When Florida gets hit, the governor takes care of it, meaning the state takes care of it. To have a group of people come in from an area that don't even know where they're going in order to solve immediately a problem is something that never worked for me. But this is probably one of the best examples of it not working. And there's been some others like in Louisiana, etc.,

So we're going to be doing something on FEMA that I think most people agree. I'd like to see the states take care of disasters. Let the state take care of the tornadoes and the hurricanes and all of the other things that happen. And I think you're going to find it a lot less expensive. You'll do it for less than half.

and you're gonna get a lot quicker response. - This actually ties in, Zagar, with the executive order that we were talking about this, actually not an executive order, but an agency directive, I guess it was, that is being parsed and debated right now, and counterpoints we'll cover in full tomorrow, but basically says that all agencies need to stop

distributing all federal funds to any programs outside of those that go directly to individuals. So potentially included in that would be things like disaster relief. So, you know, sort of ties in with these comments from Trump and just

One more note, you know, I know we're all thinking about California after these horrific fires, but because you have so many red states along the coastline of the Gulf of America, I guess we'll say. Yes, the Gulf of America, that's right. That are tremendously impacted routinely by hurricanes. The bulk of FEMA money distributed goes to red states. So it would be red states that would be primarily affected. Not that that's

should matter because I happen to believe that whether you vote for Republicans or Democrats, you should benefit from the federal government coming in to help you in your time of need. And I'm pretty sure that's something that most people in the country tend to accept. I mean, I've gone on the record, I think, for this. Whether you... Look,

I think voter ID is a good policy or whatever. If Congress wants to pass a law that requires it for the entire nation, fine. I would have no issue with that. But I don't think that FEMA money or any of that should be tied to it. I also think that it's stupid. You know, every single time we have a major disaster, Congress has to come through and pass like some special supplemental as opposed to just actual checks that just kick in. Again,

philosophically. California is the biggest economy in our state. Federal revenue-wise, they probably pay more than any other state into the coffers. So Alabama, which I don't like talking this way, but it is true. Most of these states, Alabama, Mississippi, or whatever, are

down really mobile and are almost certainly more beneficiaries of recipient tax dollars than they are paying into the system, it would be genuinely outrageous. I would say this about Texas too, which is also a G15 economy in and of itself. If there's a Biden administration and they're like, oh, you need to implement ESG, I'd be like, okay, yeah, we'll just take our oil and go somewhere else. Same with California. So I feel the same way in terms of neutrality for overall disaster relief. We've got 30 million Americans, I think, who live, it might be

more. A 30-something million, one-tenth or so of the entire U.S. population that lives in the state. I think we should just give them what they need. Many of them Republicans, by the way. Yes, many of them. Yes, they vote for Democrats. We shouldn't even have to talk this way. It's insane. It's not about Republican, Democrat. That's so true. They're citizens. Many of them, again, tax-wise, have paid more than anybody else into the federal coffers. So,

When they need to be bailed out, I think we should bail them out. And in general, tying this political stuff to disaster aid is really bad policy because it's like we just said, you could easily foresee some future Democratic president who said, if there's a issue in Texas, they're like, okay, well, you have to pursue green energy. And they're like, okay, well, we don't want to.

So what are they supposed to do? You know, it's a bad policy to set up this. Yeah. Well, and the voter ID thing is particularly crazy because, I mean, I would find it objectionable to put any conditions on it, even if it was like you have to do the water management in the way that we want. But at least that would relate. Yeah, that's right. In theory. Okay, look. To fire management, you know. The water thing, if it's real, I don't know nearly enough.

about. Water, I've tried to read about it. It's way too political the way that it is. But if theoretically that was genuinely what caused it, okay, I could live with it. But the voter thing and anything generally political, again, if we want national voter ID, fine, pass it through an act of Congress. I'm totally fine with that.

But conditioning aid to each state specifically to compel behavior is very different. For example, you know the thing that set the drinking age at 21? They're like, oh, if you want your highway dollars, then you have to do that. Okay. I mean, I don't even love that per se. But at least that's one that applies to all states. Singling out an individual state, it seems wrong. And very clearly being like, we don't like how you voted, so you're not going to get our help is crazy. I mean, I mentioned this before, but-

One of the things that really radicalized me against Democrats when I lived in Kentucky, which, you know, had trended to the right and just elected Republican governor and they were passing all kinds of legislation through that, you know, getting rid of like implementing, quote unquote, right to workers is anti-labor and attacking pensions, whatever.

I got a lot on Twitter of like, well, screw those people. They voted the wrong way. And I just think that once you start thinking that way, it's really it's like the end of the country. It's like it's over. Like we may as well just break up and dissolve if it's just going to be, you know, retribution against states and counties and cities that don't vote the way that you want them to. It's a very bad direction to go in. Yeah.

There were some additional sort of underlying pieces here that have come out after the fires that, you know, have really caused additional pain and suffering for people there and helped to explain why, for example, the fire department in L.A. County, among other reasons, why they were under-resourced at this point. And we can put this up on the screen. This was actually from Ben Norton tweeted it out, but this was from Matt Stoller's sub stack. He had a guest

best author on who I believe is an antitrust attorney, something like that, who wrote a long piece about the fact that U.S. fire trucks, their costs have skyrocketed because a private equity firm bought up the manufacturers and made a monopoly. I can put the piece up on the screen and I'll give you some of the details here. So the cost of fire trucks,

has skyrocketed going from 300 to 500,000 for a pumper truck and 750 to 900,000 for a ladder truck just in the mid 2010s. We're not talking about like the 80s or 90s. We're talking about the mid 2010s, a decade ago. Now they've skyrocketed to around a million for a pumper truck and 2 million for a ladder truck. And not to mention the time to even get some, if you can afford that and you're willing to shell out the cash,

The time to actually take delivery receipt of that truck has gone to now being between two and four and a half years. Used to be less than a year.

And the TLDR here, and again, I recommend you read the piece because it's very instructive, not just about fire trucks, but about so many problems within our economy, is that a private equity firm called American Industrial Partners decided to roll up the fire truck industry, forced prices up across the board, consolidated all these previously like regional sort of like small manufacturing manufacturers, a

Originally, they had all this propaganda about, oh, we're going to continue to allow you to operate in your facilities and you're going to have your own brand and we'll just be like the parent company and you guys are going to do your own thing. But they've long since dropped that act. They've significantly reduced capacity, like factory capacity, in order to actually build and deliver these trucks locally.

spiked the prices, and now you have an industry that is just tremendously consolidated, very little competition, very little choice. So when these fires struck, over half of the LA Fire Department's trucks were currently out of service.

And part of that is because of this price, they weren't able to replace the trucks. And then even things like being able to get the parts from these same manufacturers gets wildly more expensive. You add on top of that, they had seen budget cuts that we talked about before. And, you know, you end up with a situation where even as the fire risk has obviously dramatically increased in this era of climate crisis, they are significantly under-resourced and unable to even marshal the equipment necessary

necessary to be able to combat the fires that they would. It was really interesting to look at that. There's also been this price gouging that we should mention. Put it up there, please, on the screen. One of the things that we immediately flagged here at breaking points, but the rent has now risen by some 20 percent across L.A. counties after the fires, even though that's actually a direct violation.

of a legal limit of 10%, which is meant to be an anti-price gouging maneuver that kicks in in terms of disaster. But the real issue is that the housing stock has now obviously massively shrunk in some of the richest areas. There are huge question marks about insurance, property tax, the ability to even rebuild, and then whether a lot of those people even want to rebuild.

I mean, as I said, if something like that happened to me, I'm done. I'm not paying all that much income and property tax just to be screwed whenever it actually matters, whether it's private equity, whether it's lack of investment or whatever. We can all agree that it was completely incompetent the way that it was run. And so put that together and you're just seeing –

A real crisis of what I would say is like capital L liberalism. Like these cities, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and others have relied on this like weird balance of like progressivism through rhetoric but nimbyism and rich people that come together. And LA is now the best example of this is one of the greatest places in the entire world. No one can dispute that weather-wise. It's incredible.

and that you have the dynamic effect of the city, you've got land, you've got sun, you've got all this stuff happening

But the fact is, is that if anything, its resources are a curse that enables all of this bullshit to like surround it. And what we see here now is there's huge question marks as to whether they're even going to change their housing policy. Now, I'm not some universal Yimby person. I'm actually skeptical of a lot of this. Like we all need to live in a box, five minute city stuff, et cetera. But California and New York are the places where I'm like, guys, this is undeniable.

This clearly is not working when you have millions and millions and millions of dollars and the average salary is like $100,000 with 13% income tax rates. How does this shit even work? So I think they need to ask big questions. And if we're going to tie federal aid, I would like it to be tied to something like this and be like, yeah, let's make sure that normal people can actually live here instead of just either bailing out the ultra-rich or just accelerating poverty.

what was his accelerating building pathways for the richest residents who lost their homes as opposed to lowering the price for everybody. Look at what has happened in Austin. This is where a red state is genuinely beneficial. They don't have all this Yimby bullshit. Rent in Austin is down 23% over the last three years. That's incredible. And it's literally just because they built a shit ton of housing everywhere. Uh, Houston, not the most beautiful city. It's cheap to live. If you want to live there, you know, uh,

But listen, it's one of the only places that made me want to maybe have some zoning laws because it's like, should an auto body shop be next to a single family house? I don't know. But that house is pretty cheap and the people there seem to like it. It's one of the biggest cities in the country. That's been my main takeaway from this LA situation.

Let's move on to some interesting comments from AOC, who has become one of the more vocal members of Congress on the Democratic side. I mean, I was just seeing, Sagar, like the

The Democrats apparently just got their act around to do like some press conference condemning the pardoning of January 6th rioters. And we're like, I mean, we're 10 other outrageous moves later. Like they're just, I don't know. They're a mess. They don't understand the landscape. They don't know what to do. They're...

totally pathetic in terms of any sort of a fight this time around. I've seen a lot of just like normie Democratic base type people who are loyal, vote blue no matter who, MSNBC types who are furious with the way that the Democratic Party has reacted or their lack of response to Trump 2.0 this time around. So in any case, AOC is one of the people who has asserted herself more. Jon Stewart had her on and she made some interesting comments

about insider training, but also some insider, some interesting comments about Joe Biden on his way out of office being like, oh, there's a problem with the oligarchy. Really? Is there? Tell me more about that. Let's take a listen to what she had to say. There need to be Democrats who walk the walk and talk the talk. There is an insane amount of hypocrisy. Mm.

And the hypocrisy is what gets exploited to use the cynicism. And wherever there's a hypocritical window, for example, I think one of the most biggest examples of this is insider trading in Congress. Dude!

I don't know if I... Do I give snaps? I don't know what the kids do anymore, but like, dude. Yes! That's so crazy! It's so crazy! It's crazy! I mean, and this is the thing, it's like...

People think that everyday people are stupid. I'm like, do you all really think that people don't see this shit? They sit on a committee. They get information about a drug or a contract or a thing. They immediately make a call. The stockbroker changes things and their portfolio swells. It explodes. What are we doing? And you're doing this online.

public trust on taxpayer finance, public facilities. You're regulating the market that you're trading on. Exactly. You run the casino. And then we're supposed to act like...

Money doesn't only corrupt Republicans. Give me a fucking break. Biden on his way out, it was only on his way out that he was like, this country is controlled by oligarchs. Bye. Like, we could have used that energy a couple years ago. Accurate on all of that. Isn't this a little too late, though? Well, I was...

I mean, all this Biden talk, it's like you endorsed Biden, okay? Not only that. You not defended Biden. Yeah, that's right. She and Bernie actually, they were in the like, you know, we're all in with Biden here to the end. They were more with Biden than like Nancy Pelosi. So that's where part of it is just like, shut up, all right? Well, here's the part to me. I think one of the, there's a few points she makes that I think are important. No.

Number one, about the way that hypocrisy is used against Democrats and understandably so. I mean, she's talking about the insider trading piece, also talking about, you know, you had a lot of people, including Joe Biden, who were like Trump's a fascist. And then they're like, welcome to the white. Welcome home, Donald Trump. And people are not going to believe you.

Next time you raise the alarm about something, if you are not acting like this was really this was really bad that he got elected and I, you know, still think the things that I said before were true and this is a real threat. And so, you know, to see that.

Democrats, the way that they by and large responded, which is to be like, we'll see and maybe we'll work with them or whatever. It's like this is a wildly different energy than you were bringing up until five seconds ago. So even though your point about her and Biden is a correct one and it's like, OK, well, where was that energy critiquing him previously? She is right in what she's saying here about, you know, the Democratic response this time around to Trump.

Yeah, absolutely. And that's why when you think about... When you're thinking about how this is all shaping up, I think it all comes to credibility. And...

Say whatever you want about Trump, and he's switched his tune on many, many issues. But his core thing about immigration and trade, shit's been saying since 1976. He's got a consistency of message, and even when he's inconsistent, it's within his Trumpian MAGA-like framework. As you always point out, what are the things people like about Bernie Sanders? Basically been saying the same stuff since he's been running for office in 2017.

was a Burlington mayor. The problem I have here with the AOCs and all of that is you both try to be consistent on these. Let's be clear, she actually has been. She co-sponsored that legislation with Matt Gaetz on stock trading, so I'm not calling her out on whatever on this specifically. But she's a capital D Democrat, and that works for her sometimes.

But it didn't, you know, when you have that inability to call out your own side when it's happening in the midst of the big existential question of the time, do we support Biden or do we ditch Biden? I don't know if a lot of people can have a lot of trust with you on this issue. So trust is everything in politics. I mean, why did Kamala-

at the end of the day, lose. You know, her whole border hock shtick, people were like, I don't believe you because of all this crap that you said in 2019. I think that you either still are open borders or maybe worse, you don't believe anything. And that's not a version that vibes with Trump who has been 100% consistent at least on illegal immigration and that's

mostly the valence of where people decided to fall with. So with AOC, with a lot of these progressive Democrats, it's like, I think Biden was like poison for them because they both had to defend him. But even in the times when they knew that he was being bad, they had to stay silent. They lost a lot of trust. And so it's like, it's easy to say when you're out of power. And by the way, of course, this applies to Republicans too, right? This is the eternal problem of the insider outsider dynamic. Yeah, I don't know. I just...

I see, you know, we're about to play Charlemagne. He's like, people should be more like AOC. I'm like, should they? Really? Like, I don't think that she's been a very successful politician over the last 10 years. I would say she's actually one of the most failed politicians in the last 10 years. I mean, here's what went wrong for her.

She came in as a true outsider, true outsider, takes out Joe Crowley, who was in leadership and close to Pelosi and all these people and just sort of took a seat for granted. And she comes in and she knocks him out. And it's an earthquake, right? She decides before she's even, I think, before she's sworn in, she's going to protest outside of Nancy Pelosi's office.

and make the statement. And there were two different pathways, right? One was to maintain that outsider status and really be that bomb thrower and leverage the social media following that she had and continues to have, by the way, and use that grassroots power against the established Democratic Party power.

She, step by step by step, chose the other path, which was to try to play the inside game. And

We just really saw an example of how that was a completely failed tactic. I mean, she wanted to be ranking member on oversight. And she pledged reportedly as part of that, like, if you let me do this, I am not going to primary any Democratic incumbents, which is an extraordinary concession. Okay.

extraordinary concession to basically say, like, I'm going to lay down my arms against any critique I have against any of y'all in the Democratic caucus.

And they still blocked her and put in Jerry Connolly, who, you know, is literally suffering with cancer and is aged. It's and nobody's idea of a firebrand. Right. Nobody's idea of a firebrand for a position that actually made sense for AOC because oversight, you know, it's all about like getting that clip that goes viral and sharing on social media, whatever it was. It really was a good position for her within the context of the Democratic Party, even in that she's blocked.

So I think you're right, Sagar, that ultimately the test will come. Like now it's kind of comfortable to have these critiques of, look, Joe Biden is done. He's out. It's all easy to see in retrospect the way this all went sideways, et cetera, et cetera. Are you going to have that energy when it's difficult, when it goes against where the party is and what they're doing? Because, you know, that's when it really counts. Like we could have used that voice.

back when the Democrats were like, we're just not going to have a primary. Forget about the Biden-Kamala thing, because I think you could justify that when it turns out that Kamala actually on economics was going to be worse than Biden, like with regard to antitrust, SEC, crypto, possibly labor was not going to be as good as Biden. You could justify it from an ideological perspective, even though Biden obviously is too old, blah, blah, blah. But

The real moment was back when Democrats said, we're going to cancel the primary. We're not going to have any debates. We're not going to have any choice. And there was none of that energy from anyone at that point. So I think that is the question. If she wants to, and I think she does, if she wants to be an actual leader of a reformed, different Democratic Party,

She's going to have to say things like this when it is difficult, when it is uncomfortable, when it requires her to bump up against her friends and colleagues in this institution. We teased the Charlemagne clip, so let me go ahead and play it. But he's been interesting also in the aftermath. I mean, he's very frustrated with the Democratic Party for a whole variety of reasons. But it was interesting to hear him pick up on

AOC at least having some fight in her. Let's take a listen to what he had to say. And don't get me wrong, you should be angry at people suddenly making nice with Donald Trump. But instead of Snoop and Nelly, what about the Democratic politicians who spent four years calling Trump the new Adolf Hitler and then started doing stuff like this?

President Biden welcoming his successor to the White House observed all the traditional niceties. Joe Biden greeting Donald Trump at the White House with two words, welcome home. There were smiles, there were handshakes. I mean, there was a real respect between the two. This moment between former President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump has gone viral. They chuckled like old buddies. Trump even made Obama laugh. I'm sorry, if you tell us someone is Hitler, you at least have to act like he's Hitler.

I know when Barack got home, Michelle was like, he he hell. So Hitler got jokes, huh? In fact, here's the energy I wanted to see more of on Monday. All these journalists are like, Congresswoman, are you going to the inauguration? Congresswoman, are you going to the inauguration? Are you going to the inauguration? Let me make myself clear. I don't celebrate rapists. So no, I'm not going to the inauguration, Merle. See? Yeah, that's right.

That's right. That right there, that's backbone. That's principles. Man, I'm going to miss AOC when she's deported to Nicaragua. Now, whether or not you particularly agree with that critique, Sagar. Cringes out. Think about the difference, though, between Joe Amiga, who spent all this time and made lots of money and got super famous, comparing Trump to fascists and, yes, Nazis.

And then immediately he's elected and they're like, oh, we're going to make nice and we're going to go down to Mar-a-Lago, blah, blah, blah. Versus, listen, she's been consistent on this and she is acting the way you would act if you actually believe the things that you said.

And that's the piece of this that I think is important is, you know, Democrats have by and large decided that like the thing to do in this moment is just to like sort of be quiet and see what happens and in certain respects, like capitulate to him, et cetera. Thinking then that will gain them credibility with the country. But I think that's the completely wrong calculus because we all remember the things you said and you need to act.

consistent with those threats that you lay down and you claim to believe in. So I think Charlamagne is correct about that. - I don't think that they really do, I don't think that they really do believe it. I think they only believed one thing, that this resistance and all the rhetoric and everything, it was always fake. It was always just about getting elected. They didn't believe in healthcare. They didn't believe in whatever, right?

Almost all of it was just to get themselves either elected to win some midterms, to keep control of power, and then eventually around Biden, it was like to worship this cult of personality. And so really what's been revealed is they don't believe anything. Really what I think

that they did believe is that Trump was democratically illegitimate. That was really it. Like, that was their core belief that they could sell to the country. The reason why they're so in shambles is that, obviously, that's just no longer a case that you can advance. So, now what? And, like, that's...

I mean, look, it's exciting, I think, if you're a Democrat because you're like, well, you know, everything is up for grabs. You have the lowest party ID in a national century. Like you have so many different ways that you could think about, you know, who we are and what's next. But it's also, yeah, like you said, if I was one of those MSNBC people, these are normal folks and I don't begrudge them. They're our fellow citizens. Yeah, a lot of them did believe it. And so it's humiliating for them in some ways to look at this and to see what it really is. And I would tell you guys, you guys got taken for a ride.

They never believed any of this stuff. Oh, I think they know that. I hope you all do. I think they do. I mean, that's why, like, you do see, I mean, first of all, MSNBC, it's almost like you can't even pick on them at this point because it's so pathetic, right? But, yeah, I think they have lost total credibility. And I think liberals have really had their trust in those institutions. The Washington Post, the Times, and MSNBC and whatever has been shattered.

I think their trust in the mainstream Democratic Party that they, you know, we're talking about like really hardcore normie Dems has been dramatically shaken. And, you know, I think that they're waiting for someone to have some some energy and some fight left in them. And I do think like.

So these battles are going to play out in the next Democratic primary. And I don't think that the Democratic base is going to I'm going to skip this because we just we've gone on a long time here. But, you know, there was a reporter who was like, oh, maybe John Fenneman's what the Democratic Party means. Like that is not going to be the direction the base wants to go in.

of now being like, oh, I'm going to go and have a meeting with Trump and I'm going to back his priority with the Lake and Riley Act and I'm going to basically sound like a Republican on any manner of things. That is not what the base is going to want. So,

While, you know, I think the most likely direction is that the next Democratic nominee is someone like a Gavin Newsom, some very standard, you know, cut from the normal Democratic cloth. There is more of an opening now than there was previously because of the way that the trust in those liberal institutions has been broken. And Democrats are really going to have a like whose side are you on moment.

because the way that you have to combat the Trumpist view of the world is with your own worldview that points the finger in a different direction and says, actually, the problem, you know, these Robert Barron oligarchs that he surrounded himself with, they're the problem. And this is actually a good transition into the next block because as of right now, most Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to complain about Elon, which...

I'm the first to do, right? Correct. The problem of oligarchy in government, big problem. But you don't get to then still say, but we're gonna take our money from our billionaires because those are the quote unquote good billionaires.

And most of these Democrats who are in positions of power, it's not because they had an inspiring vision. It's not because they have a grassroots base. There are few exceptions. It's not because they were like good at delivering for their district. It's because they were good at sucking up to rich people and separating them from their money. And so the minute you change course on that, the minute many of these people

people lose what has been their claim to and grip on power. So that's where the rubber is going to meet the road with regard to the Democratic Party. But I know for many, normal

Democrats, it has been radicalizing to watch so many of their liberal media figures and liberal political icons just basically lay down in these early days of the Trump administration. Yeah, and again, you know, they care about power. That was the way to get it. Now they've got to figure out what's next.

Let's quickly just do this Bill Gates thing, just because it is funny and it gets to what you're talking about. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. Bill Gates gave an interview to the Sunday Times where he said a lot of interesting stuff. He said he was very stupid to be caught being with Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, is that how he phrased it? Do you remember? Did you hear the operative word there? What was the operative word? It was very stupid.

caught with Jeffrey Epstein. Okay. But on Elon, here's what he had to say. He said, he said, it's really insane. He can destabilize the political situations in countries. I think in the US, foreigners aren't allowed to give money. Other countries maybe should adopt safeguards to make sure super rich foreigners aren't distorting their elections. The Microsoft founder said he was not at all concerned about influencing politics like Musk. However, he has told friends,

He has since donated $50 million to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. He says – he obviously criticizes him about the AFD and about Nigel Farage in the UK. But he also offers muted praise for Musk. He said, Musk, we can all overreach if someone is super smart, and he is. They should think about how they can help out. But this is populist stirring. And what I think is really funny –

throughout this is Gates trying to square, he's like you just said, he's got his hatred of Elon. He doesn't like Elon for being kind of like a cultural traitor. But whenever it comes to this idea of influencing politics or world politics, I mean, I don't have to be the first one to tell you that

nobody has influenced politics in Africa probably more than any other American than Bill Gates through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I mean, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is basically a private USAID which doles out more than USAID.

and has influenced malaria, AIDS, or whatever policy, vaccination in those countries. You can be fine with that if you think it's good. Some of it's been fine. But you have to also think, like, dude, you're wielding immense power as a nation state. And then, you know, not to mention the $50 million for Kamala Harris. She's like, that's fine.

I don't know if you saw this, but, you know, Reid Hoffman is now spending even more money behind the Democratic machine. And there's a hilarious tweet going back to 2016, I'm sure you saw, from Sam Altman being like, we all need to credit Reid Hoffman for spending more money than anybody else to defeat Donald Trump. He's like, what a hero this guy is. I mean, Reid is the biggest single donor, I think, in the entire Democratic system.

party. So yes, look, Elon and all that, it's extraordinary, right? But if you actually look at the equivalent number or whatever of billionaires, I think that there were either more or like in terms of the overall absolute number who had endorsed Kamala Harris or had been giving to them. And you haven't even seen this because we've been doing the show. Gary Peters, the senator from Michigan, says he won't run in 26. So who do we all know who lives in Michigan?

Mayor Pete. You know, so Senator Pete. Well, Pete was looking at governor there, too. Yeah, well, this is the easiest thing. Well, I prefer that to him running for president. No, but this will be the stepping stone, Crystal. He'll pull an RFK, the senior, not junior, in terms of running in two years and then immediately, or an Obama or a J.D. Vance. You know, this is what these people do. So, you know, you know the amount of money that's behind Pete Buttigieg. It's crazy. And boomers love Pete. What gave Pete?

Ryan Cave Peay. They love to watch him. I mean, I enjoy Ryan. He's good at going on Fox News and doing the thing. And I do worry that that's going to substitute for an actual change of direction. Yeah, it will. Because there are so many liberals who just love to see him be able to go into lines. And same thing with Gavin Newsom.

which I get, but you're going to need something more than that if you're actually going to make a material difference in people's lives and be able to fight back against this, you know, the right-wing Trumpist movement. You know, just going back to Bill Gates here for a second, there's the pieces you mentioned. Also, we spent a lot of time covering on rising the way that he was so influential in shaping the COVID vaccine response and making it so that it was controlled by these

private big pharma companies because he's a big believer in patents rather than making it widely available and a public good so that the entire world could benefit from it and not just originally primarily the developed world. So he, even on that, was very influential. And then

To hold up the U.S. model of campaign finance like it's anything to be emulated is freaking insane, right? It's insane. Yes, we do bar foreigners from contributing. That is the one good thing you can say about it. But there is no way in hell that we should have the system that we have where Bill Gates can give $50 million or Elon Musk can give a quarter of a billion, probably more, in order to elect their favored candidate. That is crazy. And I can tell you all day long, which is true,

Kamala had a larger number of billionaires who endorsed her. Trump had a larger concentration of a handful. It was like three billionaires who gave him something like half a billion dollars. So that's why they've ended up with such extraordinary power, Elon in particular, Miriam Madelson as well, in this administration. So I can tell you how this is different in terms of the scale, but different

Anyone can look and say, well, what about Bill Gates? Well, what about George Soros? Well, what about Reid Hoffman? And how much does my little like parsing of, oh, but technically they didn't give as much as this one. No one cares because they also had way too much power, way too much influence, shape everything about the Democratic Party in terms of what policies they're really going to fight for, what they're really going to pursue, who's going to be in their administration, what those priorities are ultimately going to be.

So, Democrats, if you actually want to have a compelling political alternative to Trumpism, you have to reject all – there are no good billionaires. You have to reject it all. You have to do it aggressively. It has to be clear what side you are actually on. And –

You know, there is a lot of polling out there that the Achilles heel of this Trump administration is how much influence these billionaires have. People hate it, right? Elon's approval rating has fallen off a cliff. He's dramatically unpopular now. That was not the case in the past. They are really skeptical of even Doge, which I'm surprised at because just the like, oh, government efficiency, like that sounds good. But because...

It's seen as this billionaire project, a lot of skepticism. You only have 12% of Americans who say they like the idea of billionaires advising government, right? To me, this is the potential Achilles heel for this administration. But if you're out there still, you know, in league with Bill Gates and Reid Hoffman, and that is the center of gravity in your party, and you are

not willing to make a clean, clear break with them, then all of your complaints about that are going to fall on deaf ears and you will be seen as hypocrites. And I've mentioned this several times, but I think it is so emblematic. The lead candidate for DNC chair right now, Ken Martin,

who I'm sure has other things to recommend him. I know people like him, know him, whatever. I don't know anything about him other than he ran a state party, okay? And when he got asked about money in politics, he said, of course, we're going to continue to take money from good billionaires. Good billionaires.

And who's one of the leading candidates to become the nominee in 2028? J.B. Pritzker, who bragged on the DNC stage that he was an actual billionaire. You know, I mean, that's another one which drives me crazy. It's like, dude, you didn't even earn it. You're an heir. Is there anything more grotesque in the American tradition than the billionaire heir? It's a universally despised person. He could pull a page from the Trumpian playbook where, you know, first night was like, well, I'm a billionaire, so I don't need these people's money. He could pull that.

But he hasn't governed that way. No, he hasn't. He's done a decent job. I don't know enough to lay out all of his track record, but I know he's done some things that were positive in the state and in some ways been, in certain instances, a class traitor. But he is not...

He is not. You really need an outsider. You do. Because all of these other people are too infected in the way things are currently in the Democratic Party and their current way of thinking and their current power structures, et cetera. So in any case, Bill Gates, you're right about Elon Musk, but you need to look in the mirror, buddy. You need to look in the mirror. Well, I don't think that's going to be happening. All right. Thank you guys so much for joining us. We really appreciate it. Great CounterPoint show for everyone tomorrow, and we will see you all on Thursday.