Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give.
Speaker 3: You, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 2: Coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about.
Speaker 2: It just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 4: All right, welcome the counterpoints everybody. First of all, we
Speaker 4: want to start by thanking all of the premium subscribers
Speaker 4: either became premium subscribers or upgraded in orders so that
Speaker 4: we could build our new studio, because I mean, I
Speaker 4: don't know about you.
Speaker 5: I've never been a huge.
Speaker 3: Family bridge just gonna say you're liberating us, I know, but.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm hired to help with not up to maze,
Speaker 4: but I've seen the designs of the new one.
Speaker 5: I am very excited about it.
Speaker 6: It's extremely cool, and we understand there are a lot
Speaker 6: of people who've been super helpful in that, so thank you.
Speaker 3: We really really appreciate it.
Speaker 6: If you want to help the link as in the description,
Speaker 6: we do have some huge breaking news to get to.
Speaker 6: Right at the top of the show, as we were filming,
Speaker 6: news broke that there was a drone strike. Russia is
Speaker 6: saying there was a drone strike on the residence of
Speaker 6: Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 4: The New York boxes flip here, so right, So the
Speaker 4: most extreme Russian claim being made here is that this
Speaker 4: was an attempt on Vladimir Putin's life by two Ukrainian
Speaker 4: drones that were taken down over the over the skies.
Speaker 4: The media, the US media is saying that they don't
Speaker 4: they're not able to verify that. We do have a
Speaker 4: little bit of footage that has surfaced of this.
Speaker 5: We can roll that.
Speaker 3: Here, unbelievable footage.
Speaker 4: And so this appears to be a drone being taken down.
Speaker 4: Now Russia is saying that it's moving from here to
Speaker 4: ban unmanned aerial vehicles you know, you know all you
Speaker 4: know around Moscow. So we don't have any direct evidence
Speaker 4: yet that these actually were even Ukrainian. We're going, you know,
Speaker 4: based on only what Russia is saying. This is the
Speaker 4: this is their claim. Now, it very well may be
Speaker 4: the case that these were in fact Ukrainian drones, that
Speaker 4: they were in fact in aiming to target the Kremlin.
Speaker 4: Would be surprising to me if they were actually trying
Speaker 4: to take out Vladimir Putin, because I don't like, does
Speaker 4: he do they know exactly where he is at all hours?
Speaker 5: In any event, I.
Speaker 6: Would think their intelligence would be good enough to know
Speaker 6: that Putin was not there, He was not at the residence,
Speaker 6: he was elsewhere, and you would think their intelligence would
Speaker 6: be good enough to know that.
Speaker 3: But maybe not.
Speaker 4: This hearkens back to the kind of early days of
Speaker 4: February twenty twenty two, when when Russia had, you know,
Speaker 4: at least several teams trying to assassinate, capture or assassinate
Speaker 4: Vladimir Zelanski. And so it's not as if necessarily either
Speaker 4: side is above this. Ukraine has taken out you know,
Speaker 4: I can't lostcount of the number of Russian generals that
Speaker 4: they've been able to identify and then kill with air strikes.
Speaker 4: So it's not as if this type of thing, this
Speaker 4: obviously would be an escalation by orders of magnitude.
Speaker 6: Well, I was going to say, correct me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 6: but I believe one of the things from the Discord
Speaker 6: leaks that Sager and Crystal talked about was China's kind
Speaker 6: of red line for getting more directly involved in the
Speaker 6: conflict was an attack deep inside Russia. So what was
Speaker 6: a Ukrainian or Western sponsored attack that went inside like
Speaker 6: towards Moscow?
Speaker 4: Right, And so that raises the question which you always
Speaker 4: have to ask in situations like this, of the false
Speaker 4: flag like you know in warfare, that every country engages
Speaker 4: in in false flag operations intend intending to give themselves
Speaker 4: a tactical or strategic advantage. And so you're certainly going
Speaker 4: to have some people on the Ukrainian side perhaps saying, well,
Speaker 4: this is this is not what they're saying it is,
Speaker 4: and in fact it is.
Speaker 5: It is an effort to a either like you said, you.
Speaker 4: Know, bring China more fully into the conflict, get China
Speaker 4: to supply the weapons that the US says that Russia
Speaker 4: keeps asking China to supply, or to justify whatever type
Speaker 4: of escalation Russia might be might be contemplating in the
Speaker 4: face of this long announced Ukrainian counter offensive that is
Speaker 4: coming to spring, right.
Speaker 6: And Yeah, the long announced counter offensive that we've heard
Speaker 6: about for so long is we talked about this last week.
Speaker 6: What people see is the final hurdle, you know, depending
Speaker 6: on how the Spring counter offensive goes, people.
Speaker 3: Can come to the table.
Speaker 6: You made a great point last week saying, well, maybe
Speaker 6: we just skip all the death and destruction and come
Speaker 6: to the table. Now, what's the point if you're saying that,
Speaker 6: you know, we just want to kind of see how
Speaker 6: it goes. But this comes still before that is underway,
Speaker 6: which I think is a really interesting piece of timing information, and.
Speaker 4: It also reminds us of the terrifying reach of drones
Speaker 4: around the world. I think we haven't really, I think
Speaker 4: come to grips with the fact that it changed. It
Speaker 4: changes the battlefield in a way that nothing has in
Speaker 4: decades by exposing so many different people and civilians and
Speaker 4: civilian leadership, uh to kind of the battlefield in a
Speaker 4: way that if you think about Costum Solomony, the Iranian general,
Speaker 4: he was hit by what a drone strike in the
Speaker 4: he was he was driving just outside of the Bagdad
Speaker 4: Airport when he was when he was hit.
Speaker 5: And so then the question becomes.
Speaker 4: Where else does that go do we start Do we
Speaker 4: start seeing those in the United States? Do we start
Speaker 4: seeing them in in Europe?
Speaker 5: In Poland?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 6: Oh no, absolutely, and oh just can't wait until those
Speaker 6: get hooked up to generative Ai Maxidan, he's the Financial
Speaker 6: He's the Financial Times Moscow bureau chief. He's says the
Speaker 6: Kremlin right now is claiming its military and secret services
Speaker 6: quote acted timely to shoot down the drones, and they say, quote,
Speaker 6: Russia reserves the right to take retaliatory measures when and
Speaker 6: where it sees fit. Now again, this is on the
Speaker 6: heels of more information about what could have been a
Speaker 6: deadly strike on an aircraft in the Black Sea, right
Speaker 6: it was a British aircraft had something like thirty personnel
Speaker 6: on it, a near miss, and again by a near
Speaker 6: miss by Russia. And again this is such a just tragic,
Speaker 6: tragic reminder of how quickly things can change, how quickly
Speaker 6: things can escalate.
Speaker 3: And the coming.
Speaker 6: Hours are going to be an incredible test of the
Speaker 6: United States, the West, and Russia as well in China,
Speaker 6: all of these countries who are entangled in the conflict,
Speaker 6: how they handle footage going viral on the internet without
Speaker 6: you know, the public having the full story.
Speaker 4: Right And this exactly, and this is the type of
Speaker 4: reason why wars are so dangerous, because they are so unpredictable.
Speaker 4: You know, people think that they can keep a handle
Speaker 4: that they can control the fates of these words say oh,
Speaker 4: well this, you know, China thinks it's useful because it's
Speaker 4: draining Russian in the United States things, it's useful because
Speaker 4: it's uh, you know, draining Russian power. But that comes
Speaker 4: with a hubris, a sense that you can actually guide
Speaker 4: events in a way that history shows people just don't
Speaker 4: actually have a way of guiding that. There are so
Speaker 4: many hinge points and contingent events that we can't get
Speaker 4: our minds around that the more space you give for them,
Speaker 4: the more likelihood you are to create some type of
Speaker 4: conflagration that you then look back on and say, how
Speaker 4: did we let that happen?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 3: And we're in those moments right now.
Speaker 4: Precarious, all right, moving on, there's new legislation in the
Speaker 4: House and Senate that would require human beings to be
Speaker 4: involved if we're going to nuke the world.
Speaker 5: But yeah, let's put up a one here.
Speaker 4: And so this to me has to be the kind
Speaker 4: of the collision of the two most frightening things in
Speaker 4: the world, nuclear armourged and artificial intelligence. And so this
Speaker 4: is the reintroduction of a bill by ken Buck, your buddy, right.
Speaker 6: The Republican member of the House with Ed Markey, Ted
Speaker 6: lu So very by.
Speaker 4: Party is a Democrat who and we can put up
Speaker 4: a two here. Our technica writing this up. The bill
Speaker 4: and I read it this morning, is quite short. Basically
Speaker 4: says you have to have a human being involved in
Speaker 4: autonomous weapons that could blow up the world.
Speaker 5: Yes, and I think that seems fair.
Speaker 6: And you know, it's funny because, as you say, Ryan,
Speaker 6: it's a five page bill and the lever for this,
Speaker 6: the mechanism by which they hope to ban any artificial
Speaker 6: intelligence from launching a nuke is federal fund right, so
Speaker 6: you can't have any federal funding used to launch a
Speaker 6: nuclear weapon with AI.
Speaker 3: Essentially seems pretty reasonable.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that sounds fair.
Speaker 4: And so at the intercept we have and maybe you
Speaker 4: guys have these too, We have what you call an
Speaker 4: air gap computer, which is it's it's not connected to
Speaker 4: the internet right in any way, so that if somebody
Speaker 4: leaks us documents on some type of a thumb drive,
Speaker 4: we can just load it onto the air gap.
Speaker 5: Basically, the snowed and files.
Speaker 4: Were kept on a sophisticated version of that. That's how
Speaker 4: you make sure that there's no penetration by anybody into
Speaker 4: the system.
Speaker 5: So basically, I.
Speaker 4: Think you've got air gap your nuclear weapons, like no
Speaker 4: links to the internet, between between nuclear weapons and the Internet,
Speaker 4: because the AI, if it wants to do that, could
Speaker 4: eventually at some point, let's say it's say.
Speaker 5: It's two hundred years from now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but we don't want to even if it's a
Speaker 4: one percent chance or a point zero one percent chance,
Speaker 4: you don't want to leave open the possibility that some
Speaker 4: maliciously thinking AI decides that it's going to worm its
Speaker 4: way into new GROT. I think you just just keep it,
Speaker 4: keep it gapped. That the only way you can president
Speaker 4: is I don't know, with a lighter or something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And this bill was introduced yesterday.
Speaker 6: I think it's actually some of the biggest news in
Speaker 6: the world, despite the fact that I've seen very little
Speaker 6: coverage of it. Sager and Crystal yesterday talked about Jeff Hinton,
Speaker 6: who left Google. Not because you know he talked about
Speaker 6: this in the MIT Technology Review in an interview yesterday.
Speaker 6: We have this element not because you know, he suddenly
Speaker 6: hates Google, but because he thinks he can do more
Speaker 6: help outside of Google. He's an early deep learning pioneer
Speaker 6: who has now left these AI projects and is pretty
Speaker 6: terrified of where artificial intelligence is going, is speaking in
Speaker 6: pretty extreme and dramatic terms about how this could He
Speaker 6: said right there, you can see the quote up on
Speaker 6: the streen. I have suddenly switched my views on whether
Speaker 6: these things are going to be more intelligent than us.
Speaker 6: And now this is from the MIT Tech Review. He
Speaker 6: thinks the international ban this is Hinton on chemical weapons
Speaker 6: might be one model of how to go about curbing
Speaker 6: the development and use of dangerous AI. Quote it wasn't
Speaker 6: fool proof, but on the whole, people don't use chemical weapons.
Speaker 6: He says, Well, little comfort given that people do still
Speaker 6: use chemical weapons, and it would take about one AI
Speaker 6: nuke launch to get us in a really terrible situation.
Speaker 6: This makes another This is from the MIT Review. There's
Speaker 6: another expert here who's saying, quote, I believe that we
Speaker 6: should be open to the possibility of fairly different models
Speaker 6: for the social organization of our planet. And Ryan, I'm
Speaker 6: going to toss this to you with the question. This
Speaker 6: bill is for the United States. Artificial intelligence has been
Speaker 6: unleashed globally. There are other countries with nuclear capabilities. We
Speaker 6: can you know, sort of take care of this at home,
Speaker 6: cross our fingers and hope everybody that follows the law
Speaker 6: and the mechanisms work. But without you know, the United
Speaker 6: Nations is founded. I'm no fan of the United Nations,
Speaker 6: but it was found, and you can look at like
Speaker 6: what Winston Churchill said at the time, after nuclear warfare
Speaker 6: hit the planets, it seems reasonable to think that we
Speaker 6: should be looking at global mechanisms right now to ensure
Speaker 6: that in a very short period of time we don't
Speaker 6: have catastrophe.
Speaker 4: Nuclear non proliferation can't agree more. And it's going to
Speaker 4: require every country to actually be honest about where their
Speaker 4: programs are. That includes, you know, getting inspectors into the
Speaker 4: running a nuclear program, striking and getting that deal going again.
Speaker 4: And also Israel just admitting publicly it's instead of like
Speaker 4: the wink and nod that they have it and everybody
Speaker 4: knows that they have it, like to say, okay, we
Speaker 4: got it. Here's how we're going to make sure that
Speaker 4: we don't accidentally launch it. Because you also don't want
Speaker 4: a situation where you have some lunatic hawk who thinks,
Speaker 4: you know what, I actually really do want to launch
Speaker 4: this nuclear weapon at Tehran or whatever, and then afterwards
Speaker 4: going to say, h that darn Ai, don't retally against us,
Speaker 4: because Chief, we're so sorry about that, and we're going
Speaker 4: to put safeguards in place so this never happens again.
Speaker 4: So I think Elon Musk made a good point on
Speaker 4: AI that regulation so often comes after a disaster, and
Speaker 4: this is not the kind of disaster that we can
Speaker 4: afford to wait till afterwards to start regulating. That we
Speaker 4: have to do the unthinkable for humans, which is to
Speaker 4: think ahead.
Speaker 6: And the counterpoint pun intended from people who are actually
Speaker 6: very scared about what it would mean to pause some
Speaker 6: of these rapid advancements in AI, is that if we
Speaker 6: do that, we fall behind China. They've put a lot
Speaker 6: of emphasis on AI. We fall behind other countries who
Speaker 6: are really rapidly developing their AI for defense capabilities. And
Speaker 6: if you sort of pull back on Silicon Valley, through
Speaker 6: the government, through the culture, and the United States, you
Speaker 6: end up falling dramatically behind. I have actually zero fears
Speaker 6: of us falling dramatically behind any of those other countries,
Speaker 6: precisely because value is going to continue to do what
Speaker 6: it's doing. The question is whether we can put safeguards
Speaker 6: and pay in place that allow them to do it,
Speaker 6: to do it in a way that is not just
Speaker 6: protective of us. I mean, think about people who have
Speaker 6: no stake in this right now. Think about the people
Speaker 6: of Haiti who we're talking about later, who are completely
Speaker 6: vulnerable to something like this. I mean, you have these
Speaker 6: wealthy countries developing this technology that could spell more doom
Speaker 6: and misery for people who had no input in the
Speaker 6: development of it in undeveloped countries.
Speaker 4: And I forget who said it, but somebody has said
Speaker 4: that the biggest handicap that the human race has is
Speaker 4: its inability. Is people's inability to understand the exponential function. Yes,
Speaker 4: like we can understand a linear function like, oh, things
Speaker 4: are going this way, they'll probably still continue to go
Speaker 4: this way, or they might go down like this. But
Speaker 4: exponential that we just can't grasp. And that's what shocks
Speaker 4: so many people about COVID back in March of twenty twenty,
Speaker 4: thinking like, how could the world go from what it
Speaker 4: was in March first to what it is now in
Speaker 4: April first? And linear thinking cannot explain that. You have
Speaker 4: to be able to kind of absorb the exponential function
Speaker 4: and at the same time, people couldn't understand how exponentially
Speaker 4: it kind of collapsed like you because just as the
Speaker 4: way that the chart goes up like this, it comes
Speaker 4: back down like this. And so you had a lot
Speaker 4: of people who finally had understood that we were in
Speaker 4: the middle of this pandemic, but they couldn't kind of
Speaker 4: ski down that exponential slope. And so they're over here
Speaker 4: still treating it as if we're up here. And so,
Speaker 4: like Mosk was saying, you cannot misunderstand this function this
Speaker 4: time around. It's one thing, you know, to misunderstand a
Speaker 4: pandemic that is that has a kind of case fatality
Speaker 4: rate of point five percent or point one percent. It's
Speaker 4: going to lead to millions of deaths, but it's not
Speaker 4: going to lead to the end of human civilization, which
Speaker 4: you know, this good.
Speaker 5: If we screw it up.
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh. And that's what Hinton is saying.
Speaker 6: I mean, he's saying, you know, they if you think
Speaker 6: about what AI sees as increasing its power, what an
Speaker 6: algorithm might see is increasing power. It's cloning itself, it
Speaker 6: is doing going after other people that threaten its power.
Speaker 6: Just logically, you can understand how an algorithm would get
Speaker 6: from point A to point B, and that creates something
Speaker 6: that spirals out of human control very very quickly. And
Speaker 6: so I am concerned about things like teenagers using AI
Speaker 6: and getting you know, basically sexually assaulted by AI. I
Speaker 6: think that's a huge concern, But those are also the
Speaker 6: cases that people use to say, listen, you know, there
Speaker 6: are always dangers to teenagers. This is within our ability,
Speaker 6: it's within it should be within the scope of parental
Speaker 6: responsibility to safeguard this, et cetera, et cetera. This is
Speaker 6: so much bigger than that, just profound change in human existence,
Speaker 6: and so this is the potential here. This is actually
Speaker 6: some good news out of Washington. I think that you
Speaker 6: have a bipartisan coalition of people who are paying attention
Speaker 6: to this. I don't know where this bill is going
Speaker 6: to go, but it's important that we see here you
Speaker 6: have not just Democrats, not just Republicans talking about it
Speaker 6: and coming on shows like this and talking about it,
Speaker 6: but they actually have legislation on the table.
Speaker 4: And the idea of putting safeguards around This actually brings
Speaker 4: us to our next topic, which is the writer's strike
Speaker 4: and watching if we can put up a one here
Speaker 4: because you know, one of the key things. So they're
Speaker 4: walking they walked out on the job. I'm sorry, b one,
Speaker 4: they walked out on the job yesterday. So we're looking
Speaker 4: at a workstopage. We're going to be looking at a
Speaker 4: lot of reruns. A lot of people are going to
Speaker 4: have a lot of time to catch up on some
Speaker 4: streaming that they have been putting aside for a while.
Speaker 6: Forst strike in fifteen years and people might remember the
Speaker 6: last one that went for about one.
Speaker 5: Hundred days produce the reality TV industry.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, some people would argue that it really fueled
Speaker 6: the rise of reality TV. But this time around, with streaming,
Speaker 6: that's really what this is about. I mean, I think
Speaker 6: everybody understands that's what this is about. Although it's also
Speaker 6: a little bit about AI. This time around was streaming.
Speaker 6: There's such a backlog of content. It's less of a
Speaker 6: threat directly to the studios or to Hollywood, I should say,
Speaker 6: because right now it's at the end of the season.
Speaker 6: We're in May, and so if this goes into the summer,
Speaker 6: that's where it becomes a really big problem for the networks.
Speaker 6: But for streamers, they do have a lot of backloged content,
Speaker 6: So I think that has hurt the leverage a little bit.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And if we put up B two, which is
Speaker 4: this tweet from Adam Connover on behalf of the Union,
Speaker 4: and you can go check out you can go check
Speaker 4: this out if you want.
Speaker 5: To read it in more detail.
Speaker 4: He's at Adam Connover and what they do and this
Speaker 4: is I like this, Thank you, Thank you for the transparency.
Speaker 5: Writers.
Speaker 4: They put up what their proposals were, and they put
Speaker 4: up what the responses were from the bosses, if the
Speaker 4: boss has had any particular responses to this. And what
Speaker 4: you see in a lot of it is, like you said,
Speaker 4: anxiety about the way that they're moving from movie mindset
Speaker 4: to streaming mindset. And so what they're trying to do
Speaker 4: is say, look, if this is a twelve plus million
Speaker 4: dollar budget type of film that would have had some
Speaker 4: type of theatrical possibility or theatrical release in the previous era,
Speaker 4: we want theatrical basically pay for this. And they they
Speaker 4: come back, they say, well, if it's forty million, we'll
Speaker 4: give you this type of thing. So those do feel
Speaker 4: like the kinds of things that can be negotiated around,
Speaker 4: and do we have the st from Conover. Y. Yeah, this,
Speaker 4: let's let's play this. This is Conover on CNN.
Speaker 8: Say, look, times are changing. We are not making as
Speaker 8: much money as we once did. This is not the
Speaker 8: golden era of television. Although some of us would argue
Speaker 8: the shows are great, what do you say to them?
Speaker 9: So I'd point out the fact that David Zoslov, the
Speaker 9: CEO of Warner Brothers Discovery, which is, you know, the
Speaker 9: parent company of the network I'm talking to you on
Speaker 9: right now, was paid two hundred and fifty million dollars
Speaker 9: last year, a quarter of a billion dollars. That's about
Speaker 9: the same level what ten thousand writers are asking him
Speaker 9: to pay all of us collectively.
Speaker 5: All Right, So I would.
Speaker 9: Say, if you're being paid two hundred and fifty million dollars,
Speaker 9: Ted Sarandos made about fifty million last year. These companies
Speaker 9: are making enormous amounts of money, Their profits are going up.
Speaker 9: It's ridiculous for them to plead poverty when the writers
Speaker 9: who are making their shows, some of them are not
Speaker 9: able to pay their rent or their mortgages. I literally
Speaker 9: know writers who have had to go on assistance because
Speaker 9: they have not been able to.
Speaker 10: Make their year.
Speaker 9: If you look at these companies, they're making more money
Speaker 9: than ever. It's the people who make the shows for
Speaker 9: them that are making less.
Speaker 3: That was absolutely fantastic.
Speaker 6: It's like he's interrupting their programming with some harsh reality.
Speaker 6: But he also kind of retweeted, we proposed and negotiations
Speaker 6: that ai not be used to undermine our work.
Speaker 3: They rejected our proposal and offered a quote.
Speaker 6: Annual meeting to discuss advances in technology. Wow, a meeting,
Speaker 6: Thank you ever so much? An insulting counter just dripping
Speaker 6: with contempt. NBC reports The main quote sticking points according
Speaker 6: to entertainment companies include union proposals that would require companies
Speaker 6: to staff TV shows with a certain number of writers
Speaker 6: for specific period of time.
Speaker 3: Quote whether needed or not, this is a quote.
Speaker 6: I think we're getting to the point where it's going
Speaker 6: to be that the only people who can afford to
Speaker 6: try to start a career in television movies are going
Speaker 6: to be people who are independently wealthy already, which I
Speaker 6: don't think is good for television or movies. I don't
Speaker 6: think we want that. An expert quoted in the NBC
Speaker 6: news piece said that is an absolutely critical point, and
Speaker 6: one of the things that the writers are complaining about
Speaker 6: is they've essentially been pushed into a gig economy model,
Speaker 6: when in the past, before streaming, when you just had
Speaker 6: these broadcast networks who with much more control, much fewer programming,
Speaker 6: you could have like a really stable job, like the
Speaker 6: sort of normal type of job where you can feed
Speaker 6: your family, you have your expectations, you have everything is
Speaker 6: more stable and clear about what work looks like. And
Speaker 6: now it's like picking up stuff here for just a
Speaker 6: second and getting paid for it that way.
Speaker 3: Stuff here here here. It just makes it really hard
Speaker 3: to have to make a living.
Speaker 6: And I would argue one of the biggest problems with
Speaker 6: Hollywood right now, and it's the same.
Speaker 3: Thing with the news media.
Speaker 6: It's not just political bias, it's class bias that creates
Speaker 6: all of these other kind of biases, you know, whether
Speaker 6: it's representation, which I actually think is even I'm conservative,
Speaker 6: I think that's a very real thing. And it's not
Speaker 6: just about racial representation, sexual representation, but class representation. And
Speaker 6: this is going to make that so much worse if
Speaker 6: they don't find a way to come to a solution here.
Speaker 4: And because there is such kind of you know, there's
Speaker 4: such universal respect for not necessarily Hollywood elites, but for
Speaker 4: Hollywood itself and TV and movie production in the United
Speaker 4: States and around the world. What that has meant is
Speaker 4: that people from all walks of life have strive in
Speaker 4: America to kind of become part of that industry.
Speaker 5: And as a result, I think they.
Speaker 4: Actually in TV when it comes to TV movies, they've
Speaker 4: done a better job than I would say, like the
Speaker 4: national media that in portraying the you know, work working class,
Speaker 4: whether uh you know, black, white, brown types of you know,
Speaker 4: experiences across the country, whether it's Yellowstone or something else.
Speaker 4: You know, there there is a they they have maintained
Speaker 4: their connection, you know, with all of America because all
Speaker 4: of America wants to work in this field because it's
Speaker 4: the it's the thing that's like a lot of talented
Speaker 4: kids grow up wanting to do. And if you restrict
Speaker 4: it just to rich kids who can afford, you know,
Speaker 4: to take these gig these gig jobs, then you're then
Speaker 4: you're not going to be in touch anymore.
Speaker 6: It's one of the big things that ruined news media.
Speaker 6: I mean, it really absolutely is. It's if you look
Speaker 6: at the pipeline coming from all of the fancy schools
Speaker 6: and the people coming from those backgrounds. It created these
Speaker 6: huge class blind spots that have been I think central
Speaker 6: to the failures of media. And the last thing you
Speaker 6: want to do is then, uh create the entire culture.
Speaker 6: Get that problem in the entire culture.
Speaker 4: And it's been fun to see the kind of solidarity
Speaker 4: extend to big celebrities. So you had Jimmy callon the
Speaker 4: other day saying, you know that he's a he's a
Speaker 4: guild member that you know they're I think he said
Speaker 4: they're going to go dark a late night TV is right. So,
Speaker 4: and here's here's Colbert, Stephen Colbert his response to the walkout.
Speaker 1: These are our writers, these people, these are our writers.
Speaker 1: And I'll stick myself in there because I'm w G
Speaker 1: A two and they're so important to our show. They
Speaker 1: write the monologue, the meanwhile, the cold open, and without
Speaker 1: these people. Without these people, this show would be called
Speaker 1: the Late Show with the guy rambling about the Lord
Speaker 1: of the Rings.
Speaker 5: And boats for an hour. This negotiation impacts.
Speaker 1: Our whole staff, of course, who work so hard to
Speaker 1: bring you this show every night, which is why everybody,
Speaker 1: including myself, hopes both sides reach a deal. But I
Speaker 1: also think that the writer's demands are not unreasonable. I'm
Speaker 1: a member of the guild. I support collective bargaining. This
Speaker 1: nation owes so much to unions.
Speaker 5: Anyway.
Speaker 4: And then he does a TGI Friday's joke, which was
Speaker 4: actually kind of funny.
Speaker 3: Oh that was good.
Speaker 4: Yeah, guess you got to go find the clip if
Speaker 4: you want that. But the thing that the writers are
Speaker 4: so nervous about is that AI's quickly developing capacity is
Speaker 4: going to be deployed to throw them out of work.
Speaker 4: And I think when you think about Law and Order,
Speaker 4: you can imagine a TV executive being like, hey, chat GPT, Yeah, like,
Speaker 4: here's a new headline, here's a plot, write me a
Speaker 4: Law and Order somebody. I think Dave Anthony was posting
Speaker 4: on Twitter. He's like, we already have AI generated films.
Speaker 4: They're called Marvel, and so you know, there there is
Speaker 4: a risk that you could imagine the more formulaic that
Speaker 4: Hollywood becomes than the easier it would be for an
Speaker 4: ll M to produce that formula.
Speaker 6: Well, there's a great viral of all the local news
Speaker 6: reporters who wrote their scripts with chat GPT and like,
Speaker 6: read the read the packet or like did the news
Speaker 6: story and then at the end of it said that
Speaker 6: was written by chat GPT And so it's already obviously
Speaker 6: affecting the way people are writing for television. Obviously news
Speaker 6: is a little bit different, but you can see that's
Speaker 6: pretty pretty translatable.
Speaker 3: To anything else. So AI is a huge threat streaming.
Speaker 6: The streaming area era is one that would never really
Speaker 6: reckoned with in terms of pay structure.
Speaker 3: And so I think that's why at the heart.
Speaker 6: Of this, like, you know, it's all a reasonable conversation,
Speaker 6: and I do think they're going to come to an agreement.
Speaker 3: I don't know, you know, how tough it's going to be.
Speaker 6: I don't know how long it's going to be, because
Speaker 6: I do think some of their leverage has been hampered
Speaker 6: and their demands are reasonable. But it is just a
Speaker 6: great example of how like the David Zaslavs of the world,
Speaker 6: breaking in.
Speaker 3: Court of a billion dollars.
Speaker 6: Don't even want to like really come to the table
Speaker 6: in a serious way.
Speaker 5: And I think you can think he could live.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't want him to suffer, but do
Speaker 4: you think he could live on maybe five million dollars
Speaker 4: a year?
Speaker 3: I think he could maybe live.
Speaker 6: I don't know if you're going to agree with us
Speaker 6: on just two hundred million, two hundred million million.
Speaker 3: I don't want to be inhumane.
Speaker 4: You start doing the math on that, and it's hard
Speaker 4: to make ends made. Yeah, once you've got get.
Speaker 3: Rid of the plane.
Speaker 5: But that would be fifty million dollars to spread around
Speaker 5: the writers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there you go.
Speaker 5: So all right, that's that's place to start.
Speaker 6: Well, speaking of disasters in the United States of America,
Speaker 6: President Biden announced yesterday that he is sending fifteen hundred
Speaker 6: active duty troops to the border with Mexico in anticipation
Speaker 6: of the end of Title forty two.
Speaker 3: Ryan, what did you make of this announcement?
Speaker 4: Suggests to me that they're not prepared. We have known
Speaker 4: that Title forty two is going to be ending. We
Speaker 4: haven't known precisely when for two years, but we've known
Speaker 4: for two years that at some point it was going
Speaker 4: to end. We've known for a very long time, you know,
Speaker 4: with some precision that it was going to end. We
Speaker 4: known that the Gang Networks and the smugglers have been
Speaker 4: broadcasting to people across Central America and the Caribbean that
Speaker 4: Title forty two is going to be ending because it's
Speaker 4: good for their business, whether or not, whether or not
Speaker 4: it actually means that people are going to be getting
Speaker 4: over the border easier. They will use anything they possibly
Speaker 4: can to entice people to say, look now, now is
Speaker 4: your shot. They'll I wouldn't be surprised if they start
Speaker 4: circulating fake polls showing Trump like ten points ahead of Biden.
Speaker 4: I bet that's already happening, and WhatsApp groups around Central
Speaker 4: and South America saying, look, Trump's going to win, He's
Speaker 4: going to come back, He's going to do the child
Speaker 4: separation again. You know, if you want to, you know,
Speaker 4: if you want to get up there, you got Title
Speaker 4: forty two is ending.
Speaker 5: You got to come now.
Speaker 4: And the result then will be an effective kind of
Speaker 4: word of mouth campaigns that will get people sturgeon to
Speaker 4: the border. And so Biden's response sending fifteen hundred troops,
Speaker 4: which adds to some National Guard what five or so
Speaker 4: or twenty five parter National bar troops that are already there,
Speaker 4: sort of saying that they will be armed as active
Speaker 4: duty troops often are, they will not be participating in
Speaker 4: security operations. They'll be more handling logistics, helping to you know,
Speaker 4: everything from moving equipment I think, to building building the
Speaker 4: shelters and other things necessary for you know, in influx
Speaker 4: of migrants that that's expected.
Speaker 5: Yes, what was your take, Well.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so they're gonna it's a it's a ninety day
Speaker 6: deployment as of right now, and of course that can change.
Speaker 6: But the big question is May eleventh, eleven fifty nine
Speaker 6: PM is when all of this is about to expire,
Speaker 6: how dramatically, how dramatically almost war zone esk is the
Speaker 6: border going to become? And then what does the Biden
Speaker 6: administration do because right now it's kind of been doing
Speaker 6: a math using using like this this weird mathematical magic
Speaker 6: trick to make it look like going down in a
Speaker 6: way that kind of placates both the left and the
Speaker 6: right by changing how they count encounters, how they count
Speaker 6: illegal crossings. They use the CBP one app and say,
Speaker 6: you know, if you didn't schedule an Apple appointment and.
Speaker 3: You cross the border, you're out of here. You're going back.
Speaker 6: But we've also seen people get humanitarian parole even if
Speaker 6: they don't do that. So it's a lot of discretion
Speaker 6: at different parts of the border of the people that
Speaker 6: are managing things there, which is created just like this
Speaker 6: complete messy patchwork that allows cartels to fuel this huge
Speaker 6: influx with disinformation, because when people get in, people who
Speaker 6: are desperate say it's worth it for me. I'd rather
Speaker 6: camp out in Renosa, Mexico on the street then be
Speaker 6: here in Nicaragua, because at least there I have a chance,
Speaker 6: and it's an increasingly high chance, as the cartels will
Speaker 6: tell them of at some point getting across the border.
Speaker 6: I might have to wait six months, but that's better
Speaker 6: than just being in Nicaragua without anyway.
Speaker 3: To get across the border.
Speaker 6: And so I think the way the Biden administration handles
Speaker 6: not just that eleven to fifty nine pm on May eleventh,
Speaker 6: but the surge of people that come up through Central America,
Speaker 6: through the Darien Gap and through these very dangerous places.
Speaker 6: That's already happening, and it will already hurt people for
Speaker 6: generations to come. There are children that are permanently scarred
Speaker 6: by this, that are on their way up to the
Speaker 6: border right now because they know Title forty two is ending,
Speaker 6: because their parents know Title forty two is ending. Here
Speaker 6: before a cartel, because of cartel that is preying on them,
Speaker 6: knows it's ending there are people right now who are
Speaker 6: being raped on their way up to the American border,
Speaker 6: that are being kidnapped on their way up to the
Speaker 6: American border because of all of this, and so it's
Speaker 6: the troops. I think actually it's a step in the
Speaker 6: right direction and maybe we can play The White House
Speaker 6: sought here of how Curne Jean Pierre handled that.
Speaker 5: This is Steve Deucey with KJP.
Speaker 4: You said yesterday that when it comes to a legal migration.
Speaker 5: You've seen it come down by more than ninety percent.
Speaker 5: Where did that number come from?
Speaker 11: It was I was speaking, It was telling us the
Speaker 11: number is I hear you, I'm about to answer. I'm
Speaker 11: about I'm about to answer you for years. So if
Speaker 11: you if the dramatics could come down just a little bit,
Speaker 11: if the dramatics had come down.
Speaker 9: A little bit dramatic about asking a question about.
Speaker 11: Okay, I'm going to answer. So I was speaking to
Speaker 11: the Paroli program. As you know, the President put in
Speaker 11: place a parole program to deal with to deal with
Speaker 11: certain countries on ways that we can limit illegal migration.
Speaker 11: And we have seen the data has shown us that
Speaker 11: it has gone down by more than ninety percent. That
Speaker 11: was what I was speaking to. Now, we're gonna go.
Speaker 11: We're gonna move. Go ahead, go ahead, We're moving, Peter.
Speaker 5: Let's go.
Speaker 6: Three. It's a real problem for the Biden administration not
Speaker 6: wanting to call the border crisis a crisis.
Speaker 3: Well at the same time deploying fifteen hundred active duty troops.
Speaker 4: It's like that the meme with the little the dog
Speaker 4: drinking the coffee that this.
Speaker 5: Is fine, the flames behind.
Speaker 3: It, everything is fine.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and then he then the.
Speaker 4: Dog doesn't want to go for the fire extinguish her
Speaker 4: because then he'll be called out. You said everything was fine,
Speaker 4: Why do you need the fire? SINGI sure what this
Speaker 4: is your house on fire? But you're like, oh, actually
Speaker 4: kind of the house, it kind of is on fire.
Speaker 12: Uh.
Speaker 4: And if you think that it's only criticism from the right, here,
Speaker 4: if we put up C three here, this is the
Speaker 4: former DPC or n SC deputy and who was in
Speaker 4: charge of the border for the Biden minister and saying
Speaker 4: that this shows a that they just simply weren't prepared.
Speaker 4: And now this could be her kind of expressing some.
Speaker 5: Internal kind of.
Speaker 4: Office politics and like digging at her former colleagues that
Speaker 4: she's upset about for things we don't understand could also
Speaker 4: just be correct because it also does it scans, it
Speaker 4: does scream we're not ready, and it also she goes
Speaker 4: to Susan Rice's extraordinarily ability as a politician, because Susan Rice,
Speaker 4: as DPC director, oversaw this calamitous UH immigration policy for
Speaker 4: two years and she just up and.
Speaker 5: Leaves right before titel forty two.
Speaker 4: She managed to keep her name mostly out of the
Speaker 4: news when it was connected to Biden's immigration policy, Biden's
Speaker 4: border policy, even though she was instrumental in setting it
Speaker 4: and I think setting it in a poor direction, and
Speaker 4: as it's really going to start making news, she's like.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, I think I'm good in my checking. Yeah,
Speaker 5: I'm out of here.
Speaker 6: Good luck everybody, right, And there's no serious movement on
Speaker 6: action from Congress, legislation that could be assigned by the president,
Speaker 6: legislation that could be passed, it all, and we're doing
Speaker 6: all of this through essentially administrative channels, which is why
Speaker 6: it's a Patrick at the border because there's no clarity
Speaker 6: from Congress, there's no clarity from the law, so you
Speaker 6: can just sort of change it here, change it there,
Speaker 6: send migrants in this way that way, and it's just
Speaker 6: really dangerous for everybody, and I think a real tragedy
Speaker 6: and real like a shame on us and our leadership.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we'll be following it as it unfolds.
Speaker 13: Now.
Speaker 6: It was announced yesterday that Chuck Schumer said he'll make
Speaker 6: a decision after the May ninth meeting on whether to
Speaker 6: bring a two year clean debt limit bill to the
Speaker 6: floor of the Senate for a vote. This is big
Speaker 6: news as Republicans and Democrats in Washington race to figure
Speaker 6: out a solution, or maybe not, maybe they're just racing
Speaker 6: with their individual teams to figure out what their team's
Speaker 6: position is going to be as opposed to what a
Speaker 6: solution between both of those teams would be. As the
Speaker 6: debt ceiling gets closer and closer and closer to becoming
Speaker 6: an incredibly serious problem for the United States, Obviously, Republicans
Speaker 6: passed that I would say like a remarkable compromised legislation
Speaker 6: last week, just purely from a political strategy standpoint, and
Speaker 6: they're able to get their House coalition on board with
Speaker 6: that legislation.
Speaker 3: Ryan, yesterday we learned about the discharge petition.
Speaker 6: Tell us about this because you were reporting on this
Speaker 6: back in January, and.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if you want to put up the second element here,
Speaker 4: this is so from the Washing Post New York Times, I.
Speaker 5: Think might have might have scooped this.
Speaker 4: They say, you know, House Democrats maneuver to force a
Speaker 4: debt ceiling vote as default looms and right, So this
Speaker 4: is what's known as a discharge petition, which is a
Speaker 4: rule that Republicans left in the House rules which says
Speaker 4: that if you gather two hundred and eighteen signatures on
Speaker 4: any type of legislation, then you can pull it to
Speaker 4: the House floor no matter what the speaker says about it. Now,
Speaker 4: there are a whole bunch of rules around this, and
Speaker 4: the fun part is, like they keep pointed out early January,
Speaker 4: after the after the rules package was agreed to, I
Speaker 4: reported this, if you put up the third third element
Speaker 4: that the Republicans had left us in and that it
Speaker 4: did produce an opportunity for Democrats to do something about it.
Speaker 4: If you want to put up the fourth element, what's
Speaker 4: what The point I made at the time was that
Speaker 4: they had to move very quickly that because of all
Speaker 4: of the arcane rules around a discharge petition, it has
Speaker 4: to be introduced for thirty days, that has to be
Speaker 4: referred to a committee. It's got to sit before the
Speaker 4: committee for a number of days. And then if you
Speaker 4: look at the crazy part about a Monday, like it
Speaker 4: can only appear on a certain Monday after a certain
Speaker 4: amount of time, they had to move fast. I thought
Speaker 4: that they had given up on this that just like
Speaker 4: most of my hair brained ideas, like people are like, ah,
Speaker 4: that's kind of cute.
Speaker 6: I guess we could do that, like grim is on
Speaker 6: another one on one again.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we're not. We're not going to do that night
Speaker 5: nice try.
Speaker 4: But it turns out three weeks after I published this,
Speaker 4: they had a backbench member of Congress who filed a
Speaker 4: basically a shell bill that was called kind of the
Speaker 4: Break the Break the Gridlock Act, and it was filed
Speaker 4: as a rule, which actually makes it so that it's
Speaker 4: easier to get it to the floor. A bill requires
Speaker 4: a rule out a bill rule is just just one
Speaker 4: rule goes right to the floor out of the rules
Speaker 4: committee once it gets discharged from there. And what that
Speaker 4: did is it allowed it to get referred to committee
Speaker 4: and it got the clock ticking without saying, hey, this
Speaker 4: is a discharge petition, and this is our backup plan
Speaker 4: in order to force Republicans. And so now because they
Speaker 4: have because they got it in in January, it looks
Speaker 4: like June.
Speaker 5: Sometime in June, they could.
Speaker 4: Actually get it to the They could get it to
Speaker 4: the floor. And now McCarthy has at least two mechanisms
Speaker 4: that he can use to prevent it from getting to
Speaker 4: the floor, even if they get two hundred and eighteen,
Speaker 4: which require like four Republicans or something like that. The
Speaker 4: two mechanisms are arcane. One of them is, it's so
Speaker 4: funny Congress can define what a day is. Oh god,
Speaker 4: we think that a day is twenty four hours. No
Speaker 4: Congress does what it wants, and so if it doesn't
Speaker 4: kind of gavel out of session a legislative day. There
Speaker 4: have been legislative days that have lasted like forty five
Speaker 4: days or something.
Speaker 5: It's hilarious.
Speaker 4: And so you say, hey, well seven legislative days haven't
Speaker 4: past book seven days past. The second thing you could
Speaker 4: do is on the Monday that it's ripe and is
Speaker 4: required to be voted on, he could just simply keep Congress,
Speaker 4: keep the House out of session. Yeah, the House is
Speaker 4: in session, can't be brought up and it's like, ha,
Speaker 4: the discharge petition writers didn't think of that. But what
Speaker 4: that does is it makes McCarthy the actor. He's now
Speaker 4: blocking a solution to the crisis. The reason that he
Speaker 4: wanted the two hundred and eighteen votes or he got
Speaker 4: two seventeen, somebody didn't show up, but it passed. The
Speaker 4: reason he wanted the House to pass pass a debt
Speaker 4: ceiling bill is so that he could say, look, we've
Speaker 4: done our part. It's Biden who's going to default on
Speaker 4: the debt. Because all he would have to do move
Speaker 4: this through the Senate, sign it in the law, and
Speaker 4: there's no crisis.
Speaker 5: He won't do that.
Speaker 4: What the discharge petition does it puts a shoe on
Speaker 4: the other foot. Yeah, it says, we look, we have
Speaker 4: the votes. It's McCarthy who's doing this arcane stuff blocking
Speaker 4: it from coming to the floor. What's what's your sense
Speaker 4: of how serious this is?
Speaker 6: Obstructionism absolutely never works out for Republicans, and I think
Speaker 6: they know that because there's no way, especially in this climate,
Speaker 6: that the sort of cultural arbiters, whether let's say hypothetically
Speaker 6: Republicans have a really good argument for obstruction here. I
Speaker 6: don't know what their final bill is going to look like.
Speaker 6: I think they have some pretty reasonable spending cuts on
Speaker 6: the table. But let's just hypothetically say, yes, they have
Speaker 6: a good case for obstructing this process. Even so, the
Speaker 6: media is so contemptuous of Republican strategy period and Republicans period,
Speaker 6: they don't have a good relationship. It's very adversaril serial
Speaker 6: right now. The public never likes obstruction period. If you
Speaker 6: go talk to average voters, like why is Washington not working?
Speaker 3: Why are they not getting anything done?
Speaker 6: And so even if Republicans have like some sort of
Speaker 6: complicated answer to that question as to why obstructionism has
Speaker 6: to happen here, As you may remember, you know Ted
Speaker 6: Kruz his filibuster in the Obamacare days and the Tea
Speaker 6: Party days, there's a lot of talk of just obstructing government.
Speaker 6: It never worked in the media, it never works with
Speaker 6: the public. They want politicians to actually figure out solutions.
Speaker 6: And even if you have a good case to make,
Speaker 6: it doesn't fly. And so Democrats know that. Democrats have
Speaker 6: known that longer than Republicans have known that. And so
Speaker 6: that's why you know, it's smart to put the shoe
Speaker 6: on the other foot in whatever way you can, because
Speaker 6: it's putting Republicans on their back, on their heels no
Speaker 6: matter what, and that works for Democrats no matter what,
Speaker 6: which creates leverage for them. And that's why Joe Biden
Speaker 6: has said, I am not negotiating on spending cuts. We're
Speaker 6: not tying, we're not making it conditional, We're not raising
Speaker 6: the debt ceiling conditional on Republicans getting this like wish
Speaker 6: list of spending cuts, because he knows, and Janet Yellen
Speaker 6: has warned, actually, I think this is in a letter
Speaker 6: on Monday afternoon, that that default on debt could happen as.
Speaker 3: Really as June one.
Speaker 6: To terrify you just a little bit here, the House
Speaker 6: and Senate are in session for a little more than
Speaker 6: ten days for the rest of this month. We're in
Speaker 6: May now legislative dates. So that's like Joe Biden knows
Speaker 6: he can get away with not coming to the table
Speaker 6: on this. So I mean, maybe Republicans can squeeze some
Speaker 6: tiny concessions out of him, but Democrats have ever reasoned
Speaker 6: strategically not to budge because it always backfires on Republicans.
Speaker 4: And so then the question for you is can Democrats
Speaker 4: find for Republicans to go along with four or five
Speaker 4: Republicans and what would it take to get there, Like
Speaker 4: obviously right now no Republicans are interested.
Speaker 5: What would it take, What would the stock.
Speaker 4: Market have to do, What would the kind of media
Speaker 4: have to do to browbeat four or five moderates into
Speaker 4: signing a discharge petition?
Speaker 6: It depends on Yeah, they can easily get four to
Speaker 6: five moderates, but it depends on I think whether they
Speaker 6: come from the moderate wing or the Freedom Caucus wing.
Speaker 3: You know, they can pull four to five Republicans.
Speaker 6: I'm just curious as to whether they end up being
Speaker 6: from like the Tuesday Group or from the Freedom.
Speaker 5: Caucus come along. That's an interesting idea.
Speaker 6: If they get upset about how McCarthy is handling these
Speaker 6: negotiations with Biden in the same way that the Twoesday
Speaker 6: Group people could be like, for, screw this with this,
Speaker 6: so they can just throw a wrench into everything. And you know,
Speaker 6: he's been good with managing them so far, Like again
Speaker 6: from a purely strategic standpoint, he's been remarkably good at
Speaker 6: managing them so far. But you know, if that goes poorly,
Speaker 6: because Joe Biden knows that he's got most of the
Speaker 6: leverage here, and McCarthy starts, you know, sneaking towards some
Speaker 6: type of compromise or giving Biden his way, which I
Speaker 6: think he may ultimately have to do. Then maybe they
Speaker 6: just say screwt with throwing a wrench with this?
Speaker 4: Could could McCarthy get to a place where he allows
Speaker 4: it to happen? In other words, he could keep them
Speaker 4: out on that Monday markets are tanking. He's gotten nowhere
Speaker 4: with you know, he can't get his caucus to agree
Speaker 4: with the Senate Republicans and with Biden. He's like there's
Speaker 4: no path forward. He's got rumblings from a couple of
Speaker 4: moderates that they that they want to just move on.
Speaker 4: Maybe they get, like you said, some concession about a
Speaker 4: continuing resolution from Biden. And McCarthy says, you know what, fine,
Speaker 4: I'm gabbling it in.
Speaker 5: I'm not putting this on the floor. I didn't do this.
Speaker 4: Y'all did this, And he just kind of takes the
Speaker 4: l and then survives as speaker because he didn't do it.
Speaker 5: Is that is that a possibility or does he have
Speaker 5: to go down?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 6: I think it's all possibility because it's all part of it,
Speaker 6: and we saw this with the speaker the speaker race.
Speaker 6: It's all part of these negotiations. So Kevin McCarthy being like, yeah, okay,
Speaker 6: go ahead do it, but I'm going to do this
Speaker 6: is I could.
Speaker 3: See that becoming part of the.
Speaker 6: Negotiations, just as they're from a purely like public relations standpoint,
Speaker 6: as they get closer to knowing what's going to happen,
Speaker 6: how the public's going to receive it, anything is possible.
Speaker 4: How brutal is it for Republicans who so in that petition,
Speaker 4: do they assume they're presumably these are going to be
Speaker 4: Republicans ruined districts that Biden won. Do they get kind
Speaker 4: of nihilistic right wing challengers who are like, we'd rather
Speaker 4: not have the seat at all if we're going to
Speaker 4: have a rhino like you Yeah, And would the primary
Speaker 4: voters stick with them or are they like, you know what,
Speaker 4: we like Nancy Mason, We're glad that she saved the economy.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, it's a district to district type of thing.
Speaker 6: But I don't I think, if anything, those sentiments have
Speaker 6: only ratcheted up since the Tea Party years. So there
Speaker 6: was a huge appetite for obstructionism among the Republican base,
Speaker 6: not the general electorate, but the Republican base. And that's
Speaker 6: one of the things that's very difficult, and during the
Speaker 6: Tea Party years, was very difficult for like a Ted
Speaker 6: Cruz who wanted to mount a presidential bid in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 6: So that this is exactly what the Republican base wants.
Speaker 6: That has not gone anywhere since twenty fourteen, twenty sixteen
Speaker 6: to twenty twenty three, but it is less palatable probably
Speaker 6: the general public than ever before, even though it's more
Speaker 6: in demand among the sort of Republican or conservative movement
Speaker 6: activist class because and again, like listen, I think there's
Speaker 6: some good reasons for wanting to have a conditional debt
Speaker 6: ceiling increase, obviously, but you don't have the White House,
Speaker 6: you don't know the Senate. There's it's you know, it is.
Speaker 4: One of those because McCarthy knows that the other way
Speaker 4: that two hundred and eighteen members of Congress could get
Speaker 4: this through is through a motion to vacate. So a
Speaker 4: Republican do a motion to vacate the chair. Five minutes later,
Speaker 4: they elect Nancy Mace or somebody Speaker of the House
Speaker 4: Nancy Mace gavels through a clean debt ceiling increase, and
Speaker 4: then they do another motion to vacate, and then they
Speaker 4: have another speaker fight because Nancy may Is obviously isn't
Speaker 4: going to become Speaker for life. It would then be
Speaker 4: another Republican, whether it's Jordan or McCarthy, wins it back
Speaker 4: or something like that. So I think for McCarthy, if
Speaker 4: there are two hundred and eighteen people who want this
Speaker 4: to get done, it's better for him to kind of
Speaker 4: play dead on the discharge petition than to them to
Speaker 4: vacate the chair and plow through them.
Speaker 6: And in other news, it's just great to see those
Speaker 6: Justice Democrats rereading the intercept.
Speaker 4: There you go, Keem Jeffries will intercept reader. So Elizabeth
Speaker 4: Warren is out with a new report yesterday and put
Speaker 4: up this first element here called big Tech's big con
Speaker 4: rigging digital trade rules to block antitrust regulation. I want
Speaker 4: to highlight this because it relies on emails that were
Speaker 4: foided by the Group Demand Progress between the head of
Speaker 4: the USTR and the Deputy head of the USTR, Catherine
Speaker 4: Tye and Sarah Bianchi, and big tech lobbyists Amazon, Google,
Speaker 4: some of the heaviest hitters, which show a level of
Speaker 4: coordination that that they have access to that the public doesn't.
Speaker 4: I don't want to be clear about what what the
Speaker 4: emails say and what they don't say. We don't we
Speaker 4: don't have any smoking guns about them directly kind of
Speaker 4: getting particular things in, because all of the emails just say,
Speaker 4: good talking with you, here's the call, here's the call in.
Speaker 5: I want to give you a briefing on what we.
Speaker 4: Just heard from the South Koreans, or hey, when can
Speaker 4: you talk about this? So it shows that they're in
Speaker 4: regular conversations with these with these big tech lobbyists, particularly
Speaker 4: as they're working out what is the kind of the
Speaker 4: new TPP what do they call it, the Indo Pacific
Speaker 4: Trade Agreement or whatever whatever it is. It's like a
Speaker 4: fifth it's bigger than the TP. It's like a fifth
Speaker 4: thirteen or fifteen country agreement trying to set set rules
Speaker 4: on trade. And it's just it's disturbing to see how
Speaker 4: much influence big tech continues to have they seem to
Speaker 4: have based on these emails, much more influence on number two.
Speaker 4: Sarah Bianki, who herself, as we talked about last week,
Speaker 4: was a was the top lobbyist for Airbnb. Yes, so
Speaker 4: she was a gig company lobbyist, but also some connections
Speaker 4: to Catherine Tie, who was celebrated at by progressives and
Speaker 4: populists across the board who had worked with her on
Speaker 4: the Hill. She was a hillstaffer as somebody who was
Speaker 4: going to stand up to big tech and had a
Speaker 4: history of standing up to big tech as a House
Speaker 4: staffer and so. And it's also interesting that Warren would
Speaker 4: put this report out because Captain Tie is not exactly
Speaker 4: of a tight inner circle member of the kind of
Speaker 4: Warren mafia, but she's somebody that people in that world
Speaker 4: are generally sympathetic to, and so to see her willing
Speaker 4: to come out with this report is kind of like
Speaker 4: a brushback pitch.
Speaker 5: I feel like like we're watching.
Speaker 4: As this, as this unfolds, don't think that you're going
Speaker 4: to be able to just kind of smoothly kind of
Speaker 4: get back into the place that you were in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, these are really interesting kind of glimpses
Speaker 6: into how the democratic process has been totally hijacked by
Speaker 6: special interests that aren't accountable to voters. They aren't even
Speaker 6: accountable to consumers anymore. Because some of these companies are
Speaker 6: so big what they're doing is not in the best
Speaker 6: interest of their consumers.
Speaker 3: But the consumers have.
Speaker 6: No market power to make that known. But what are
Speaker 6: you just going to stop using Google?
Speaker 3: Good luck?
Speaker 6: Good luck just boycotting Google. I wish you the best
Speaker 6: in your effort. And so when you have power like that,
Speaker 6: so much more power than your consumers, you're not accountable
Speaker 6: to a customer base because you have this massive multinational scope,
Speaker 6: then you can do stuff like this, and our democratic
Speaker 6: process in Washington, d C.
Speaker 3: Has allowed that to be exacerbated.
Speaker 4: And if Biyankey were meeting with members of the antitrust community,
Speaker 4: members of the public consumer groups also, then it's like, okay,
Speaker 4: you know what, if you want to meet with everybody
Speaker 4: and be transparent about it, okay, Rather you're not making
Speaker 4: having calls with Amazon and Google on this. But if
Speaker 4: you're having calls with everybody on this and you know,
Speaker 4: and treating it with some level of then okay, then
Speaker 4: I can see it. But that that doesn't.
Speaker 5: Appear to be what's happening based on this report.
Speaker 6: There's not a lot of money in antitrust lobbying. There's
Speaker 6: not a lot of money in taking on only fund
Speaker 6: Yeah no, I mean it's yeah, yeah, right right right,
Speaker 6: So yeah, and you're not going to have as much
Speaker 6: power the average consumer who might who might benefit from.
Speaker 3: Those lobbying efforts.
Speaker 6: They're never going to have parody in terms of in
Speaker 6: terms of lobbying because good luck, I can have that money.
Speaker 4: And for people who don't follow as clothes, I'm not kidding, Like, yeah,
Speaker 4: Yelp is one of the kind of leaders in this
Speaker 4: space because big tech has been trying to destroy them
Speaker 4: since they started, like they're the It's actually a miracle
Speaker 4: that Yelp still exists because every company like Yelp that
Speaker 4: that was birthed in that time period was either crushed
Speaker 4: by the Google and the other ones or absorbed and
Speaker 4: bought up. They have managed to stay both independent and relevant,
Speaker 4: which and so as a result, they've they've become in Washington.
Speaker 6: So clearly nothing needs to change help serve the market
Speaker 6: is working.
Speaker 13: I know.
Speaker 4: That's that's the funny thing that you'll have the Big
Speaker 4: four be like, look, we didn't crush this one yet.
Speaker 5: You don't just leave us alone.
Speaker 10: They're doing great.
Speaker 4: So moving on to the Tucker Files, the Tucker leaks,
Speaker 4: the Tucker leaks. Let's go with the Tucker leaks, the
Speaker 4: leak attack. The New York Times published a text from
Speaker 4: Tucker Carlson last night in an article that to me
Speaker 4: had multiple different elements. We could put up this this
Speaker 4: first one here and why don't we here do we have?
Speaker 5: Let me? Why don't we read it?
Speaker 6: Here's yeah, so I have something from the New York
Speaker 6: Times right here, they say. In the days, I'm sorry,
Speaker 6: this is from media and the days after Carlson was
Speaker 6: fired from Fox, multiple reports claimed his ouster was in
Speaker 6: part fueled by network leadership learning, as The New York
Speaker 6: Times put it, of quote highly offensive and crude remarks
Speaker 6: Carlson made. The Times reported that they reviewed some off
Speaker 6: fair footage of Carlson talking about whether his quote postmenopausal
Speaker 6: fans will approve of his looks, as well as another
Speaker 6: video where he commented that someone else's girlfriend was quote yummy.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 6: Media Matters got those videos and published them yesterday. On
Speaker 6: the heels of Media Matters publishing that video which I
Speaker 6: swear like it looked to me like such a deep fake,
Speaker 6: but apparently it's not. Of Tucker Carlson laying in the
Speaker 6: Fox Nation and saying that they need to improve the product,
Speaker 6: et cetera, et cetera. So why don't we just take
Speaker 6: a look at the at the sad E two here
Speaker 6: so you can see the video yourself.
Speaker 13: Not you know what, I'm not qualified on that score.
Speaker 13: I will say I thought his girlfriend was kind of yummy.
Speaker 13: Just kidding, just kitting cases is being pulled off the bird.
Speaker 5: Yeah, the bird.
Speaker 13: Hey, Media Matters for America, go fuck yourself. That's the
Speaker 13: first thing I want to say tonight. Second thing is
Speaker 13: totally kidding. I don't even know what his girlfriend looks like,
Speaker 13: and if I did, I would not find her yummy.
Speaker 6: Okay, So that's definitely only why the video got leaked
Speaker 6: to Media Matters, specifically because he like literally flips the
Speaker 6: middle finger to Media Matters. You're left with no choice
Speaker 6: at that point. And that's another element of this entire
Speaker 6: stories that it looks like Fox is leaking video and
Speaker 6: it could actually be what gets Tucker out of his
Speaker 6: contract with Fox. He still has two years left on
Speaker 6: his contract. If they're leaking, and that can be proved,
Speaker 6: it's sort of probably you're able to talk about that
Speaker 6: as a breach of contract.
Speaker 3: What did you make in the videos?
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 4: I thought that the text was more more interesting, and
Speaker 4: I wanted to get your your take on that as well.
Speaker 4: If you put up put up E three uh, and
Speaker 4: we'll just read it so we have the full context.
Speaker 4: I actually didn't like the way that the New York
Speaker 4: Times kind of broke the text into two separate stories,
Speaker 4: two separate sections.
Speaker 3: And this came like last night. This was a huge story.
Speaker 6: As we're prepping the still the show last night, this
Speaker 6: released text from from Tucker.
Speaker 5: Right right exactly, and so I'll just read it.
Speaker 4: So Tucker Tucker writes, a couple of weeks ago, I
Speaker 4: was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington.
Speaker 4: So this is January seventh, twenty twenty one. So he's
Speaker 4: referring to videos that were going around in December, which
Speaker 4: might people might remember, like it was like prow boys
Speaker 4: and their affiliates fighting with antifi on the streets. He writes,
Speaker 4: A group of Trump guys surrounded in an antifuck kid
Speaker 4: and started pounding the living crap out of him. It
Speaker 4: was three against one at least. Jumping a guy like
Speaker 4: that is dishonorable. Obviously, it's not how white men fight
Speaker 4: and I want to come back to that line. Yet
Speaker 4: suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man,
Speaker 4: hoping they'd hit him harder kill him. I really wanted
Speaker 4: them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then
Speaker 4: somewhere in my brain an alarm went off. This isn't
Speaker 4: good for me. I'm becoming something I don't want to be.
Speaker 4: The antifuck creep is a human being. Much as I
Speaker 4: despise what he says and does, much as I'm sure
Speaker 4: i'd hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn't
Speaker 4: gloat over his suffering.
Speaker 5: I should be bothered by it.
Speaker 4: I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid
Speaker 4: and would crushed if he was killed. If I don't
Speaker 4: care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics,
Speaker 4: how am I better than he is?
Speaker 5: And so I've seen a.
Speaker 4: Lot of people hitting him for kind of his glorification
Speaker 4: and celebration of the violence at the top of that.
Speaker 4: But to me, there's some interesting parallels here with the
Speaker 4: Shirley Sharad case.
Speaker 5: If you remember this, Oh.
Speaker 4: This was Brightbart's kind of face plant back in twenty
Speaker 4: eleven or so, where he got video of Shirley Sharad,
Speaker 4: who was a Department of Agriculture employee who gave this
Speaker 4: speech about how very early in his career, in her
Speaker 4: career in Georgia, a white farmer came to her with
Speaker 4: some type of a need and she did not give
Speaker 4: him the kind of service that he deserved due to
Speaker 4: racial bias against him. And she said that she sat
Speaker 4: with that, she thought about it, she realized how wrong
Speaker 4: it was, and it kind of changed her entire outlook,
Speaker 4: and she decided and she realized that we're all people.
Speaker 5: Everybody.
Speaker 4: Everybody needs as much, you know, everybody needs help, that
Speaker 4: we all struggle. She talks about how she and him
Speaker 4: became good friends over time, and how this story led
Speaker 4: to her finding a more graceful relationship with race than
Speaker 4: she had had very early on. And I think that
Speaker 4: it's a good thing for people to be honest about
Speaker 4: their feelings and their and their struggle. And I think
Speaker 4: that liberals who are jumping on this part of it now,
Speaker 4: the white people thing, I think is a completely separate
Speaker 4: thing that we should talk about. But liberals who are
Speaker 4: jumping on this should remember that they too have thought
Speaker 4: of their political opponents in deeply callous terms, Like if
Speaker 4: you think about during the pandemic, all of the joking
Speaker 4: about unvaccinated people who died, like those are people who
Speaker 4: similarly had loved ones who were crushed by their loss.
Speaker 4: And so you know, if you were one of those
Speaker 4: people who was doing that and you came back from
Speaker 4: the brink, if you were alarmed by the feelings that
Speaker 4: you were having and it made you rethink the way
Speaker 4: that you were just as he says, you know, defining
Speaker 4: people just by their politics, and you reflected on that
Speaker 4: and changed. And I think that that is a story
Speaker 4: that people should be willing to tell. Now I haven't.
Speaker 4: I didn't see evidence that his reflections manifested themselves or
Speaker 4: expressed themselves in any way on his show.
Speaker 5: Like I would have loved it if he would.
Speaker 4: Have gone on air and expressed some of these human
Speaker 4: sympathies toward migrants or toward you know, the even toward.
Speaker 5: The Oberlin Grads that he's always dunking on there.
Speaker 4: We're all humans on this planet struggling to make our
Speaker 4: way in it. And this realization that he expresses in
Speaker 4: this private text didn't to me seem to make it
Speaker 4: onto air.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's interesting.
Speaker 6: I think if you had him here in front of you,
Speaker 6: he would probably agree that he could have done a
Speaker 6: lot more of that, because you know, this is a
Speaker 6: leaked message from his opponents to make him look bad.
Speaker 6: It's not him trying to make himself look good or
Speaker 6: anything that was supposed to be public. So that obviously
Speaker 6: gets to the sincerity of what he's saying, the white
Speaker 6: men fight line, that's not how white men fight. The
Speaker 6: context of as you were saying, Ryan, the glorification that
Speaker 6: people read into the top of the text message of violence, well,
Speaker 6: in the context, what he's doing very clearly is disparaging
Speaker 6: his own wrong mindedness. You know, he's sort of like
Speaker 6: mocking his own thought process and like he's giving me
Speaker 6: a caricature of.
Speaker 3: His own thought process.
Speaker 6: And that's why I think, you know, the social media
Speaker 6: climate makes it so difficult. And people said the same
Speaker 6: thing about cable news before. I mean, cable news is
Speaker 6: still fairly news. Creation of the eighties mostly makes it
Speaker 6: very difficult for us to have honest versions of these
Speaker 6: conversations because how many tens of thousands of people, if
Speaker 6: not millions of people, saw the that's not how white
Speaker 6: men fight line and didn't you know, do what we
Speaker 6: have to do because it's our job, and you know,
Speaker 6: spend five minutes thinking about this whole story and read
Speaker 6: the whole context. It just it makes it impossible to
Speaker 6: have that conversation when you know, some section of the
Speaker 6: public just you know, not through any fault of their
Speaker 6: own busy lives, and they care about these issues, so
Speaker 6: they bother to read about them. But you know, if
Speaker 6: we were not all on the same page with information,
Speaker 6: because social media is putting us on dramatically different pages
Speaker 6: based on where its incentives are. And I think maybe
Speaker 6: if Tucker we're here, I think maybe he would agree
Speaker 6: that cable news is just like a really bad format
Speaker 6: for him to have a conversation like that on. So
Speaker 6: I think it's interesting that this is something that was
Speaker 6: never meant to be public, was leaked by his enemies,
Speaker 6: and again, like his rant about Foxnation just not being
Speaker 6: a product that's up to what the audience deserves, and
Speaker 6: he's putting all this work into it, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 6: I continue to think these leaks are just like bizarrely
Speaker 6: flattering a Tucker because it just makes him look more
Speaker 6: sort of thoughtful. Then then I think often comes across
Speaker 6: for anyone on cable Now.
Speaker 4: If right now, So, if this is some type of
Speaker 4: a caricature, implicit caricature of a racist and racialized view
Speaker 4: of how white men fight, how black men fight out,
Speaker 4: brown men fight, or just where.
Speaker 6: A white man's head goes when he's thinking about this,
Speaker 6: like the Lees, I.
Speaker 5: Have to I'm skeptical of that. It may. I mean,
Speaker 5: maybe it is. To me.
Speaker 4: It struck me as racist in the sense that it's
Speaker 4: it's that there that there's something different about the honor
Speaker 4: of white men and how they fight versus other races,
Speaker 4: and that it just isn't true, like as somebody who
Speaker 4: grew up in a rural area with lots of white people,
Speaker 4: like white men are just as likely to jump to
Speaker 4: somebody and probably jump a white guys as anybody else.
Speaker 4: And so the idea that he could have just said,
Speaker 4: it's not how honorable people fight. So if he was
Speaker 4: caricaturing a view of white people as particularly honorable and
Speaker 4: then connecting that to his overly politicized kind of prism
Speaker 4: through which he's viewing all of these interactions, then okay,
Speaker 4: But then, like I said, it would also be nice
Speaker 4: to see those epiphanies expressed publicly.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I agree, if that's really what they are, well,
Speaker 6: and I.
Speaker 3: Guess maybe I misspoke.
Speaker 6: I didn't mean that he's caricaturing the sort of like
Speaker 6: average white man's mindset so much as he is talking
Speaker 6: about where we naturally go, as like tribalistic individuals, where
Speaker 6: our brain will naturally go, which.
Speaker 3: Is well, is not how white men fight.
Speaker 6: Which is like obviously a terrible impulse and instinct to have.
Speaker 3: That's yeah, absolutely terrible as that.
Speaker 4: Then that can be an interesting kind of self exploration
Speaker 4: and where where is that self examination?
Speaker 6: And I think where he lands is what makes that
Speaker 6: context important, like where he lands in the thought process.
Speaker 6: And so you know, the bottom line is that neither
Speaker 6: of us can get into the head.
Speaker 5: Of maybe he'll come on and we can we can
Speaker 5: ask him about this.
Speaker 6: We love that, and none of us can get into
Speaker 6: his head obviously, But I continue to think there's just
Speaker 6: absolutely no truth to the story that this is why
Speaker 6: he was fired from Fox News. I actually think the
Speaker 6: Vanity Fair report is the closest to the truth that
Speaker 6: Rupert Murdoch was uncomfortable with the fiance he just broke
Speaker 6: up with.
Speaker 4: Loving Tucker said that Tucker was a voice of God,
Speaker 4: having this sort of like voice of.
Speaker 6: God, right, this this evangelical attachment to Tucker. Tucker go
Speaker 6: to the Heritage Foundation that Friday after signing off his show,
Speaker 6: saying see you next week, just having had a great
Speaker 6: meeting with Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch sees that
Speaker 6: he gives this very spiritual Christian speech at the Heritage Foundation,
Speaker 6: and it's like there's this kind of you know, when
Speaker 6: you're a ninety two year old eccentric billionaire, you make
Speaker 6: impulsive and bad decisions business wise, and he'd had enough
Speaker 6: of Tucker Carlson. Obviously, I'm sure the lawsuits like have
Speaker 6: been such headaches for Fox that it contributed to his
Speaker 6: exasperation with Tucker Carlson. But they have had these videos.
Speaker 6: They have known about these videos for a very long time.
Speaker 6: It was not just that they got this information over
Speaker 6: that weekend. As Megan Kelly has pointed out. I think
Speaker 6: that's a really important point, and it goes to the
Speaker 6: fact that this is this is a.
Speaker 3: Line that Fox is pushing to the media, and that is.
Speaker 6: They're leaking these videos because they think it makes them
Speaker 6: look good for having said enough is enough, and it's.
Speaker 4: Not that different than the types of things anyway.
Speaker 3: No, like yeah, no, I agree.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So anyway, so what are you looking at today?
Speaker 6: I'm going to talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Speaker 6: I think, frankly this is getting basically no media attention.
Speaker 6: But the Southern Poverty Law Center, as you know Ryan,
Speaker 6: is like an extremely powerful left of center nonprofit. Basically,
Speaker 6: everybody who's listening to the show and watching the show
Speaker 6: knows about the SPLC because the media cites them constantly
Speaker 6: as the go to source on tracking hate groups. They're
Speaker 6: actually I pulled the CNN article from right after Charlottesville,
Speaker 6: all the way back then they said here are all
Speaker 6: the active hate groups where you live. That was just
Speaker 6: the headline, and in the story it said, since the
Speaker 6: FBI doesn't keep track of domestic hate groups, the SPLC's
Speaker 6: tally is the widely accepted one.
Speaker 3: And you know what, that's that's true. I went back.
Speaker 6: They actually changed that line in the article to distance
Speaker 6: themselves from the SPLC and to make it less like
Speaker 6: a full endorsement of the SPLC, where they they're outsourcing
Speaker 6: their hate group tracking to the SPLC, which is good
Speaker 6: that they made that correction, but very telling that they
Speaker 6: wrote about it this way in the first place, because
Speaker 6: the SPLC has long been seen as the authority on
Speaker 6: these things. Now you can read Harper's, you can read
Speaker 6: the work of liberal journalist Ken Silverstein, who has been
Speaker 6: writing for decades now about all of the problems at
Speaker 6: the SPLC. The co founder, Morris D's, as people might remember,
Speaker 6: might even recognize his name, He was ousted back in
Speaker 6: twenty nineteen for like workplace violations. So there have been
Speaker 6: a lot of problems inside the SPLC for a really,
Speaker 6: really long time. But they still have a seven hundred
Speaker 6: and thirty one million dollar endowment. They have almost a
Speaker 6: billion dollar endowment. The level of power that comes with
Speaker 6: that kind of money is like unfathomable to most other
Speaker 6: non profits. But on April twenty fourth, I think there
Speaker 6: was finally a really serious indication that the SPLC might
Speaker 6: be coming into a more difficult season in its existence,
Speaker 6: especially since it has been basking in positive media coverage
Speaker 6: for several decades now. So this fifty five page opinion
Speaker 6: from federal Judge William Keith Watkins. He's from Alabama's Middle
Speaker 6: District Federal Court to.
Speaker 3: Checking this out. It's really really interesting, he says.
Speaker 6: He concludes, because the SPLC motioned to dismiss this lawsuit
Speaker 6: from a group called the Dustin Inmand Society, it is
Speaker 6: an anti immigrant group. It's probably the best way to
Speaker 6: put it. The SPLC calls it an anti immigrant hate group.
Speaker 6: As you can see up on the screen.
Speaker 3: He says.
Speaker 6: Plaintiffs have nudged their defamation claims premised on SPLC's destination
Speaker 6: designation of the Dustin Inman Society as quote an anti
Speaker 6: immigrant hate group across the line from conceivable to plausible.
Speaker 6: Other claims and issues are deferred until summary judgment as discussed. Okay,
Speaker 6: So that means this lawsuit, I believe it's the first
Speaker 6: time that the SPLC, a lot a defamation lawsuit against
Speaker 6: the SPLC has gone into discovery. And it comes down
Speaker 6: to the SPLC's designation of this anti immigrant group as
Speaker 6: an anti immigrant hate group. And the SPLC makes, I think,
Speaker 6: an absolutely crucial admission in its effort to dismiss the case.
Speaker 6: Its defense of itself is that these are only opinions.
Speaker 3: This is a quote from This is a quote from the.
Speaker 6: Decision that was rendered or the opinion that was rendered
Speaker 6: by Judge Watkins in Alabama. The SPLC argues that labeling
Speaker 6: the Dustin Inman Society as an anti immigrant hate group
Speaker 6: is quote an expression of opinion protected under the First Amendment.
Speaker 6: That is a quote from the SPLC, because the term
Speaker 6: anti immigrant hate group quote is not capable of being
Speaker 6: empirically proven true or false. This is going to be
Speaker 6: a fascinating suit because it puts to the test that
Speaker 6: designation of opinion and the SPLC, I mean, well, duh right,
Speaker 6: Like we know, we have known for a very long time.
Speaker 6: Ken Silverstein has written for a very long time. Let
Speaker 6: me pull up a quote from one of his great
Speaker 6: Harper's pieces. This is something he wrote in twenty ten,
Speaker 6: reflecting on something all very long investigation he had written
Speaker 6: in two thousand into the inner workings of the SPLC,
Speaker 6: and it's some of its unethical fundraising practices.
Speaker 3: He writes, I feel that the Law Center is essentially
Speaker 3: a fraud, that it.
Speaker 6: Has a habit of casually labeling organizations as hate groups,
Speaker 6: which doesn't mean that some of the groups it criticizes
Speaker 6: aren't reprehensible in doing so. The SPLC shuts down debates
Speaker 6: stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile
Speaker 6: of money, very little of which is used on behalf
Speaker 6: of poor people.
Speaker 3: Key key point.
Speaker 6: The SPLC was fueling this definition inflation that has come
Speaker 6: to dominate our politics and is the source of a
Speaker 6: lot of rancor that instead of saying people who oppose
Speaker 6: illegal immigration are mere opponents of illegal immigration, you say,
Speaker 6: because you oppose illegal immigration, you are necessarily also racist
Speaker 6: and bigoted. The SPLC has long fueled that, it has
Speaker 6: laundered those designations into the corporate press as objectively true.
Speaker 3: And that CNN.
Speaker 6: Headline where it says, here's all the hate groups in
Speaker 6: your area is a great example of how the impulse
Speaker 6: among journalists for years has been to outsource, you know,
Speaker 6: not just to the FBI, but to see the SPLC,
Speaker 6: because you know, the FPI doesn't do this to the
Speaker 6: FBI doesn't do this, to see the SPLC on the
Speaker 6: same level as like law enforcement.
Speaker 3: And the judge talks about.
Speaker 6: In this fifty five page opinion, how any reasonable person
Speaker 6: looking at the investigations and the resources that the SPLC
Speaker 6: itself promotes, its hate maps and its hate designations as
Speaker 6: being rooted in would say, oh, well, this.
Speaker 3: Is this is this is not this is not punditry.
Speaker 3: This is clearly an effort to be objective.
Speaker 6: This is clearly an effort to do you know, some
Speaker 6: like version of objective reporting on where hate groups are.
Speaker 6: So again, this is this is another great quote. First,
Speaker 6: the SPLC does not advertise itself as a political pundit
Speaker 6: this from the judge. To the contrary, SPLC self proclaims
Speaker 6: that it is the premier US nonprofit organization monitoring the
Speaker 6: activities of domestic hate groups and other extremists, and that
Speaker 6: it possesses quote key intelligence, offers expert analysis to the
Speaker 6: media and public and publishers, and investigative reports, and trains
Speaker 6: law enforcement officers. That is not a description of punditry.
Speaker 6: So again, all of this is going to be put
Speaker 6: to the test. Finally, when it comes to the SPLC.
Speaker 6: What I think the big takeaway from the story is
Speaker 6: right now, I mean for years, I mean I've written
Speaker 6: about how reprehensible I think it isn't fraudulent it is
Speaker 6: for the SPLC to label as it does a lot
Speaker 6: of Christian groups that have views on traditional marriage that
Speaker 6: we used to just say constituted disagreement about traditional marriage
Speaker 6: claim that hatred and bigotry the same thing with immigrant groups.
Speaker 6: There are a lot of active hate groups in this country,
Speaker 6: but it is not in any way helpful to the
Speaker 6: cause of eradicating hate to conflate mere political disagreements, even
Speaker 6: though you may find the opponent, you know, to have
Speaker 6: a reprehensible viewpoint in themselves, to say that that is
Speaker 6: necessarily rooted in bigotry is obviously not helpful to the country.
Speaker 6: But more importantly, I think it's fascinating to see, or
Speaker 6: it will be fascinating to see how the media handles
Speaker 6: this now that they have for years been using the
Speaker 6: SPLC as an objective source of what is hate what
Speaker 6: is a hate group for them to reckon with the
Speaker 6: fact that the SPLC, in its own defense of its activity,
Speaker 6: is saying, hey, it's all opinion, I think this really
Speaker 6: puts a new burden on media coverage because they basically
Speaker 6: just rely on the SPLC to talk about hate groups.
Speaker 6: So as that comes to the forefront of media coverage
Speaker 6: in the future, it's going to be I think really
Speaker 6: fascinating to see how media covers that Ryan SBOC has
Speaker 6: been around for a really long time. They, especially in
Speaker 6: the early days did some really good work. Now, Ryan,
Speaker 6: this is a polarizing question apparently, but I just like
Speaker 6: tossing it to you with what's your point to.
Speaker 4: That something extraordinary is happening in Haiti, though you wouldn't
Speaker 4: know much about it watching the news here in the
Speaker 4: United States. It's impossible to know where this is heading,
Speaker 4: but it looks like potentially the stirrings of a new revolution.
Speaker 4: Over the last few months, after the last elected officials
Speaker 4: in Haiti left office, leaving only completely illegitimate rulers, the
Speaker 4: de facto government began openly admitting that it had lost
Speaker 4: control of entire areas of Port of Prince, seeding them
Speaker 4: over to gangs. Now that only increased the gang warfare
Speaker 4: as rival groups jockeyed for supremacy, kidnappings and killings skyrocketed.
Speaker 4: Getting kidnapped had become a risk of daily life in
Speaker 4: the city in a way it hadn't been before. And
Speaker 4: the immediate target of this new revolution is the gangs,
Speaker 4: and gang members are bearing the brunt of the violence,
Speaker 4: but the public's iire has also been directed at US
Speaker 4: backed Prime Minister Ariel Henri, who is credibly accused of
Speaker 4: playing a role in the assassination of the previous president,
Speaker 4: Jovenel Moiz. Now the pushback has played out in brutal fashion.
Speaker 4: As the gangs tried to extend their control last week,
Speaker 4: something they didn't expect hit them back.
Speaker 5: That's people.
Speaker 4: The first major event came after police arrested just over
Speaker 4: a dozen gang members and were transporting them back to
Speaker 4: the station when a crowd stopped the vehicles and surrounded them.
Speaker 4: It's unclear yet if the police coordinated with the neighborhood residents,
Speaker 4: and we're not going to play images of what happened there,
Speaker 4: but the gang members were pulled off the vehicles, beaten
Speaker 4: and burned in a pile of tires. From there, the
Speaker 4: fury has spread, with civilians realizing that the poorly trained
Speaker 4: gang members may be more heavily armed, but are badly
Speaker 4: outnumbered and could be overpowered. It's every government's worst nightmare,
Speaker 4: and now it's becoming the gang's worst nightmare. Here's one
Speaker 4: video that we do want to play because it gives
Speaker 4: you a sense of the pulsing energy behind this new movement.
Speaker 5: The movement is.
Speaker 4: Now being called Woa Calais, and Haitians following it closely
Speaker 4: say that the name was coined spontaneously when video of
Speaker 4: this woman ricocheted around the island.
Speaker 3: Ae lo alleh.
Speaker 4: Al woaclay roughly means chop wood, which resonates with Haitians,
Speaker 4: who still take pride in the gathering of enslaved people
Speaker 4: on August fourteenth, seventeen ninety one, in an area of
Speaker 4: the forest known as Woa Khayaman, where they plotted a
Speaker 4: successful revolution overthrowing slavery and freeing themselves. There have been
Speaker 4: multiple uprisings since as colonizing powers have repeatedly tried to
Speaker 4: force Haitians back into submission and have impoverished them in
Speaker 4: the process. The current crisis dates to July seventh, twenty
Speaker 4: twenty one, when Colombian mercenaries assassinated the Haitian president, Joseph Bodioh.
Speaker 4: The man accused of orchestrating it, made two calls early
Speaker 4: that morning in the wake of the assassination to Ariel Onrie.
Speaker 4: New investigation published yesterday by the Center for Economic Policy
Speaker 4: and Research, which does great work when it comes to
Speaker 4: research in the Caribbean and Central America, reported that Joseph
Speaker 4: Boddiou had also ridden in the convoy on the way
Speaker 4: to the president's home the early morning of the assassination,
Speaker 4: and had been in touch many times in the preceding
Speaker 4: two weeks with Arielnrie and then called him after the killing.
Speaker 4: Henri has fired judges and prosecutors who have tried to
Speaker 4: expose his role in the killing. As Prime minister, he
Speaker 4: was not in line to become president, but in the
Speaker 4: wake of the assassination in the United States, with its
Speaker 4: European partners, put out a statements saying they would recognize
Speaker 4: him as the official leader. US Envoy to Haiti Dan
Speaker 4: Foot soon resigned in protest, saying that the US only
Speaker 4: anointed Henri leader because Henri was willing to accept planeloads
Speaker 4: of Haitian migrants from the Biden administration. Six months ago,
Speaker 4: in an interview with US here on Counterpoints, Foot warned
Speaker 4: that Haitians might soon take matters into their own hands.
Speaker 12: I believe that the Haiti people are going to not
Speaker 12: take kindly to that, and we may wind up fighting
Speaker 12: the Haitian people who believe that we're supporting a dictator
Speaker 12: who's not their interests.
Speaker 4: And it is the US not supporting a Haitian driven
Speaker 4: solution because they rely on having Ariel Henri in there
Speaker 4: so that the Biden administration can continue its deportation policy.
Speaker 12: That's my best guess.
Speaker 8: Ryan.
Speaker 12: It's almost unfathomable that all Haitians are calling for a
Speaker 12: different solution, yet the US and the UN and internationals
Speaker 12: are are blindly stumbling through with Ariel Ree has got
Speaker 12: to be because he has promised to be compliant. But
Speaker 12: we're going to have a civil uprising in Haiti, similar
Speaker 12: to nineteen fifteen when we sent the Marines in for
Speaker 12: the first time and administered Haiti for almost twenty years.
Speaker 12: In nineteen fifty hey fifteen, Haiti was in a similar
Speaker 12: position and they went up to the French embassy of
Speaker 12: the time where legation and they dragged the president, President
Speaker 12: sam Out, and they tore him limb from limb on
Speaker 12: the streets. And I fear that you're going to see
Speaker 12: something similar with Arielnrie, or with a foreign course that's
Speaker 12: sent in there to propagate his government and kind of
Speaker 12: keep him in power.
Speaker 4: Aril Honrae, perhaps not surprisingly, has come out against the
Speaker 4: Bois Calais movement. The Miami Herald predictably called for outside intervention.
Speaker 4: But the mistake there is thinking that the problem is
Speaker 4: that the US has neglected Haiti or not paid enough attention,
Speaker 4: when in fact, US attention has been Haiti's biggest problem now.
Speaker 4: So far, the movement appears to be largely leaderless, and
Speaker 4: it involves a small number of police who are trusted
Speaker 4: by the community working in tandem with them. I'm told
Speaker 4: one SWAT officer in particular, who everybody calls sniper, has
Speaker 4: become something of a folk here and has taken the
Speaker 4: lead and a lot of these actions. There's also one commissioner,
Speaker 4: Jean Muskadin, who has previously taken an aggressive approach to
Speaker 4: gangs in his district. Accused of involvement with extra judicial killings.
Speaker 4: He's since become associated with Bois Calais, with people warning
Speaker 4: gang members they need to either turn themselves into Muskadin
Speaker 4: or they're going to face mob justice. So I think
Speaker 4: it's useful for us to do this coverage without judgment,
Speaker 4: to just lay out like this is.
Speaker 5: What we're here.
Speaker 4: I will Happy Press Freedom Day to all who celebrate.
Speaker 4: Here is how President Joe Biden celebrated the day this
Speaker 4: weekend at the White House Correspondence dinner tonight.
Speaker 14: Our message is this journalism is not a crime Evan
Speaker 14: and Austin. She released immediately along with every other American.
Speaker 14: Hell hostage are wrong, we detained abroad.
Speaker 4: He left out an Australian held hostage and wrongfully detained
Speaker 4: abroad at the behest of.
Speaker 5: The United States.
Speaker 4: And so we're joined now by Ann Wilcox, who is
Speaker 4: head of DC Action for Assange. Because to mark Press
Speaker 4: Freedom Day, there will be rallies across the country here
Speaker 4: in Washington at the Department of Justice at noon, but
Speaker 4: also across the country calling for Merrick Garland to drop
Speaker 4: the charges and drop the ex tradition effort against Julian Assange.
Speaker 4: But and welcome to the show.
Speaker 5: Thank you for joining us, Thanks for having us.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 4: So what was your reaction when you heard from President
Speaker 4: Biden saying that journalism is not a crime.
Speaker 7: Oh, the hypocrisy is just so obvious and stark. We
Speaker 7: were actually outside the press dinner, the Correspondent's Dinner at
Speaker 7: the Hilton, with a huge free Assange banner. Many of
Speaker 7: them saw when they came in, So we were there
Speaker 7: before the environmentalists sort of showed up in large numbers,
Speaker 7: so we were actually talking to them, you know, people
Speaker 7: like Martha Rattitz, who's a national security journalist.
Speaker 10: We said, free Assange.
Speaker 7: So the hypocrisy of his statement talking about Evan Gershowitz
Speaker 7: and also Austin Tice, who's been, you know, missing for
Speaker 7: ten years. We do want freed, absolutely, We're a free
Speaker 7: journalist and have them to be protected, but the press
Speaker 7: should be supported. And for him to make that statement
Speaker 7: just showed the depth of the hypocrisy while his Justice
Speaker 7: Department continues to try to extradite Assange back to the
Speaker 7: US for trial.
Speaker 6: And it's a really fascinating quote because he says journalism
Speaker 6: must be protected, and this comes down to the definition
Speaker 6: of what is journalism. And when he was part of
Speaker 6: the Obama administration, we know that they had a very
Speaker 6: big debate about the so called New York Times problem
Speaker 6: about how you legally if you go after a songe
Speaker 6: then you have a real problem with the New York
Speaker 6: Times itself one of the biggest papers in the world,
Speaker 6: if not the biggest paper in the world in the world.
Speaker 6: So maybe just if we go back to that basic
Speaker 6: question of why Julian Assange is a journalist who deserves
Speaker 6: protection and why what he is doing is journalism, what
Speaker 6: would you say.
Speaker 10: Well, he is a journalist.
Speaker 7: He was presenting documents which were in the national interests,
Speaker 7: which showed war crimes in i Rock and Afghanistan. This
Speaker 7: material is released to journalists all the time, every day.
Speaker 7: They used sort of leaked information. But there's also an
Speaker 7: overclassification of information. So you say these documents are classified,
Speaker 7: what is the definition of that. He's now charged into
Speaker 7: the Espionage Act and when that was enacted, there was
Speaker 7: no such thing.
Speaker 10: As classified information.
Speaker 7: So they're really kind of having it both ways in
Speaker 7: terms of what journalism is. And Marjorie Khne, who's the
Speaker 7: former president of the National Lawyers Guild, wrote an excellent
Speaker 7: article on truth Out just after the dinner showing the
Speaker 7: absurdity of what Biden says. And you know, they continue
Speaker 7: to press for Assange's extradition to the US for this trial,
Speaker 7: which would be in the Eastern District of Virginia. It
Speaker 7: would be kind of a show trial. It's funny because
Speaker 7: the press doesn't cover our actions now, but once Julian
Speaker 7: Osange is here and on trial, I think it'll be
Speaker 7: on the news every night.
Speaker 4: And so help us understand the disconnect. How is it
Speaker 4: that a the president felt comfortable making that claim in
Speaker 4: front of a room full of journalists who could have booed,
Speaker 4: who could have chanted at him, who could have said
Speaker 4: demanded that Julian Assange be freed, but felt comfortable enough
Speaker 4: that that would not happen that he went ahead with it.
Speaker 4: And what were your conversations like with the journalists outside.
Speaker 7: Right, Well, the problem is we think, first of all,
Speaker 7: institutions like the National Press Club have not supported as songe,
Speaker 7: and that'll be one of the places we visit today
Speaker 7: on our little march. We're going from the DOJ to
Speaker 7: the National Press Club to the Washington Post, which also
Speaker 7: has not spoken out strongly for a songe. But the
Speaker 7: fact is they talk about Austin Tice.
Speaker 10: They have briefly called for an investigation in a.
Speaker 7: Scharina Bulaclas's death, which is important, But the establishment has
Speaker 7: not supported a soannge, and so they could ignore us.
Speaker 7: They heard what we were saying when we came in.
Speaker 7: But there, you know, we think that during the Pompeio,
Speaker 7: when POMPEII was CIA director, the national security establishment turned
Speaker 7: against Assange. They didn't like the Vault seven releases, although
Speaker 7: the indictment doesn't include that material, it's earlier material, but
Speaker 7: that's when the CIA turned against him, and they just
Speaker 7: seemed like a dog with a bone.
Speaker 10: They do not want to let go of this indictment,
Speaker 10: and so we're out in front of it.
Speaker 7: We go to Merrick Garland's home twice a month on
Speaker 7: a Sunday with huge banners they say Merrit Garland Free song,
Speaker 7: and he and his guests and his family members see this.
Speaker 7: It hasn't so far, it hasn't moved them to you know,
Speaker 7: withdraw drop the extradition request.
Speaker 4: Can you talk a little bit about Vault seven because
Speaker 4: I think that people don't appreciate the importance of Vault
Speaker 4: seven because when it was published, there was so much
Speaker 4: going on in the world that most people, I don't
Speaker 4: think even remember the revelations, you know, seismic as they were.
Speaker 4: And that is my understanding as well, is that that
Speaker 4: was the thing that was kind of the last straw
Speaker 4: for the national security establishment.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Well, again, I'm not an expert.
Speaker 7: You should get our colleague John Kiriac to come in
Speaker 7: and talk about this, or Jesslin Radak, but it's my
Speaker 7: understanding that also released sources and methods, you know, ways
Speaker 7: that there were cyber hacking going on. There were ways
Speaker 7: that the CI was listening to our signal phones, which
Speaker 7: we think are secure, and other websites, and so it
Speaker 7: just revealed a little bit too much about what the
Speaker 7: CIA was doing.
Speaker 4: And to me, my understanding is that was more embarrassing
Speaker 4: than anything else. That the CIA for a very long
Speaker 4: time had been internally mocking the State Department, which could
Speaker 4: keep track of its cables, mocking the Pentagon, which couldn't
Speaker 4: keep track of its evidence of war crimes. But we
Speaker 4: over here at the CIA, nobody's going to get our stuff.
Speaker 4: And then somebody inside the CIA leaks is what they
Speaker 4: end up calling Vault seven, which, in Wikile's defense, they
Speaker 4: did not release the kind of underlying code so that
Speaker 4: it wasn't as if other hackers could use any of
Speaker 4: the code and then deploy these powerful tools around the world.
Speaker 4: But what they did do is expose what the CIA
Speaker 4: was doing that previously had been kept secret. And it
Speaker 4: was almost more embarrassment, I think than anything else.
Speaker 7: Yeah, they didn't like being embarrassed, and Pompeo kind of
Speaker 7: took it seriously or took it personally. Let me say
Speaker 7: that while I have a moment, I just want to
Speaker 7: really quickly point your viewers to the Assage Defense website
Speaker 7: for events so that they'll know what the events are
Speaker 7: that are going on today.
Speaker 10: You know, we're doing our little march around Washington, d C.
Speaker 7: From the DOJ to the Press Club to the Washington
Speaker 7: Post from twelve to two. But also in New York
Speaker 7: there will be a rallied MSNBC, which of course is
Speaker 7: part of this this monolithic press.
Speaker 6: Yes, at thirty Rock and the CIA and FBI guys
Speaker 6: coming out of the MSS.
Speaker 7: Yeah, they'll be comfortable with that, and Chris Hedges is
Speaker 7: going to be their great speaker. And also in LA
Speaker 7: they're going to do a die in outside the one
Speaker 7: of the press headquarters. And finally in Chicago, Kevin Gostela,
Speaker 7: who's written a new book called Guilty of Journalism, He's
Speaker 7: doing a webinar sponsored by the Chicago Group and that'll
Speaker 7: be online for everyone to view. So go to as
Speaker 7: Songe Deefense dot org slash events and you can see
Speaker 7: all of these events.
Speaker 5: Did you get any engagement with the Martha Raditts types?
Speaker 5: What did they say?
Speaker 7: Right, Well, they heard us, they knew what we were
Speaker 7: talking about, because again we were there when it was
Speaker 7: still you could still hear what we were saying. And
Speaker 7: we had this huge red banner that said free Assange,
Speaker 7: So they heard us. They tried to ignore us and
Speaker 7: walk past. Lester Holt, NBC News anchor, at least looked
Speaker 7: over and acknowledged us.
Speaker 10: We even saw We even saw Kelly and Conway.
Speaker 7: We just it was kind of funny, but you know,
Speaker 7: we got a few thumbs up, but not many.
Speaker 10: But we knew they they knew what we were we
Speaker 10: were talking about.
Speaker 6: It's interesting because of that that letter that they all sent.
Speaker 6: What was it at last at the end of last year,
Speaker 6: is in November, the New York Times, Der Spiegel, the Guardian,
Speaker 6: Lemon they signed that joint open letter calling for dropping
Speaker 6: the Espionageac's charges against Assange. But there's still just this
Speaker 6: disinterest in the case overall.
Speaker 3: That characterizes their approach absolutely.
Speaker 7: And one other thing to keep in mind is we're
Speaker 7: also trying to pressure Congress to step up more. There
Speaker 7: was this letter, which you may have discussed on your show,
Speaker 7: that only seven members of Congress, the so called squad, signed,
Speaker 7: and that was submitted on April eleventh, which was the
Speaker 7: anniversary of Assange's arrest in London, and it was accompanied
Speaker 7: by parliamentarians who also sent letters from Australia and the
Speaker 7: European Union and so forth. But we need to get
Speaker 7: members of Congress to support him. The Progressive Caucus and
Speaker 7: the Black Caucus should have stepped forward as a group
Speaker 7: and said, you know, this is about press freedom and
Speaker 7: the truth. This is what we support, and we couldn't
Speaker 7: get you know, Promilogia, Paul Rocanna and their group to
Speaker 7: go along with that.
Speaker 10: So that's really a travesty.
Speaker 5: Yes, yes, indeed, yes indeed it was.
Speaker 4: And so again, if you're in DC a Department of
Speaker 4: Justice at noon, what's the website again for people to
Speaker 4: find the other ones around.
Speaker 10: The country, right, Assange Defense dot org.
Speaker 4: Great, so look at wherever you are. There may be
Speaker 4: there may be one. And thank you much so much
Speaker 4: for joining us. And also thanks again to our supremium
Speaker 4: subscribers on what Spotify and people who subscribed on YouTube,
Speaker 4: because you guys are paying for this an upgrade to
Speaker 4: our studio, which you're going to very much like.
Speaker 3: It's really cool.
Speaker 5: They've been working on for a pay.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're tearing down the brick wall.
Speaker 5: Yes that's right there.
Speaker 3: Mister and Jetty. This wall tear down.
Speaker 5: You're down this wall.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you guys for joining us, and thank you
Speaker 4: for all for all the support.
Speaker 11: H