4/29/25: Israeli Ambassador Reveals Biden Never Asked For Ceasefire, Pro-Palestine Jewish Woman Assaulted In NYC, Billionaire Cabal Shaping Trump Admin, 60 Mins Calls Out Parent Company
01:14:12 Share

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures. The U.S. produces 13 million barrels of crude oil every day, enough to fill 800 Olympic swimming pools.

But what is that oil used for? The gas we put in our cars is just the beginning. Nearly 50% of each barrel is refined into gasoline. Another 34% is refined into fuels like diesel and jet fuel. And the rest is used to make more than 96% of our everyday essentials, like the tennis shoes you wear, the cell phone you rely on, and medicines that help save lives.

Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our modern lives. Our world needs oil and gas and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit ItTakesEnergy.com. If you're from the Bay and grew up on the JV show, then you know Wild 94.9 runs deep in your DNA. Yeah, Wild 94.9 has been the Bay's number one hit music station for years. And every morning we're bringing you the biggest hits, laughs,

We've got the biggest giveaways, the day's top headlines, and everything trending in the Bay to start your day. It's all on the JV Show weekday mornings on Wild 94.9. And if you're busy in the morning, you can catch the JV Show podcast anytime, anywhere. Just save Wild 94.9 and the JV Show podcast as your top iHeartRadio presets.

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. Well, shall we turn to the Democrats and what's going on with them? So you guys will probably remember there was a significant race for a leadership fight in the House between AOC, who wanted to be ranking member on the Oversight Committee, which basically it's a very public-facing role. It was a good fit for her because she understands the media. She's feisty. She does well in these committee hearings, et cetera. So she would be in this prominent, forward-facing role in the Democratic Party.

Nancy Pelosi intervened and instead got her man, Jerry Connolly, to across the finish line to be ranking member of this committee. Now, it was known at the time that Jerry Connolly is he's in his 70s and he also is suffering from cancer. And apparently that, you know, the cancer prognosis has just recently gotten worse. So.

So he is now saying he's stepping away from that role as ranking member of oversight that he had just won over AOC. Let's put this up on the screen. This is his official statement. Jerry Connolly, by the way, I've met him before a number of times. He represents a

Northern Virginia, suburban like Fairfax County district in Virginia and has for a while. He used to be the head of the board of supervisors in Fairfax County. So a long time public official. Anyway, he says, dear friends, I want to begin by thanking you for your good wishes and compassion as I continue to tackle

Thank you for your grace. The sun is setting on my time in public service. This will be my last term in Congress. I will be stepping back as ranking member of the Oversight Committee soon.

With no rancor and a full heart, I move into this final chapter full of pride in what we've accomplished together over 30 years. My loving family and staff sustain me. My extended family, you all have been a joy to serve your friend and public servant. And, you know, I don't want to be an asshole here. I've met, like I said, I met Jerry Connolly, you know, interpersonally. Very nice person. But...

If you truly believe yourself to be, which I do, in this existential threat for the future of the country and democracy...

you need to put your most effective players forward. And it was always very clear that that would not be Jerry Connolly at 70 years old and battling cancer. It would be someone like AOC who is leading the fight and is out there, you know, touring the country alongside Bernie Sanders and garnering record-breaking crowds and understands new media, et cetera. And

And so here we are four months into the Trump administration, and he's already having to step back, Emily, from this role whatsoever. In terms of who's going to be the replacement, it's not going to be AOC. She is no longer actually on this committee. She, I guess, got switched or moved committees or whatever. You can put Ken Klippenstein, who's been all over this from the very beginning,

To say the least, to say the very least about Ken's coverage of Jerry Connolly. I tried to book Ken for us today, but he's like traveling right now and it's just like killing him because he's been all over this from the beginning. But anyway, put this next piece up on the screen. This is who looks to be set to replace him. Another 70 year old.

Representative Stephen Lynch, Ken goes on to say his background is colorful. Lynch was apparently arrested at some point for drunkenly attacking a group of Iranian students protesting U.S. intervention abroad. There are some other members on this committee who could have been interesting. Ro Khanna is on this committee. Jasmine Crockett is also on this committee. So you don't have to go with another 70-year-old, but yet...

Here they are just like, oh, this is the guy who's next in line, seniority or leadership can rely on them or whatever. And it's it's absolutely incredible. Democrats have had multiple members die in office this session, which have led Republicans to, you know, expand their margins by a little bit. And that little bit can make all the difference in terms of, you know, getting close legislation through the House.

I'm sorry, but there's no committee that Democrats should have wanted a very aware and healthy person on more than oversight for the first 100 days of the second Trump administration. I am furious on behalf of Democratic voters just thinking back on how insane it was. This is a concession that everyone who was concerned about Connolly getting this position was correct.

This is him basically throwing in the towel and saying, I'm not up to the job. Well, if you had had the humility and your supporters had had the humility to say that 100 days ago, the oversight committee could have been much more robustly, energetically pushing back.

on the Trump administration. It is just completely... All of this is obvious, what we're saying right now, but it is such an obnoxious example of how wrong the old guard is and how stubborn the old guard is and how stuck in their ways the old guard is and just how not up to the moment they are. It's just the sort of arrogance of the political class just being, I think, you know...

to some extent here, put on full display and again, predictable and obvious, but the oversight committee is doing exactly what it says. Like they have, they have powers to call witnesses. Like when Republicans were in the minority recently under Biden, the oversight committee, the oversight committee is where they felt they were doing their most important work. And it's because you can then call hearings and do Hunter Biden and,

Benghazi and all of those things come out of oversight. It's very powerful if you use it correctly. Yeah. And I remember when he won this or was going for this position at the time, which I can remember the exact language that he used, but he said something like, like, I've waited a long time for this. It was very like, I did my time. I'm next in line. So I'm getting this seat. And Nancy Pelosi made sure that he had the votes to be able to. And again, like,

We all knew this was the reality. They knew this was the reality. This was utterly predictable. And so not only was it really, you know, self-serving for Jerry Connolly even to put himself up for this position, it was extraordinarily, you know...

extraordinarily short-sighted and weak move from Democratic leadership to push him for this spot and just speaks to a lack of seriousness and a lack of meeting the moment that has been characteristic across the board from the official Democratic leadership. And boy, do I have another example of that.

Senator Schumer, who, of course, you know, capitulated to the Republicans, the one thing that where Democrats in the Senate really had some leverage. He completely, you know, hands Republicans major victory there. Well, now he's on CNN saying that, don't worry, he's in the fight. He has sent the Trump administration a strongly worded letter, Emily. So he will await their response. Let's take a listen to what he had to say.

But it's also going to hurt the kind of medical research and other kinds of great research that is done at Harvard and other universities. So we sent him a very strong letter just the other day, asking eight very strong questions about why this isn't just a pretext.

Well, you'll let us know if you get a response to that letter. I do want to. Not seven, not seven strongly worded questions, eight strongly worded questions. Very strong, very strong questions. I love how Dana's like, OK, you let me know when they get back to you on that one. Sure, buddy. Like, it's just you can't make it up. It's so pathetic. It is so utterly pathetic.

It's insane that he was on live television and thought that was a good thing to say. Like, are you listening to yourself? You know that you were stepping straight into a joke, buddy. This is the minority leader, the head of Senate Democrats for how many years? And he can't even get through an interview without saying something as stupid as that. I mean, it's come on, man.

I miss Harry Reid. That's what I got to say about that. I miss Harry Reid. Harry Reid would never. He would never. No, he would never. Meanwhile, you've got, you know, they're just, again, the leadership. They are just thrashing around, trying to figure out where to be, what to say. They've recognized at this point that the base wants them to do more than

So, you know, their response is things like Senator Schumer sending eight strong questions in a strongly worded letter. And then Hakeem Jeffries and Cory Booker did some sort of a, like, live stream hangout on the Capitol steps, which everything, it's just, you know, it's just a little off. I will say that the Cory Booker speech is,

It didn't really, it really didn't do it for me because of a variety of reasons. You know, it wasn't really about anything. And, you know, it's felt to me very performative, although impressive. Like, listen, to hold your bladder that long is extraordinary. If in fact that's true, just to speak for that long, I can't even imagine. But I have to say-

liberals ate that shit up. They loved it. They absolutely loved it. They see him as a hero. And this shows you, like, the bar is not that high. They just want people to do something. Even if that something is just like...

Standing and talking for a while. Right. Because that's a great point because that filibuster didn't have any legislative goal. Like literally they just were lapping up Cory Booker demonstrating how like passionately he was anti-Trump and anti this administration. And it was actually smart because he was like live on TikTok and breaking records. And it, you know, as I think vapid as it was, it just rallied the troops because people are desperate. Yeah.

Yeah, that's right. But in any case, Hakeem Jeffries, Cory Booker do this hangout live stream thing on the Capitol steps. Let me give you just just just a little taste of assembly, just a little taste. And I want you all to know I miss Obama. I miss Obama. I miss Obama. I miss Obama. And I miss I miss her husband, too. Will be.

pushing back against the Republican efforts to jam this far-right extreme budget down the throats of the American people. And we wanted to make sure that heading into that fight, we were very clear with our Republican colleagues, there will not be a single Democratic vote to take away the health care of the American people. Not a single one.

Don't worry, Emily. The spirit of Barack Obama is alive and well in the fake ass speech cadence of people like Pete Buttigieg and Cory Booker. So never fear. It just feels so try hard. You know, it just feels very like we're going to be cool. We're going to do a thing. Here we are doing a thing. I don't know. It just lands weird.

And Hakeem Jeffries has clearly, his staff has clearly made a concerted effort in the last couple of weeks to make sure that he does media mostly out of a suit. So like now they're putting him in a baseball cap and t-shirts and his like sneakers. It's

it's just so like, I'm casual, every man, like I'm just, you know, your friend. It's very, to your point, try hard when it's so sudden, it looks just cringe. And it's again, we've, we talked about this recently, but it's so strange for me because this used to be even like younger Republicans, how they came across. And I'm not saying Republicans are like hip and spry either because they're not, but

it used to not be like this for Democrats. Like it used to be a lot easier for them, especially in the Obama era to come across as normal human beings, but they're so they're, they're overthinking it so much because they're so thrown off by like the youth shift and working class, Hispanic voters, some changes in the black electorate. So it's just hard for them to figure out what they should do and they haven't landed on anything. So it ends up looking really,

really awkward. And there's no sign of that, you know, there's no sign of the light being at the end of that tunnel at all.

And some of them, I mean, they're just so many of them are just like old and kind of lost at sea in the world of like the new social media. Like they feel like I should be doing a thing, but I don't really know what that thing is. And so much of this too is like, just stop trying to be something you're not. Like Hakeem Jeffries, you're never going to be a firebrand. You're never going to be that like super relatable, cool guy. That's just not who you are. I mean, look, to go back to the Canada block, Mark Carney is like the ultimate,

And he just leans into it. And people are like, who he is? You know, I mean, Bernie Sanders, like he's not out there trying to do a thing. He just is himself. That's...

That's it. That's like, stop. Just stop trying so hard. On the other hand, I'd be remiss if I didn't say Chuck Schumer's strategy. I just basically like wait around and let the Republicans hang themselves is kind of panning out. Not only have we covered extensively Trump's numbers at 100 days. Obviously, they're really bad across the board. Even his best issue of immigration. He's now underwater, especially when you ask about specifics.

foreign policy, but most importantly, his economic numbers have fallen off a cliff. And predictably, that is having a major impact on the down ballot races. I think Republicans just basically expect to lose the House at this point. It's almost like a foregone conclusion, given that we're nowhere near out of the woods with regard to the economic pain either. Harry Enten just did a piece on the unpopularity of the Republican Party and how it may translate to midterm losses. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.

Democrats versus Republicans. We have three polls out within the last few weeks. What do they all show? They all show the Democrats up by two points in the CNBC poll, the Fox News poll that was out on Friday. Look at that. Democrats up by seven. The New York Times poll that was out this Friday as well. Democrats by three. And keep in mind, the House GOP won the popular vote.

back in 2024 by a little less than three percentage points. So when you see three, seven, two averaging four, that is a tremendous shift. That is a shift of seven points from the November 2024 elections away from the GOP. You look at Trump's net federal rating in October of 2024, according to New York Times, it was minus nine points. Look at where it is now. Minus 30 points among independents. That's horrific. That's historically awful. Take a look at the generic ballot.

In October of 2024, the Democrats were ahead, but only by three, well within the margin of error. Look at where they are now, up 17 points. There is no way on God's green earth that the Republicans can hold on to the House of Representatives if they lose independence by 17 percentage points. My goodness gracious. What do you think about that, Adam?

I mean, like this is despite Democrats best efforts, I think. And that's part of this is interesting, too. Did you see Alyssa Slotkin dropping like F-bombs recently? Did you see the stories about that? I did not see that.

Yeah, The Hill had a whole story yesterday about how Dems are like embracing the F word. And I feel like that happens every time a political party gets a little bit desperate. But, you know, it's it reminded me of the Hakeem Jeffries, Cory Booker, like just sitting on the steps, chatting with people moment because it's like, you guys, you know,

What's working right now is Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez going to red states and holding fighting oligarchy, fighting oligarchy rallies, not Alyssa Slotkin, you know, thinking that she's like a cool woman.

mom for dropping F bombs in an interview, like forcing herself to drop an F bomb in an interview. It gets just so bizarre. But I think the reason they're doing it crystal is because they like Hakeem Jeffries and Cory Booker can't go full quote, fight oligarchy. Um, this is there. And that's, by the way, what's good for the party. Uh, what's good for them would be to embrace this anti-oligarch message, but because they're also bankrolled by oligarchs, um,

They're uncomfortable with that messaging. And that's why Alyssa Slotkin is now explicitly pushing back against it. And I think it's why Hakeem Jeffries and Cory Booker, maybe they clear the very low bar of, you know, looking like they have at least some energy and aren't, you know, full Connolly. But at the same time, I think what's what Trump is struggling with is coming without actually a decent resistance from the Democratic Party.

party. And so that goes to show like, what could this be like? I mean, again, like Donald Trump has barely won a couple of elections. This man came off being the host of celebrity apprentice. Like Hillary Clinton was terrible. Joe Biden was terrible. Kamala Harris was terrible. That's how bad Dems have been. It's not any, I think special Testament to Donald Trump being super attractive and likable. I think he's a smart politician with his base.

But it's not like the entire country loves Donald Trump, despite what he may say. It's just that consistently Dems have been worse than Trump, except for Biden in 2020 in the middle of the pandemic. So in 10 years, they have not figured out a way to be slightly better than Donald Trump.

Yeah. Well, your point about Slotkin and Jeffries and Booker, too, is really well taken. And I've never seen anything more manufactured than the, like, pushing Eliza Slotkin on us. Like, no one wanted this.

The Democratic leadership, for some reason, was like, this lady, she's the real future of the party. We're going to have her do the response to the State of the Union. We're going to have her lead our effort to, you know, tamp down all this anti-oligarchy talk that's getting a little too popular among our normie Democrat base. But to your point, you know, I think the things that have really landed with the liberal base has been

Number one, the stop oligarchy tour, the fight oligarchy tour. Um, number two, you know, people like Jasmine Crockett who just can like dish it out and really is, it just has this vibe and this energy of she's not going to take any shit and she's going to like get out there and get in your face, whatever. Um,

Cory Booker's speech, whether I like it or not. I mean, listen, he did a thing. Okay. People like liberals loved it. The other thing is the Chris Van Hollen going to El Salvador, which, you know, to me is a study in contrast between Cory Booker's thing, which was actually reelected.

basically about nothing, about like him positioning himself as a resistance fighter. Whereas Chris Van Hollen, you know, he actually did a thing. Like he went, it was a real issue. It was some personal risk to himself. It's a risky political issue. And obviously, Bichelli did all he could to make the optics as terrible as possible, etc.,

And, you know, I think his actions really kept that story alive and has helped to move public opinion dramatically against the Trump administration, not only specifically in that case, but that's what helped to drag them underwater on immigration in general. So and since then, you've seen some other representatives and senators follow suit and going to visit people who are detained.

because they, you know, published an op-ed or had some, you know, pro-Palestine speech or whatever. You saw other members also travel down to El Salvador. So that really set a model for Democrats moving forward who actually wanted to do something and not just like sit on the steps of the Capitol and talk about how much they miss Barack Obama.

Well, okay. So I think with the base, it makes sense to me that that would be sort of that all of that would be a shot in the arm. I still think the Van Hollen and what was the, oh, the yeah. Well, I think the Van Hollen example in particular is like, I don't think they quite nailed the messaging for a broader audience, but I think he understood that what the democratic party's base, like the grassroots type people want right now.

is someone to like actually take personal risk and sacrifice. You know, I really disagree with that. And I think it shows up in the polling. I mean, when we were looking yesterday at the best and the worst issues for Trump, his best issue, and this was the New York Times Siena polling, which is, you know, considered to be one of the more credible pollsters and they do a large sample, et cetera. Best polling numbers were on immigration, though he was still underwater by four. Worst polling numbers was the handling of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia.

So I think, I mean, the numbers I've seen are like 20% support what the Trump administration is doing there. So I do believe that

the efforts of Chris Van Hollen and others to shine a light on that and to consistently explain, you know, this isn't really about this one guy and however you may feel about him. This is about due process for all of us. This is about protecting all of our rights and your right to have your day in court before being sent for life to this, you know, foreign gulag. I think it's undeniable at this point that that messaging has landed and

and that it has dramatically turned people against the Trump administration's handling in that one specific case with bleed over into how they feel about the immigration program writ large. I think people definitely agree with that sentiment. I don't disagree that that's where the public has landed on it. I think it's a, for me, it's an interesting case study at how Dems can misread or not misread. That's the wrong word, how they can over maybe over read the

the public's position. It's easy to say, and actually I think Trump does this sometimes too, it's easy to say, okay, the public is with us. This is a winning issue. We can't be sending people to secot on mistakes that your own administration's attorneys, your own DOJ attorneys admit, and sucking up to Bacallet and doing that weird stuff. Nobody is here for that. I think we're

what Van Hollen did then looked like the Trump administration was able to message it in a way that probably resonated with a lot of people as Dems actively trying to keep people who are not in the country legally in the country. Even though it's not what the case is about, I think it's easy to get... We probably just disagree on it. I just think it's easy to get caught in that trap of like...

not sticking on the narrow issue, but then also looking like you're in the position that most people disagree with because you kind of

misread where people are on a, on the narrow issue in and of itself. But we probably disagree on that. I mean, I do, I do just disagree with the assessment there. And I think at this point, the polling bears it out pretty clearly that, you know, because the Trump administration had admitted fault in this case, it made it fairly clear cut, clear cut of like, you screwed up, bring the guy back. Like, what are you doing? And ultimately,

Also, because Trump himself was like, we're going for U.S.-born, you know, homegrown criminals next, it didn't take any imagination to go, oh, this isn't just about rights for undocumented immigrants. This is an assault on all of us. He wants to be able to send anybody he wants and disappear into this dungeon. And, you know, I think that really made it easier for Democrats to make the case that this matters for everyone. And, you know, the tariff stuff,

politically is obviously extremely toxic. And it's also something that everyone is aware of their own material circumstances and the way they're being negatively impacted. So I think they were able to push the message about Kilmara-Brega-Garcia and the assault on rights and the way that this, the implications this has for the broader immigration agenda. Well, obviously the tariff stuff is there and is not going away anytime soon, but we can agree to disagree on that one if you'd like. We'll come back to it, I'm sure another day.

Oh, yeah, there'll be plenty to talk about. Yeah. So let's go. Deportations to come. Yes, indeed. No doubt about it. Long way from through with that.

Let's go ahead and talk about some updates with regard to Israel and with regard to our own country. Of course, Itamar Ben-Gavir has been doing a tour here in the U.S. He is, you know, actual terrorist out of Israel, but part of the Netanyahu coalition and government. He routinely, you know, he's loud and proud about, hey, I think we should bomb aid depots and I don't think there should be any food going into the Gaza Strip.

And he goes to these resettlement conferences and is a real hero to the sort of like extremist settler community who are also very overt about we want to push all the Palestinians out. And we want to be able to completely take over the Gaza Strip and all of Palestine. So let's go ahead and take a look. He was here in the halls of Congress and Medea Benjamin of Code Pink.

was protesting him along with others. We can go ahead and put this up on the screen. So this is their headline from Code Pink Israeli war criminal, Itamar Ben-Kavir. And, you know, she's confronting him and he's just sort of like completely losing his mind. He's not one to just, you know, to just kind of take it and keep moving. He's very, this is his persona as he's this kind of like

thuggish character who has pulled down a gun on someone previously and is shouting back. And he's been making the rounds. We'll get back to that. He was at Yale. He was protested there. And he was also speaking at a synagogue in Brooklyn where there were protests. And one pro-Palestine Jewish Israeli woman was viciously assaulted there. But we'll get to that in a moment.

I wanted to highlight for people, there's a new documentary out from BBC done by Louis Theroux about the settlements in the West Bank and the settler ideology. He interviews, I really recommend the whole thing. It's about an hour long. I watched it last night and it's really fantastic. Oh, we were probably watching it at the same time, Crystal. Oh, really? Yeah, that's what I texted you. You watched the whole thing last night too? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, we were probably watching it at the same time.

We should have, you know, we could have gotten together and shared. We should have done it.

I really recommend people listen to what she has to say about what the Israeli government's program is, because what I've found is that the more like extremist elements within Israel are much more upfront and much more accurate about the actual project that Israel is engaging in at this point. So let's go ahead and take a listen to a little bit of that documentary.

So the idea is to force the government by putting people, starts with small settlements, then they get bigger, then they get recognized by the State of Israel and basically creating a new demographic reality. We do not force the government. We do for governments what they cannot do for themselves. Even if you take Netanyahu now, he is very happy with what we do here and also about our plans.

to build Jewish communities in Gaza. He's happy about it, but he cannot say it. He says the opposite. It's not realistic. Good! We will make it realistic. It's not forcing the government. It's helping the government. It's step number one in politics. You don't force the government. You give the government the courage, the ability, the public support, the political support.

I think you understand what I said, even if you disagree. And I think we do understand, Emily. I think she makes it quite plain. And what Louis, you know, really uncovers, this won't be surprising to people who have followed this closely, is just how much of the illegal settlement activity and the violence involved

against Palestinians is directly backed by the Israeli government. And Daniela is correct. She has, you know, she's absolutely 100% correct that what they are doing is with the tacit support of the government and helps to enable the, you know, explicit project of Netanyahu and his coalition. You know, I was thinking about that clip while we were watching Medea Benjamin kind of shout out Ben-Gavir because in a sense, you know,

There is so it is so much more, you know, as she says at the end, you know, I think you understand what I'm saying, even if you disagree with it. It is so much more like the so much more respectable to be Danielle Weiss and Ben Gavir than to be Benjamin Netanyahu.

Uh, because it is, or to be, for example, Joe Biden or the Republicans who try to have it both ways and say, this is not what we're doing, but this is what we're doing. Um, the, the, at least like transparency of the project that they're involved in, uh, is, is so much clearer and more discernible than the people who try to have it both ways and say, nope, we're following all international law. This is, uh,

we are doing everything right. It's you who are in the wrong here. No, they're being honest about what the project actually is. And again, it's,

Most people disagree with it very strongly. But, you know, it's just seeing that puts in stark contrast the sort of muddled BS that you get from Netanyahu and Joe Biden. And I mentioned Biden in particular because we have the next element to put up on the screen, D3. This is some reporting from DropSite.

about the quote unquote tireless work that Biden was putting in to get a ceasefire. And Crystal, I just wanted to see your reaction to this drop site story and a little bit more from it as well.

Yeah, so this is a synopsis of an Israeli Channel 13 investigation. And, you know, it's incredible how the information you can get from the Israeli press that will never be repeated in the U.S. media. But in any case, the former Israeli ambassador, Michael Herzog, said, God did the state of Israel a favor that Biden was the president during this period. We fought in Gaza for over a year. The administration never came to us and said, cease fire now. It never did.

And that's not to be taken for granted. So, you know, you can't help but think of AOC at the DNC saying Kamala Harris working tirelessly for a ceasefire. In fact, I saw Ilhan Omar kind of take a shot on Twitter saying, oh, look, it turns out they were, as we all expected, they were never working tirelessly for a ceasefire. And, you know, the Democratic base and much of the country has

has completely turned against Israel in an extraordinary manner. Because even in spite of the wave of propaganda we are fed about what is being done in the Gaza Strip, it could not help but break through. The images, the immorality, the war crimes, the starvation, the utter decimation of the Gaza Strip broke through. And people are looking at that with horror and say, how can my tax dollars go to support this? I don't want to be any part of this.

And so to have it overtly said what we all knew, what we all expected, but just to be brazenly open about it. No, the Biden administration, they didn't want a ceasefire. They didn't ask for a ceasefire. They never did.

And so there was always a question, Emily, during the Biden administration of whether, you know, they really wanted the war to end, but they just were afraid of the political pressure and they didn't want to apply leverage, but really they'd like it if the bomb stopped or whatever. And I think that this demonstrates that Biden himself

who, you know, was a kind of dyed-in-the-wool ideological Zionist, committed to it, had an outdated view of Israel forged in like 1972 or whatever, that he supported this. He supported it. He never asked for it to stop. He was not working tirelessly for a ceasefire. Kamala Harris certainly was not working tirelessly for a ceasefire in spite of the fact that, yeah, at this point,

The people who have power and are running the show and are driving the agenda within Israel are Daniela Weiss, much more than any sort of like rump liberal internationalist

um, political, uh, group that may still sort of like exist on the margins within Israel. It is Itamar Ben-Gavir. It is Daniela Weiss who are driving, who are driving the train and running the show. And so what I've been saying for a while is, you know, if you had been listening to Daniela Weiss and Smotrich and Ben-Gavir and the most, uh, alarmist lefties, uh,

From the beginning, you know, from October 8th, about what was going to unfold and what that was going to look like, you would have a much, much, much more accurate, greater understanding of everything that unfolded from then until now. There is a little bit of...

There's some talks going on about a potential ceasefire. I'm not even going to come close to getting my hopes up at this point because it just looks so incredibly dire. And this comes at a time too, we could put the next piece up on the screen. You know, the, whoever is left in Gaza, however many people are left, um,

Two million, maybe less, according to Trump and things that he's said. They're being starved to death in real time right now. Nothing has entered. This from the American conservative. Nothing has entered Gaza for more than 50 days.

Charity kitchens, now they've said they are out completely of food. They're shuttering services. Two million people on the brink. We are currently witnessing Israel's solution to the Gaza question, an unmistakable humanitarian crisis engineered by the Israeli government to remove from its borders an entire people it has deemed the equivalent of locusts.

That's where we are. I mean, and and all of the debate about, you know, and then from the early days, oh, did they really bomb a hospital? They would never do that. And here's our PowerPoint presentation about the real tunnels and all of that. I mean, now there's just no even pretense anymore, Emily.

And this is so again, it's not entirely surprising that the American conservative would publish a surrealist and, you know, been smeared by conservatives for a really long time. But it gets to it gets back to Ben-Gavir, Danielle Wise, the at least like consistency of their argument, which is that, yes, the people of Gaza, the people of the West Bank, but especially the people of Gaza in this context, starve them. This is war.

Like that's their argument and they're honest about it. Whereas, uh, the Netanyahu's of the world will say, this is, you know, we, we're doing the best that we can. Um, you know, this is, we, we did this, we did that. Uh, we follow all the rules. This is, you know, totally in compliance. We're, we're doing the best we can under tough circumstances when in reality, there's this underlying sort of ideological marriage of the, the, uh,

millenarian approach of people who are trying to settle areas of the West Bank, but then also the secular people who believe, secular Zionists who want Israel to sort of be protected from enemies. They are not honest about the means to that end. They both share the same end, which is

You know, more land and in all of the various ways to accomplish that. But they're not honest that they are pursuing those means to that end. And that is that contrast is really clear when you watch the documentary, especially.

Yeah, no doubt about it. And if you watch the documentary and you talk to some of these settlers, a number of whom, by the way, are Americans, by the way, and you'll say, well, what about this is illegal? Like what you're doing is illegal. These settlements are illegal under international law. They'll say one of them said directly, I don't care. Don't care at all.

The Bible is the land deed is what the Bible is. The land deed. Some things are greater than the law. And that's their view is that they don't have to abide by anything. God has promised this land to them. That's what they believe. And whatever it takes,

They're going to do it, including starving people, including, you know, reducing Gaza to rubble, including ethnic cleansing, whatever. Testament justice. Yes. That's right. Yeah. That's it. Yep. And, and again, it is, it is so much more honest and like, that's the, you

Again, as Danielle Weiss says, disagree with it. But that puts it all on the table for people to judge what the tactics are, as opposed to, again, hiding behind this sort of nonsense pablum about following international law and everything that's just posturing. And it forces American politicians, our own politicians, to lie and stretch the truth on their behalf in order to keep funneling the money that way.

I have a feeling on the Democratic side, it's this is going to be a real litmus test issue in 2028 because the Democratic base is 80 percent on board with we're not sending any more weapons to Israel. You know, there has just been an absolute sea change among Democratic base voters.

And I have to think that this is going to be a significant litmus test issue in the 2028 primary. And I don't, I think it will be very hard for a candidate to get through who holds the old line, Joe Biden, like whatever Israel wants, Israel gets position moving forward. But we'll have to see how the politics of that play out. And, you know, whether there's a

there are enough Palestinians and enough of Palestine left for it to even really matter at that point, which is increasingly an open and very concerning question. At the same time, let's go ahead and talk a little bit more about Ben-Gavir, who is, I mean, this man is convicted terrorist. People like this used to be pushed to the fringe of Israeli society. Now he is an important and influential and powerful part of the Netanyahu coalition. And

So he went to Yale. There were protests there. He went and spoke at a synagogue in Brooklyn. There were protests there as well. And the counter for the pro-Israel counter protesters turned quite violent. We can put this up on the screen. And in particular, and, you know, just warning like this is disturbing. So this is a pro-Palestine woman.

who is surrounded by this mob of counter-protesters who are screaming at her and all sorts of horrible insults and death to Arabs, etc. She's being escorted by police officers, and it was quite a fraught scene. We can put the next one up on the screen. You can see this woman who was assaulted,

You can see her on the left there, you know, bloodied and here after receiving some treatment and with her bandages. So this is a pro-Palestine woman who happens to be Jewish and also only happens to be Israeli. And I just have to say, if this was a Jewish Israeli woman who was pro-Israel, who had been viciously assaulted in this way,

we would have heard endless media coverage over it. And it would be used to smear the entire pro-Palestine movement as violent anti-Semites. But

But because she happens to be a pro-Palestine Jewish-Israeli woman, we get very, very little mainstream coverage. And certainly it's not used to tar all of the pro-Israel side of the equation as being anti-Semitic or being violent and out of bounds, etc.

Things were getting really wild in Brooklyn last night. And I feel like that hasn't penetrated the media. It's sort of just happening in the background and people aren't talking about what's happening on the streets of New York. I mean, you see it pop up on social media, but am I wrong thinking like the sort of quote unquote mainstream media just isn't really touching this? I don't know why. Well, I mean, I think you do know why. It's because it's uncomfortable, right?

because so far the violence has been one-sided. And, you know, I don't know what chants were said. There's allegations that some of the pro-Palestine chants were quote-unquote anti-Semitic. I just, you know, I need to see some evidence and some proof of that. But rally chants are very different than actual assault and violence. And, you know,

And part of this will help to explain why the media is very reticent to talk about this. You can put Eric Adams up on the screen here saying he's going to, there's going to be an investigation into this assault. He says the NYPD is investigating a series of incidents stemming from clashing protests on Thursday that began when a group of anti-Israel protesters surrounded the Chabad Libavich World Headquarters, Jewish House of Worship. Initial reports indicate one female protester was isolated from a group, harassed by counter protesters, suffered injuries. And

Another incident, second one was surrounded and subjected to vile threatening by counter protesters. One arrest was made, several summonses. And he goes on to say that, you know, there's going to be an investigation here and commending the NYPD police officer

who were there on the scene. And just from him saying, you know, that there is going to be an investigation into these assaults, there has been a complete freakout. We can see this extremist group, Beitar, that they're the ones that have been like compiling the lists and bragging that the Trump administration is listening to them about which students, university students, should be arrested and detained for their pro-Palestine speech. Anyway, they say, New York has fallen.

Jews are unsafe in New York City. We urge all Jews to flee. Pagrums are imminent.

That's what they have to say. It's surprising to me that there just isn't more, again, quote-unquote mainstream media coverage of this because of posts like that, because it's sort of becoming... It's being used as almost a Rorschach test where the groups like Batara are saying pogroms are imminent, flee New York City. And what you see is an Israeli supporter of Palestine getting bloodied and punched in the face. I mean, it's just bizarre. I

I guess maybe the right way to put it is the media just doesn't know how to deal with stories like this. I think it's so lost right now. It's leading to a complete blind spot where people don't see what's happening on the streets of New York.

Well, let me also make the Glenn Greenwald point, which is, you know, when these students were being rounded up and arrested for writing an op-ed or being a negotiator at a protest or whatever, what I heard from a lot of people on the right who defended this was, if you're a foreigner in this country, you need to zip it, keep your mouth shut, be a good boy or girl. Don't let us know. We don't want to know about your politics.

And now you have Ben Gavir here, who is obviously a foreigner here in the U.S., going to Yale, going to Capitol Hill, going to Brooklyn. And again, this man is a convicted terrorist, a

and is out there. You saw the video with him and Medea Benjamin. Like he's not being shy about, he's not being a good little boy and keeping his views to himself while he's abroad in the United States of America. So, hmm, interesting. There's a little bit of a double standard there about,

Who is allowed to aggressively assert their views in whatever form and venue that they care to, even as it, you know, as he is like the ultimate insider. And if anyone has ever deserved for their visit to be protested, it is that man. He's allowed to do that. No problem. But God forbid you write a student op ed calling in your university to divest from Israel. Then you deserve to be locked up indefinitely and deported from the country.

Yeah. It reminds me of the push, the pushback of the pushback to Ryan and Sager's drop site story last week, where people were saying, you know, why is someone on the NSC formally working for the Israeli defense ministry? Well, why, why are you upset that she was on the Israeli defense ministry and sort of saying that it's smacks of antisemitism to say that there's anything newsworthy about that. And, and people going back and being like, well, if it were,

any other country, we would be allowed to say that's a little bit weird. Is there an espionage connection? Is there a conflict of interest? But it's the one place that if you highlight it, you end up getting accused of fomenting or perpetuating discrimination against Israel. And it's like, wait, wait, wait.

someone worked for another country and is on the national security council. Um, so anyway, it reminded me of that point, Crystal. Yeah. Very, very good point on that one. Um, all right, let's go ahead and get to Ben Smith who broke open his extraordinary internal dynamics of some of these group chats, which have taken off it on the right and the way that they have shaped the

the current government and also sort of the fallout as this government has become more unpopular and especially with regard to tariffs. So let's go ahead and get to that. We're excited to be joined now by Ben Smith. He is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of Semaphore, as well as the host of the podcast Mixed Signals and has a huge scoop that we are very eager to dissect. Ben, thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me on.

Of course, let's put this first element up on the screen because this was the story heard around the world yesterday. Ben's headline over at Semaphore was the group chats that changed America. And Ben, I don't even want to try to explain the story myself because it's

You reported it out and it is really remarkable. And I have to say, as somebody on the right, conservatives really love Signal. Signal chats are all the rage right now. But this also wasn't just explicitly conservatives. These are sort of billionaires, power brokers, the kinds of people who maybe give a little bit to Dems, a little bit to Republicans and rub elbows with everyone. So can you just tell us about these group chats that changed America? What the heck is going on?

Yeah, sure. I mean, I think, you know, basically starting in 2020, around the time, as some people may remember, that the App Clubhouse was popping off, a number of kind of powerful Silicon Valley people, Marc Andreessen, by far the most important of them. He's the sort of old school Silicon Venture capital leader who created the web browser, among other things. Tall guy, egghead, if you've seen him. Yeah.

he, you know, had the feeling, which I think a lot of people had, that it was sort of like impossible to have open conversations on Twitter as it was known then. And particularly that it was sort of, that it was in his view, like dominated by progressive speech policing. And so that,

And the tech leaders needed new spaces. And a colleague of his, again, named Sriram Krishnan, who's now the White House AI advisor, started eventually dozens of WhatsApp groups for him and other tech leaders to talk about their industries, to gossip, and I think to some degree to complain about their woke employees, basically, who were demanding that they put up whatever symbol was the sort of trendy at that moment. And they didn't want to, but didn't know how to say no. And this was a shared experience.

And he then asked another colleague to set up, and he himself set up a bunch of signal groups, first with like Harper's, specifically with Harper's Letter liberals, you know, who were pro-speech and people like Camille Foster from the Fifth Column podcast and Thomas Chatterton Williams, Yasha Monk. And then I think he, Andreessen and Christopher Ruffo, who's a conservative activist who was also in that particular group,

basically decided the liberals were too interested in speech and not interested enough in power, got sick of them, and moved on to another set of chats. And again, Richard Hanania organized a more, if I'm saying his name right, a more right-wing chat. Eventually, Richard felt like he wasn't right-wing enough for that chat.

And in his view, Andreessen kind of kept moving right. And, you know, and basically these wound up being very important organizing nodes for Silicon Valley's embrace of Donald Trump. And the final group, which like 300 plus people are in, I'm honestly a little surprised that you guys aren't in it, although maybe you are. It's called Chatham House. No. Which is like, which is basically devolved into a space where conservatives fight with Mark Cuban all day. Yeah.

I was going to ask about Mark Cuban. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it is extraordinary. Actually, I saw Richard Hanania's response to this. He's like, these people have all the money in the world and they're like online trying to, they're in these groups trying to impress Mark Cuban or like random anonymous racists. That's what they spend their time doing. It is kind of extraordinary. And then the trajectory you sketch out is also, I think, important to understand that

the particular bubble that this Trump administration is in as well, because you're talking about this, like increasing, okay, the chat that included Thomas Chatterton Williams or whoever that wasn't right wing enough. And they were too, they actually had some principles around free speech. It wasn't just a cudgel to use to, you know, to crush the left.

And then they start a new group and that one's not right wing enough. And then we can put this extraordinary screenshot that you got your hands on on the screen that shows David Sachs getting pissed off because this group now has become worthless since the loudest voices have TDS, Trump derangement syndrome.

Then he leaves the group and instructs someone to create a new one with just, quote unquote, smart people. Brian Goldberg responds, I'm not sure we have Trump derangement syndrome. I think we Republicans who supported Trump are just seeing this as a failed administration, followed by departures from Tucker Carlson, Sean McGuire and one of the Winklevoss twins. Just absolutely amazing moment there.

Yeah, and I think you do see – I mean, I think there are two things happening. One is that the original reason that they started these groups, which was that there was no safe space to, in their view, sort of – you know, I don't know. I mean, it was basically true. If you felt like the progressives had gone too far, you were going to get beat up on Twitter, and they felt like they wanted a place to talk –

to have open conversations. In general, the notion that you should have your political conversations in an open air insane asylum like Twitter is, you know, I actually don't think, I think that's a pretty justifiable impulse that you don't want to do that. But now, of course, since Elon bought Twitter with the rise of Substack and a whole podcast and all these alternative media channels,

there are lots of places that you can have conservative conversations. And so I think they, I mean, this, you know, this being an early entry actually in a place of pretty heterodox conversations, this show and, and,

And so I think the point of these spaces has eroded a little bit. I mean, Andreessen says that. He sort of feels like this era is drawing to an end. The other thing is that the consensus they built and kind of talked themselves into that Donald Trump was going to be this sort of ideal leader for, you know, a Silicon Valley that is most focused on something Andreessen talked about in a 2020 essay called It's Time to Build, which is most focused on let's like race to launch rockets and, you know, robots and all these new products and,

into sort of an economic boom that is rooted, by the way, in free trade. They really just missed the tariff thing, like did not. When Trump was talking about tariffs, they were not listening. And they are like genuinely very, very upset about that. Well, that's interesting because they were also sort of confident that they would be able to stack the administration or that the administration would be really favorable to them. And one of the things that this story helped me understand is just

what was going on behind the scenes, because you could kind of, without knowing this, you could kind of see that there were new alignments and groups of people who were expressing similar thoughts at similar times. And I think this just like blows it all wide open. You can kind of see the background of it. And I want to ask Ben about one of the things that stands out to me, which is just the David Sachs

message that Crystal put on the screen recently was reflective of how much this chat mattered to them, or these chats, I should say, mattered to them. It's very bizarre how much they seem to care about

the quality of the discussion that it's like angering them to be surrounded by people who have Trump derangement syndrome. Like they, they really seem to be relying on these chats as places that were shaping the way that they thought, shaping the way they thought about other people, shaping the way they thought about the world. My takeaway from that exchange is just how important these chats seem to be. They weren't something that was happening in the background. This was like a really active part of the way they were working through the world.

Yeah, I mean, as somebody who's pretty, who is, I mean, probably mostly beaten my addiction to Twitter, but has at times in my life been like very, had my brain rewired by social media. I think you kind of understand if you've been there, like how a sort of really vibrant conversation between

smart people can just sort of pull you in. And particularly during the pandemic. I mean, this was this like, I mean, and somebody told me Andreessen was spending like 20 hours on these some days and the overwhelming reflex. I mean, my first way I ran across these would be friends or sources being like, this is crazy. Marc Andreessen is blowing up my phone.

Like, that's so cool. But also what? You know, like, like he's very important. Don't you have something better to do? Yeah. Yeah. And all of them were like, you know, he should be busier than I am. And yet I can't keep up with the text. And he's in like dozens of these groups. And any other given person is in one or two of them.

Typically, the wealthier you are, I think the less busy you actually are is the reality. But anyway, go on. The dream. They definitely... One of the jokes going around was that somebody repeated to me is that in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, at the very, very pinnacle is posting. I think there really might be something to that. Yeah.

I'm curious a little bit more of the makeup of who was in the group. Was it just more of the tech right figures? Were there some of the OG MAGA types? And how much is the quote unquote like independent right wing influencer community influenced by like, you know, whatever, whatever these billionaires happen to think on a given day?

So I don't have a complete list either of the groups or of who was in them, but I think there were lots and lots of groups. This is like a whole archipelago. And so I think a lot is very Silicon Valley centric, though. Like, you know, when the...

When the open AI stuff was going, you know, the sort of coup attempt was going down. People were telling me about being in a group with Sam Altman, like watching him react to posts in the group as this whole story is playing out. When there was a run on Silicon Valley Bank, that was really largely through these WhatsApp groups. The reason that bank collapsed so fast is that all these big investors are texting each other into a panic, which is how bank runs happen. Wow, wow.

Wait, that's wild. Yeah. I mean, it was Bloomberg. It makes sense. Didn't explain which groups it was, but Bloomberg reported that at the time. Oh, wow. You know, I don't think Musk personally was in these groups, but he's obviously a huge kind of, they kind of orbit him a bit. And a lot of people around him were in them. I'm not sure Peter Thiel was, or at least not in the big ones, but also sort of his world. But Andreessen is by far the most kind of influential central figure in them. Yeah.

And so how much have the tariffs caused a rift even within this world, this swirling archipelago, as you called it? How significant have they been in creating a genuine rift there? I think as you see in public, like very. Because ultimately, I do think people sort of...

You know, people like us in Washington, New York often read these Silicon Valley people as basically political and ideological figures, but they are basically entrepreneurs and spend most of their time thinking about investments in companies and could not believe that Trump would do something this dumb.

And there's a guy named Balaji Srinivasan, who was another one of the really big kind of dominant chattery voices in these groups, who has written. And by the way, they're saying the same things in public and in private, as is often true. Like you get to the very core of the like inner sanctum sanctorum of the most important people in the world. And what they're saying is, hey, did you see that tweet by Taylor Lorenz? You know, so it's not like they're saying in private what they're saying in public. There's just more like personal disappointment about it.

Interesting. Interesting. Yeah, this is absolutely wild. The Silicon Valley bank thing is wild too, just because, you know, just the real world impact there. And I suspect also, I mean, David Sachs was one of the people most aggressively pushing for a bailout. I would guess that some of that like messaging was also coordinated within these chats or being floated and surfaced within these chats. For sure. For sure. And it's really influential on the administration. I mean, somebody told me that they had the impression that these, you know,

these public arguments with Mark Cuban that have been going on all year. Cause Chatham house was intended to be, you know, more centrist place, or at least a place where you can kind of pull normies to the right, um, depending on who you ask it. Um,

So there's some Democrats in there. But somebody was saying to me they felt like arguing with Mark Cuban was a way to audition for the Trump administration. And the people have gotten jobs through these groups, for sure. And you see, I mean, Sachs obviously has a huge role in the administration. But there's a number of people who've gone into various jobs.

Who were some of the others who left along with David Sachs? We saw the, you know, the screenshot that had him and Tucker and one of the Winklevoss twins. Who are the people who are still in and who are the people who are like, I'm kind of done. I don't have a list. Yeah.

You know, I don't have a list. I honestly feel like I just got a tiny snapshot of this. And, you know, one of the things is disappearing messages. And so maybe there was some crazy person out there who was screenshotting everything. I kind of hope so, because it's a really interesting piece of intellectual history. But I basically published everything I knew, which is a very incomplete picture. Do you see a tie over between this and the Signalgate controversy with Pete Hegseth, like Emily was saying? Apparently Republicans just love Signalchats.

totally I mean lots of people work and love Signal but you just are like a comfort of like hey let's jump on a Signal chat that means they're in Signal chats all the time by the way like Signal's amazing that's great like Signal is by far the best and most secure app and everyone should be in Signal chats all the time like I'm

I think that, I mean, I think you should not, if you would not like to have Jeffrey Goldberg in your signal chat, do not add him. And I don't, and I'm not an expert in, in sort of classification issues, but it is actually as these things go. And again, maybe not if you're in Russia, Steve Whitcoff, but because it doesn't, if your device has been compromised, it doesn't protect you. But, but it's, it really is an incredible piece of technology. And if you care about privacy, we should all be in signal chats all the time.

I mean, we use it for our show planning. Go ahead, Em. Yes, we do. Oh, I was going to say, yeah, just my last question is how active are these? Like, did you get an indication of how the chat reacted or how the chats reacted to your story yesterday? Did any of that trickle down to you? You know, nobody has sent me any screenshots. I mean, one thing that I honestly find kind of endearing about this is like a lot of people find these incredibly lovely and rewarding. And a lot of people who talk to me on the record or off the record, um,

wouldn't share screenshots because they didn't feel, you know, they felt like they wanted to talk about this thing that's been important to them, but didn't want to betray it.

Mm-hmm. That's so interesting. But that said, if you're listening and you have, I would, of course, love to see how they're talking about that story. I've gotten some feedback. Actually, honestly, the pre-story thing was, of course, the usual, like, the liberal journalists are coming to destroy us and be mean to us. Friend Balaji tweeted that, and the schedule Lonsdale were tweeting about how, I mean, obviously the story was going to be all about them also, because they're extremely important. Yeah.

But then actually since the story, I think I've gotten a lot of feedback from people in the groups that they were surprised that it kind of captured the vibe. Very interesting. Surprisingly fair. If you don't mind sticking around, I wanted to get your reaction too on what's going down at 60 Minutes. So longtime executive producer there, Bill Owens, resigned, saying effectively, I can't be independent anymore. And 60 Minutes took the extraordinary step of calling out their own parent company. Let's go ahead and take a listen to what Scott Pelley had to say.

In tonight's last minute, a note on Bill Owens, who until this past week was executive producer of 60 Minutes. He was our boss. Bill was with CBS News nearly 40 years, 26 years at 60 Minutes. He covered the world, covered combat, the White House. His was a quest to open minds, not close them. If you've ever worked hard for a boss because you admired him,

then you understand what we've enjoyed here. Bill resigned Tuesday. It was hard on him and hard on us, but he did it for us and you. Stories we pursued for 57 years are often controversial. Lately, the Israel-Gaza war and the Trump administration. Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. He was tough that way.

But our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways. None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires. No one here is happy about it. But in resigning, Bill proved one thing.

He was the right person to lead 60 Minutes all along. So, Ben, what's your understanding of what went down here? I mean, you know, exactly what he said and exactly as it seems. So, in particular, what Max Taney, my colleague at Semaphore, reported was that Sherry Redstone, who owns the company, had started to ask for information about what was, you know, what

what kind of mean thing they might be saying about the Trump administration, which, you know, which people internally took as, you know, was brand new in the history of this, you know, probably the most important news show in U.S. history and which they interpreted accurately as the parent company getting nervous that Donald Trump would, you know, react to a story by blocking the merger and trying to figure out how to navigate that. Yeah. Yeah.

And 60 Minutes, I didn't realize this, but I think he was like only the third executive producer of 60 Minutes, period. And Ben, maybe you can speak to a little bit about how significant it is, particularly that this happened at 60 Minutes in the whole like paramount CBS universe, because it seems like 60 Minutes has traditionally sort of been maybe a bulwark against those types of wins shift. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, you know, I don't know. But I think we all like I came up in a media universe where there were kind of like fringy groups on the right and the left who would complain that like the owners of media were pulling the strings, you know, like there was a group called Free Press on the left kind of NATO right groups.

And if you worked in media, you'd be like, you're crazy. That's not how it works. I've never had my owner bother me about anything. There's a strong tradition of separate, like here, that like you're kind of the journalist or left alone from newspapers, television, magazines, whatever, you know. And if it happened even in the tiniest way, it would be a huge scandal. And what's happened in the last year is that has totally changed Trump's

You know, kind of focus on leverage and using financial leverage against his enemies and rivals has meant that he's very focused on Jeff Bezos, on Patrick Soon-Chang and what he can. And they are very sensitive to the way in which Trump will obviously use leverage.

It will use Jeff Bezos' space company against the Washington Post, things like that, and have responded by doing whatever he wants, more or less. Incredibly effective. And I think you see that. Trump, after the Time Warner AT&T merger in his first term, lost the case but did a lot of damage. And I think they – it's CNN, which was inside Warner. They interpreted that as a –

you know, as a response to that he didn't like their coverage. I mean, the government has a ton of power, the FCC. And Brendan Carr has totally openly said that in his view, the Biden administration behaved in inappropriate political ways. And so the Trump administration is planning to behave in inappropriate political ways. He literally said that to me. How much do you think that this will change, you know, the character of our media?

A lot. I think these big corporate places are really afraid. And by the way, are already very weak. I mean, part of it, of course, is that if 60 Minutes were a...

And if Paramount, if CPS, whatever kind of collapsed merged parent company there were, were, as it was 30 years ago, a massively profitable juggernaut that could afford to tell the president to screw himself, it would. I think you'll see places that are... It's actually interesting. This is why the kind of financial health of media is so important. I mean, I think the New York Times, which is doing great as a subscription base, will...

be able to be independent and stand up to the president, I think it's very hard for the Washington Post to because it's dependent on a billionaire who seems to really want the president to like him. But I think that stuff is totally real right now. How much you go. Well, yeah, I was just maybe we were going to ask the same question is just this was in the report a bit. But how much was this reflective of discomfort with Israel-Gaza coverage versus Trump coverage? It seems like there was a little bit of both going on.

Yeah, you know, I mean, I think it is fascinating the degree to which Israel is being used sort of as a cudgel against the administration's enemies, you know,

Oh, you know, I don't think that's why the Trump administration and why conservatives like that's not the sort of preexisting reason that they're upset at universities, which they think are too left wing and which are very left wing. But it is the it's sort of the it's sort of the issue that has come to hand and the one that they're beating them with. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I haven't particularly got that impression at CBS. Like, I think Sherry Redstone separately, the owner, is, I think, unhappy with critical coverage of Israel. That's been reported separately. And I'm sure Trump is happy to throw the kitchen sink at his enemies, and that's one of the elements of it. But I don't think that's fundamentally what's driving it. I mean, maybe it's Trump's concern for...

you know, the coverage of Israel Gazzabi straight up the middle. But I don't think that's his main concern.

We've seen with some of the other civil society groups, like with the law firms, we've seen with universities where there was an initial instinct to just completely capitulate to the Trump administration. And now there seems to be a little bit more backbone starting to grow. Do you see any sign of that with media organizations or do you feel like it just comes down to who has the finances to weather the storm?

Yeah, I think, you know, the less, you know, Trump has seen his kind of this, his momentum collapse in the sense that he could kind of run the table and do anything sort of collapse with the tariffs, you know, with the sort of debacle of the tariff rollout. And so, yeah, that has affected things a lot. I think also, right, the...

I think that these places underestimated, whether it's Paul Weiss or Columbia, the internal backlash they'd get from capitulating, from students, from donors, from lawyers, right? Like every big law firm that did not capitulate is currently poaching Paul Weiss' associates, right? Right, right. Because it's embarrassing to work there. And, you know, even, I mean, honestly, I think even if you agree 100% with the criticisms, it's embarrassing to work there. And so that's...

Yeah, and I think that's true in media too. I think there's this illusion... I think the CBS people and...

believe that basically like, you know, sometimes like when you're selling a company, old management will do all the hard stuff. They'll fire everybody. And then new management can be like, Hey, we're the good guys. Like, welcome to your new home survivors. Um, and I think that this is the philosophy here. It's like the old company will do all this bad stuff with Trump and then skydance, which is buying it can say, Hey, that was terrible. So sorry about that. Um, although of course they're coordinating. Um,

And I think it's a huge mistake. Like, look at what happened when there was like a year and a half when Warner had bought CNN and all they wanted, like, they're not really in the news business. They don't want to be in the news business. They just wanted it to be chill. And like, instead it was an absolute garbage fire for a year and a half. And I think that the idea that these folks in Hollywood, Skydance, who are buying Paramount, mostly for the entertainment assets, imagine that just like they're going to like bring a

a news organization that is just like literally in flames on board into their company and that that will be a, like a restful and normal experience I think is, is not the case. Final thought for me. We talked obviously in an earlier segment about your group shots, group chat story at Semaphore. And now we're discussing 60 minutes. It seems like the theme between both of these stories is that American elite in business and in media, in academia, in the legal world are, are,

actually experiencing a schism in a way that didn't happen in Trump 1.0, that there's this survival mode maybe that people have entered and it's causing panic and it's causing decisions to be made rationally or otherwise, that it's really becoming a serious wedge in a way that it hadn't before been. I don't know if that sounds right or if you have any thoughts or pushback on that. Yeah, I know. I mean, I think that's a great point. And I think that, I mean, one of the things that somebody said to me yesterday was that

every day before was that whereas these signal groups were started because people were afraid to say conservative things on the internet and get beat up for it now the thing that you can say in the signal group that you're scared to say in public is criticism of Donald Trump yeah really interesting

Yeah. And last thing, Ben, you know, how do you think journalists should think about some of these choices? I mean, you have obviously Bill Owens resigning, Scott Pelley making the choice and the 60 Minutes team, presumably, like we need to say something, but we're not going anywhere. We're going to stay here and continue to do the best we can. You know, from an ethical perspective, how do you think journalists should think about these challenges? I don't know. I think it's like a tough situation and I don't want to tell people how to do their jobs. I mean, I do think it sort of brings home...

And I'm genuinely not trying to talk my book into your book here. But you see why news organizations ought to be independent, because they become a headache for the parent company. And the parent company has an obligation to its shareholders to get the merger through. And you have these maniacs at 60 Minutes insulting the president. This is from the point of view of the lawyers and bankers running the merger. That's not a normal company. CBS News shouldn't be inside that company.

But on the other hand, that means they've got to figure out a way to run a business on their own. I mean, it's not an easy thing, but you see why sticking independent news organizations inside these conglomerates that have all sorts of other hostages to fortune becomes a real problem. So basically you're saying when Bernie was criticizing Jeff Bezos earning the Washington Post, he was right. You know, when I was at BuzzFeed...

Bernie was right about everything. When I was at BuzzFeed, I remember I sat down with him and the first thing he said was, thank you for standing up to the corporate media. And I was sort of like, Senator, like Andreessen Horowitz is one of our investors. Like we're like pretty capitalist. And like this idea that the corporate media is like influenced by its owners. Like that's not really how it works. And I think he's been totally vindicated. He was like, the billionaires are paying for the listicles. You're telling me that?

I'm not sure he was a reader. And I think he may have confused us with what left-wing said called Buzz Flash. I don't even remember that. But I remember thinking like, huh, this is not exactly how I think about my job. Amazing. Ben, thank you so much. It's so great to have your insights and really appreciate your reporting on all of these things.

Great to see you both. Give my regards to Meg and Emily. Will do. All right. That was fun hearing from Ben on those stories. Always his interesting insights into media in particular.

Yeah, he was referring there at the end of that segment to the last couple of times ago that I was on Megyn Kelly. She had just done an interview with Ben and she excoriated him for not kind of fully getting new media. And I agree with her, still agree with her on that point. So stand by it. But it was good to have a friendly conversation with him. And that that report was fantastic and like very worth going through. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

I have no idea what the Megyn Kelly drama was, so I will just stay. I'll stay unaligned in that conversation. I'll stay neutral on that one. However, yes, great to see him. Great to see you. I think Ryan and Emily will be counterpoints per normal tomorrow, and I will be back on Thursday, maybe with soccer. I'm not sure.

We'll see. It could be baby time on Thursday. It could be baby time. So we're all on the lookout for that. In any case, thank you guys so much for watching and joining. Like I said earlier, if you're having trouble with Spotify, please check your email. If you're still having trouble, email us and we'll get it worked out for you. Love you guys and appreciate you. And we'll see you back here soon.