00:00:00
All right, everybody. Welcome back to
00:00:01
the Allin podcast. Your favorite
00:00:04
podcast, podcaster's favorite podcast.
00:00:06
With me again, the original Quartet is
00:00:09
here. Schmoth Poly Hotia in just an
00:00:13
absolutely fabulous winter sweater.
00:00:16
January
00:00:18
looking great. Look at the size of those
00:00:19
buttons.
00:00:20
>> Huge buttons.
00:00:21
>> How many rhinos died to provide those
00:00:23
buttons?
00:00:24
>> Zero rhinos. Zero rhinos.
00:00:26
>> I'm a simple man that lives by simple
00:00:28
means. Okay. Beautiful. Beautiful. And
00:00:31
your sultan of science, David
00:00:33
Freriededberg. What's the background
00:00:35
here? Is that in Is that a melancholy
00:00:37
and infinite sadness background? I'm
00:00:39
trying to figure it out.
00:00:40
>> J, we don't talk about my backgrounds.
00:00:41
Thank you.
00:00:42
>> It looks like melancholy and infinite
00:00:44
sadness by the double album by the
00:00:46
amazing band um Smashing Pumpkins. Am I
00:00:50
close or is it the original artwork of
00:00:52
that?
00:00:53
>> Don't talk about my backgrounds.
00:00:54
>> You don't talk about your backgrounds.
00:00:56
Talk about your background. much giving
00:00:58
me so much to work with here. Luckily, I
00:01:00
have my straight man, my brother in
00:01:03
arms, my Davos party crashing partner,
00:01:07
David Saxs.
00:01:09
>> I got you your first invite to something
00:01:12
elite and exclusive.
00:01:15
>> I mean, I got invited to go 25 years
00:01:18
ago. They just wanted 50 dimes, but we
00:01:21
had a fun time.
00:01:22
>> Yeah, we had a good time.
00:01:23
>> We had a good time.
00:01:25
Uh any uh post Davos WF impressions? We
00:01:29
had a lot of interesting meetings. So
00:01:31
most of which I don't think we can talk
00:01:32
about on air, but um yeah, it was it was
00:01:36
an interesting uh interesting event.
00:01:38
>> We were staying in a log cabin that was
00:01:40
like 300 years old. The ceilings were
00:01:42
like six feet high and the door frames
00:01:44
were like 5t high. So bumped our heads a
00:01:47
couple of times.
00:01:48
>> Yeah,
00:01:48
>> it was pretty crazy.
00:01:49
>> It was brutal. I mean,
00:01:51
>> it looked good on the web. The photos of
00:01:54
the place looked amazing.
00:01:55
>> The Airbnb photos look great.
00:01:57
>> Yeah. But, uh, I think you need to be
00:02:00
inside the circle. You need to be inside
00:02:02
the thick of it. Not driving in every
00:02:04
day, but it was a distinctly different
00:02:06
Davos. Uh, we've mocked Davos here for
00:02:09
many years,
00:02:11
but this one was a business takeover and
00:02:14
a Trump takeover.
00:02:15
>> Correct.
00:02:16
>> Chimath, you would have loved it. It was
00:02:18
1.5 days of everybody hand ringing of
00:02:22
what Donald Trump would say when daddy
00:02:24
got there. Then for the 75 minutes daddy
00:02:27
gave his talk, the entire city shut
00:02:30
down. Everybody ran to a television set.
00:02:33
Then for the next 1.5 days, everybody
00:02:35
talked about what Trump said.
00:02:37
>> Basically, I think there are two really
00:02:38
big differences with the Davos based on
00:02:40
what I heard because this is the first
00:02:41
time I've attended. one is it was much
00:02:43
more business- ccentric and then second
00:02:46
there were a lot more Americans there a
00:02:48
much bigger American presence and I
00:02:51
think that that owes to the fact that
00:02:54
President Trump gave a major speech
00:02:56
there and I think it was Larry Fank
00:02:59
who's chairman of the whole thing now
00:03:02
who sort of orchestrated that
00:03:04
>> and he he wanted to get President Trump
00:03:05
there and I think he's pushed
00:03:07
>> for them to be a little bit more
00:03:09
business centric and it feels like
00:03:12
they're catering a little bit less to
00:03:14
kind of boutique
00:03:16
European political issues, although
00:03:19
that's clearly a big part of it. I would
00:03:22
say in terms of memorable moments, a big
00:03:25
one was I'm only going to talk about
00:03:26
this because I think it was publicly
00:03:28
reported otherwise I wouldn't bring it
00:03:29
up, but there was this opening night
00:03:31
dinner and so Larry Fink calls on like
00:03:35
five people to give little speeches and
00:03:37
the last one he called on was Howard
00:03:39
Lutnik, our Secretary of Commerce. And
00:03:42
Howard just goes up there and he just
00:03:44
starts dropping truth bombs on them and
00:03:49
and uh and again he said all this on the
00:03:51
record in his remarks at Davos I think
00:03:54
either that day or the next day. So
00:03:56
again I'm not talking out of school. It
00:03:58
was all stuff that he said but basically
00:04:00
he said to like all the Europeans he
00:04:01
said look I've been coming here for 30
00:04:03
years and you guys have completely
00:04:04
failed. You've wrecked your economies
00:04:06
with all this net zero stuff and climate
00:04:08
change and energy. and he just started
00:04:11
blasting on that and then all the open
00:04:13
border stuff. He really let them have
00:04:15
it. I mean, he was really the truth. And
00:04:17
then there was this uncomfortable like
00:04:19
rustling in the audience, you know, as
00:04:21
he was like gathering steam and then
00:04:24
it's been reported Al Gore started
00:04:26
booing at the end.
00:04:28
>> Drunk on Chardonnay. Is that true?
00:04:32
I can't verify that it was Al Gore, but
00:04:34
I definitely heard somebody. And I think
00:04:35
it was Al Gore who was
00:04:36
>> just like the two guys from the Muppets
00:04:38
in the Balcony, Statatler and whoever.
00:04:40
And it was just like Waldorf and
00:04:42
Statler.
00:04:43
>> Well, look, I mean,
00:04:44
>> yeah, Walder and Statler.
00:04:45
>> This whole climate change thing was Al
00:04:48
Gore's big hoax going back to the '9s.
00:04:50
And
00:04:51
>> well, did he win an Oscar? He won an
00:04:52
Oscar. I mean, and even absolutely Bill
00:04:55
Gates has acknowledged that this is not
00:04:56
an existential threat. It can be dealt
00:04:58
with,
00:04:59
>> you know. So I think the bloom is off
00:05:02
the rose in terms of that whole agenda
00:05:05
>> I'd say at Davos. Although to be sure
00:05:07
I'd say most people there still probably
00:05:10
agree with Al Gore. I mean they haven't
00:05:12
changed their policies. I'm talking
00:05:13
about the European countries even though
00:05:14
it's wrecking their economies.
00:05:16
>> They are beholden to this net zero idea.
00:05:19
>> It feels like they're in transition and
00:05:21
scrambling to try to figure out where
00:05:24
they what direction they should go in.
00:05:25
they don't feel they can trust America
00:05:27
or that we're not their like reliable
00:05:29
partner. We're not going to bail them
00:05:30
out. We're not going to protect them,
00:05:32
etc. And they're going to have to sort
00:05:34
of get together as the mids mid-tier
00:05:37
economies, economies 5 through 20, and
00:05:40
they're going to just have to build
00:05:42
their own voting block, their own
00:05:43
trading block, and uh go it alone and
00:05:46
spend their own money.
00:05:47
>> They have it. It's called the EU. It's
00:05:49
just yeah
00:05:50
>> has not been very successful because I
00:05:52
think of their own policies, their
00:05:54
energy policies and the open border
00:05:55
policies.
00:05:56
>> I'm not sure what going it alone means
00:05:58
if you don't have
00:05:59
>> best-in-class AI or best-in-class
00:06:01
weapons.
00:06:02
>> Absolutely. I I think it means they're
00:06:03
going to have to start investing in
00:06:04
those things, buying weapons, making
00:06:07
weapons means much of anything.
00:06:10
>> Yeah. I I think it means Canada
00:06:13
and the EU and all these other countries
00:06:16
that feel, hey, we're we're we're gonna
00:06:18
have our rug pulled by the Trump
00:06:21
administration. We're just going to have
00:06:22
to band together and create commerce.
00:06:24
And we saw China and uh Canada do a big
00:06:28
deal. And I think that's them just
00:06:29
trying to say, hey, we have some
00:06:32
sovereignty here. We're going to do a
00:06:33
partnership with Canada and bring BYD
00:06:35
cars in here. And hey, they'll be our
00:06:36
big trading partner. So, you know,
00:06:38
that's the reaction I think on the other
00:06:41
side.
00:06:43
>> But they don't
00:06:45
>> they don't what
00:06:46
>> they don't have as many degrees of
00:06:48
freedom as they think they do because
00:06:50
great powers define the international
00:06:52
system, not mid-tier powers. And a bunch
00:06:54
of second or third tier powers cannot
00:06:56
redefine the international system even
00:06:58
if they band together. And I think at
00:07:00
the end of the day, the Europeans, they
00:07:03
understand the importance of the United
00:07:05
States and specifically they want to
00:07:06
keep the US in Europe. I mean, they're
00:07:09
desperate to keep NATO together and to
00:07:11
keep the US interested and present in
00:07:14
Europe because just remember European
00:07:16
history before the Americans were there.
00:07:19
It's like hundreds of years of wars and
00:07:21
constantly fighting each other.
00:07:22
>> Exactly.
00:07:23
>> Culminating in World War I, World War
00:07:25
II, basically the total self-destruction
00:07:27
of Europe. And the most peaceful period
00:07:30
they've ever experienced has been post
00:07:32
1945 when the Americans are there as the
00:07:35
great pacifier. So, they do not want us
00:07:37
leaving. And I think they're willing to
00:07:39
make large concessions to the US to
00:07:42
ensure that we stay there, even though
00:07:43
they'll probably grumble about it. But I
00:07:46
think that to that end, I think that
00:07:50
what President Trump was saying is,
00:07:51
look, you guys got to share in the
00:07:53
burden here. We've been paying for this
00:07:54
whole thing.
00:07:54
>> Yeah. No, it makes total sense. And they
00:07:56
got their spending up to 3% for NATO and
00:07:59
they're going to go to five. So, mission
00:08:00
accomplished on that.
00:08:01
>> Yes. And on Greenland, he's like, look,
00:08:04
you know, we we we was the best part of
00:08:06
the speech. He's like,
00:08:09
>> "Do you want me to talk about
00:08:10
>> for you?
00:08:11
>> You got to do something for us. This has
00:08:12
got to be a choice."
00:08:12
>> He gets 45 minutes in. He's like, "Do
00:08:14
you want me to talk about Greenland? I
00:08:16
could talk about it. I You ready? I'm
00:08:18
going to talk about it right now." And
00:08:19
then he starts talking about it. But
00:08:21
then he starts calling it Iceland. And
00:08:24
everybody in the room's like, "Wait, he
00:08:25
wants Iceland, too?" And the whole buzz
00:08:28
was Trump's going to take Iceland and
00:08:30
Greenland. And then, you know, he sort
00:08:33
of backed down, but we're not going to
00:08:34
invade. And then there was like a sort
00:08:37
of sigh of relief. But do you think they
00:08:39
actually thought Sachs that he was going
00:08:42
to invade Greenland to take it?
00:08:45
>> Well, I mean, I don't know. I think that
00:08:48
obviously they thought it was a
00:08:49
possibility, but the president took the
00:08:51
use of force off the table. And yeah, I
00:08:53
think you did feel a sigh of relief
00:08:56
there. I think you're right. But I think
00:08:58
that also, I mean, we don't know the
00:09:00
details. They haven't been publicly
00:09:01
reported, but there was some sort of
00:09:03
meeting at Davos that was convened, I
00:09:06
think, by the NATO Secretary General,
00:09:08
Mark Ruda, where they negotiated an
00:09:10
acceptable compromise on the issue. So,
00:09:13
I'm sure we'll find out the details in
00:09:15
due course, but it's safe to say that
00:09:18
President Trump got enough of what he
00:09:19
wanted that he was satisfied with what
00:09:21
they worked out.
00:09:22
>> I don't know how they just like it's
00:09:23
like Lucy with the uh football and
00:09:25
Charlie. It's like he's gonna pull the
00:09:28
football. Like he's just anchoring the
00:09:29
ne negotiations at a military invasion
00:09:32
and takeover. He obviously is just going
00:09:34
to go for a lease. It's like they they
00:09:36
don't know it in year, you know,
00:09:38
whatever we're in now, year five or six,
00:09:41
year six of Trump being president. Like
00:09:43
they should get it by now. He just
00:09:45
anchors things at an impossible insane
00:09:47
level and then he falls back to whatever
00:09:49
he really wanted. It's a classic
00:09:51
negotiating technique. All right, we got
00:09:53
a lot on the docket. Let's get to work.
00:09:55
Everyone wants to hear four venture
00:09:56
capitalists and investors talk about the
00:09:59
horrific situation in Minneapolis. So,
00:10:01
here we go. Uh, for background, I mean,
00:10:04
Jason,
00:10:05
>> for background, last month, the DHS
00:10:07
started an operation called Metro Surge,
00:10:11
sending 3,000 federal agents into
00:10:12
Minnesota to crack down on illegal
00:10:14
aliens. Over the last 3 weeks, two
00:10:17
motans were tragically killed in
00:10:19
altercations with federal agents.
00:10:20
January 7th, 37year-old Renee Good was
00:10:24
shot to death by an ICE agent. This
00:10:26
incident involved Good accelerating her
00:10:28
car, which was surrounded by agents at
00:10:30
the time. We're still waiting for the
00:10:32
final investigation on this one, but
00:10:34
apparently three shots, one through the
00:10:36
front windshield, perhaps two through
00:10:37
the side. Uh, all these details are
00:10:39
still being investigated. Then
00:10:42
tragically on January 24th, Alex Prey,
00:10:45
also 37, was shot and killed by two
00:10:47
border patrol agents, not ICE. Prey was
00:10:49
an ICU nurse at the local VA hospital.
00:10:53
There's a ton of frame by frame
00:10:54
breakdowns available. New York Times and
00:10:57
Wall Street Journal did a good job on
00:10:58
these. So, I think maybe it's best for
00:11:01
us to focus here on maybe the aftermath
00:11:03
of all this and the resolution, but you
00:11:05
guys can feel free to chime in on the
00:11:07
frame by frame breakdowns if you like.
00:11:10
In five parts, Steven Miller tweeted
00:11:12
that Freddy was an assassin trying to
00:11:14
murder federal agents. A source told
00:11:16
Axis that Gnome said, "Everything I've
00:11:19
done, I've done at the direction of the
00:11:20
president and Stephen, Steven being
00:11:22
Steven Miller. Greg Bovino uh has been
00:11:25
removed from duty and had his social
00:11:27
media accounts turned off. President
00:11:29
Trump has pivoted, evolved
00:11:33
and put Tom Hman in charge." Quote, "Tom
00:11:37
is tough but fair and will report
00:11:39
directly to me," Trump wrote. And uh at
00:11:42
the time of this taping, which is on
00:11:44
Thursday's uh there was a press
00:11:46
conference this morning and here is what
00:11:49
Tom Holman said and after 30 seconds
00:11:52
we'll go to you Saxs for your reaction
00:11:54
to all this.
00:11:55
>> No agency organization is perfect.
00:11:57
President Trump and I along with others
00:11:58
in administration have recognized that
00:12:01
certain improvements could and should be
00:12:03
made. That's exactly what I'm doing
00:12:04
here. So if we get these agreements in
00:12:07
place, that means less agents on the
00:12:09
street, more agents in the jail. Matter
00:12:12
of fact, I have staff from CBP and from
00:12:15
ICE working on a draw down plan. What
00:12:18
does that look like based on the
00:12:19
cooperation?
00:12:20
>> Sax, your thoughts?
00:12:22
>> Well, first let me say the deaths of
00:12:24
Renee Good and Alex Petty are
00:12:27
regrettable and and tragic. So are the
00:12:30
deaths of Lincoln Riley, Joselyn
00:12:32
Nungare, Rachel Morren, Victoria
00:12:34
Harwell, Ivory Smith, and too many
00:12:37
others to mention who are murdered by
00:12:38
criminal illegal aliens. And the media
00:12:40
won't ever tell you their names. But
00:12:42
President Trump was hired by the
00:12:43
American people to do a job, which is to
00:12:46
seal the border and deport criminal
00:12:47
aliens so that more of these tragedies
00:12:49
do not occur in the future. And this is
00:12:51
a popular policy. Over 55% of the
00:12:53
American people say they want all
00:12:56
illegal aliens deported and over 90%
00:12:59
want criminal aliens removed. And by
00:13:00
criminal aliens, I'm referring to the
00:13:02
ones who commit additional crimes after
00:13:04
they enter the country illegally. Now,
00:13:07
this policy is working. Uh murders were
00:13:09
down 21% last year. It's one of the best
00:13:12
years in record. And in most states, the
00:13:15
process is smooth and doesn't make
00:13:17
national news. And the reason for that
00:13:19
is because local authorities are
00:13:20
cooperating with ICE. But Minneapolis
00:13:24
has taken a different approach. They've
00:13:25
engaged in a campaign of quote massive
00:13:28
resistance to federal authorities. So
00:13:30
let's talk about what's actually
00:13:32
happening there on the ground. I think
00:13:34
the first thing to understand is that
00:13:37
what's happening is much more than just
00:13:38
protests. And obviously I have no
00:13:40
problem with people peacefully
00:13:41
protesting and making their opinions
00:13:43
known, but that's not what's going on
00:13:45
here. These are Antifa style operations
00:13:47
designed to thwart
00:13:50
the enforcement of federal immigration
00:13:52
law. They're highly organized. They're
00:13:54
communicating in encrypted chat groups.
00:13:57
They stalk and dox ICE agents. They
00:14:00
follow them around town. They surround
00:14:02
them at their hotels. They use their
00:14:03
cars to block roads. And they use
00:14:06
bullhorns and whistles to alert
00:14:07
criminals who are about to be arrested.
00:14:09
And remember, ICE is a law enforcement
00:14:11
agency. They have warrants to arrest
00:14:14
known criminal aliens. Despite this
00:14:17
rhetoric of them being like the Gustapo,
00:14:19
they are going after specific named
00:14:20
individuals for whom they have warrants
00:14:23
to arrest. These are dangerous missions
00:14:26
and these agitators are interfering and
00:14:28
making these missions even more
00:14:29
dangerous. Now, the media has tried to
00:14:32
portray good and pretty as simply
00:14:34
innocent bystanders or people who were
00:14:37
peacefully protesting ICE policies. They
00:14:40
weren't. They were foot soldiers in
00:14:42
these Antifa style operations and most
00:14:45
importantly they brought deadly weapons
00:14:47
to the fight. So Renee Good hit an
00:14:49
officer with her SUV which under a
00:14:52
Minnesota law signed by Tim Waltz
00:14:54
himself in 2020 justifies the use of
00:14:56
deadly force by an officer to defend
00:14:58
himself. And Alex Prey was even more
00:15:01
reckless. I think we've probably all
00:15:02
seen the video by now where he sought
00:15:05
confrontation with ICE officials. He was
00:15:07
kicking the car. He was in a rage. This
00:15:09
wasn't his first time doing this. And
00:15:11
any experienced gun owner will tell you
00:15:13
that if you're armed and you're dealing
00:15:16
with law enforcement, you have to be the
00:15:17
world's biggest pacifist because you're
00:15:19
putting your life in danger by making
00:15:22
them fear that their lives are in
00:15:23
danger. And I think the mainstream media
00:15:25
didn't tell people these facts. They
00:15:27
just presented highly selective camera
00:15:29
angles. They even airbrushed and
00:15:31
facetuned Prey to make him appear to be
00:15:33
a more, I guess, handsome victim, which
00:15:36
is truly sick. Now, in a way, I feel
00:15:39
sorry for Good and Pretty because they
00:15:42
were the victims of a tinder box that
00:15:44
was created in Minnesota by the extreme
00:15:48
rhetoric and decisions of Tim Waltz,
00:15:52
Jacob Fry, and the political
00:15:54
establishment. The local police in
00:15:56
Minneapolis should have been allowed to
00:15:58
keep conditions safe on the street by
00:16:01
creating a perimeter and keeping
00:16:02
protesters away from ICE officers who
00:16:05
were executing lawful warrants of
00:16:08
arrest. But the police were told not to.
00:16:11
And then the agitators stepped in and
00:16:13
they took advantage of this sort of
00:16:14
vacuum of authority to physically
00:16:17
intervene. So I think it was almost
00:16:19
inevitable that some sort of tragedy was
00:16:21
going to result from this abdication of
00:16:23
public safety. Now why would Walson Frey
00:16:27
want to risk such tragedies with their
00:16:30
massive resistance? I think there's two
00:16:32
reasons for this. This is the last point
00:16:33
I want to make. First, they are
00:16:35
desperate to change the subject from the
00:16:36
billions of dollars of fraud that they
00:16:39
allow to occur on their watch. Remember
00:16:41
we had Nick Shirley on the show just a
00:16:43
few weeks ago talking about the 8
00:16:44
billion so that was stolen by Somali
00:16:47
fraudsters and this campaign of
00:16:50
resistance in Minneapolis has done a
00:16:52
really good job making everyone forget
00:16:54
about that. But I think there's a second
00:16:56
and bigger reason that applies and I
00:16:58
think it applies to to national
00:17:00
Democrats which is they want to thwart
00:17:03
mass deportations because illegal
00:17:05
immigrants are a vital part of their
00:17:07
power base. And you can see this in the
00:17:10
2030 aortionment forecast which just
00:17:12
came out. Illegal aliens count towards
00:17:15
the census which occurs every decade.
00:17:18
And the census determines the
00:17:19
aortionment of congressional seats and
00:17:21
electoral votes. And what you see in
00:17:23
these maps is that
00:17:26
citizens of blue states have been
00:17:29
migrating to red states because those
00:17:31
blue states are failing. And as a result
00:17:34
of that, blue states are expected to
00:17:37
lose nine house seats and electoral
00:17:40
votes because of the changing population
00:17:42
numbers. Illegal aliens in blue states
00:17:44
have been propping up those numbers. And
00:17:47
so, for example, in the last election,
00:17:49
President Trump would have won an
00:17:50
additional nine electoral votes
00:17:53
if we had an accurate counting. So,
00:17:56
look, this is not about principle. This
00:17:59
is bare knuckle politics. The Democrats
00:18:01
are playing for keeps. They don't really
00:18:03
care how many innocent Americans get
00:18:05
hurt or killed in the process. This is
00:18:08
about thwarting a popular policy of
00:18:10
deportations
00:18:12
and sealing the border which the
00:18:14
American people voted for. So don't let
00:18:16
the media fool you.
00:18:17
>> Freedber Chimath, you want to give your
00:18:19
opinion on these two tragic deaths
00:18:23
>> or not? I mean, I don't feel you're
00:18:24
obligated to comment on this if you
00:18:27
don't want to.
00:18:27
>> I'm happy to.
00:18:29
Nick, I sent a clip into the chat.
00:18:31
>> Deported all immigrants who are here
00:18:32
illegally, 55% of the New York Times,
00:18:34
Marquette, 64%. CBS News, 57%. ABC News
00:18:38
with a slightly different question, 56%.
00:18:40
So, what you're seeing essentially here
00:18:42
is a very clear indication that a
00:18:45
majority of Americans, in fact, when
00:18:47
they're asked this blunt question, which
00:18:48
I believe gets at the underlying
00:18:50
feelings, do in fact want to deport all
00:18:52
immigrants who are here illegally.
00:18:54
There's no arguing with these different
00:18:56
numbers cuz they're all essentially the
00:18:57
same across four different pollsters.
00:18:59
>> I think Sax is right that there's a very
00:19:01
very vocal minority. But if we just put
00:19:03
that aside, it's important right now to
00:19:05
just stick to the facts. Democracy is
00:19:08
supposed to be the will of the majority,
00:19:13
but also defense and protection for the
00:19:15
minority. In this example, the will of
00:19:17
the majority is pretty clear. As the CNN
00:19:19
clip just showed, everybody wanted the
00:19:22
southern border shut and the northern
00:19:24
border shut
00:19:26
and a structured path to deal with
00:19:29
illegal immigration. David's right that
00:19:31
that creates a cascade of second and
00:19:32
third order effects
00:19:35
that have huge implications with respect
00:19:38
to the Democrats and their ability to
00:19:40
have and curate power.
00:19:43
I don't know whether this is what's
00:19:45
motivating them or not. I don't want to
00:19:46
speculate on that. But the conceptual
00:19:49
problem and the conceptual desire of
00:19:52
Americans is undisputable. I think
00:19:54
that's why Donald Trump won. Now I think
00:19:57
though we have to explore the tactics.
00:19:59
I think the reality is that both of
00:20:01
these two deaths were complete and total
00:20:04
tragedies
00:20:06
and it has created such an upswell
00:20:09
that it has the potential to spin out of
00:20:12
control. And if it does that, it risks
00:20:16
his ability to continue doing his job
00:20:18
and delivering on the conceptual promise
00:20:20
that everybody wants. The other thing is
00:20:22
that I think that he has otherwise, the
00:20:24
president, done an incredible job up
00:20:26
until now. The fact that Tom Hman is
00:20:28
going there is a really good thing. He
00:20:30
was the same person that was awarded a
00:20:32
medal by Obama for how he managed
00:20:35
Obama's deportation process. It's time
00:20:37
to just get control of the process and
00:20:39
dial down the temperature because the
00:20:42
structural things that they are doing
00:20:44
are correct. There are people here that
00:20:46
broke the law. There are criminals that
00:20:48
are here illegally. We need to remove
00:20:51
them because that is the will of the
00:20:53
majority. Now we just need to find a way
00:20:55
of doing it that creates some freedom to
00:20:58
operate for all of law enforcement so
00:21:00
that these tragedies stop. That's my two
00:21:02
cents.
00:21:03
>> Okay. Freedberg, would you like to
00:21:04
comment on this or pass? I
00:21:07
>> I'll comment. Can I just ask you to
00:21:08
react to what Sach said? Do you agree or
00:21:11
disagree with his point about the
00:21:14
Democrats needing to remove people
00:21:15
because they do count in the census and
00:21:17
they increase the seats in the House.
00:21:20
>> Elon's talked about this a whole bunch
00:21:22
as well that the immigration is being
00:21:24
done to boost the voter roles. I don't
00:21:27
know enough about the census
00:21:29
specifically because that occurs x
00:21:30
number of years and uh if it's accurate
00:21:33
at all. So I'll leave that aside and do
00:21:36
some research on it. In terms of
00:21:38
importing people for votes, this uh
00:21:42
strategy does not make a lot of logical
00:21:44
sense. And so many workingclass people
00:21:47
voted Trump into office and so many
00:21:49
specifically uh Hispanic people, Mexican
00:21:52
people are all voting for Trump now
00:21:54
because he's a populist and he appeals
00:21:56
to to that group. So whatever if Biden
00:21:59
and the Democrats were doing that for
00:22:01
that reason, that makes no sense. And
00:22:04
also those people would have to become
00:22:05
citizens in order to vote and that's a
00:22:09
20 30year process. So, you know, they'd
00:22:12
be playing an incredibly long game uh on
00:22:15
that front
00:22:16
>> unless there is cheating in the voting.
00:22:17
>> Yeah.
00:22:18
>> And we've talked about that as well
00:22:19
here.
00:22:20
>> For example, if there's no voter ID, you
00:22:23
know,
00:22:23
>> you know, the Heritage Foundation, I
00:22:24
think David, you worked there at some
00:22:26
point, right? Did an internship.
00:22:28
>> That uh organization, that think tank
00:22:30
has done tremendous research into this.
00:22:32
They have a database. I think they've
00:22:33
collected now 3,000 cases of voter fraud
00:22:36
over a 40-year period. So really the
00:22:39
whole concept of voter forward being
00:22:40
able to tilt a presidential election is
00:22:42
just ridiculous and has not been proven.
00:22:44
I think Trump filed about 50 or 60
00:22:46
lawsuits and lost all 50 of them. So
00:22:48
there's there's no credence to that. Uh
00:22:50
but you know I have a couple of thoughts
00:22:52
broader on what we've seen and I do
00:22:55
actually agree with you David. There
00:22:56
should be voter ID everywhere. I I don't
00:22:58
think anybody should be able to vote
00:22:59
without a driver's license. If you can't
00:23:00
or ID if you can't take the time to get
00:23:02
ID why should you vote? It doesn't make
00:23:04
a lot of sense right.
00:23:04
>> Why do you think that's such a push on
00:23:06
the other side though Jal? Like what's
00:23:07
the motivation for not having IDs?
00:23:11
>> The stated
00:23:12
>> if it's not about getting people to vote
00:23:13
that aren't allowed to vote.
00:23:15
>> The stated reason, which I don't
00:23:18
believe, is that it's more democratic
00:23:20
and you want to get as many people to
00:23:22
vote as possible. So, but I don't agree
00:23:23
with that. I think everybody should have
00:23:24
ID.
00:23:25
>> Yeah. Like you got to have ID to buy a
00:23:26
beer, right? So,
00:23:27
>> yeah. I mean, to get on a plane to I
00:23:29
mean, even to ride a train, like you
00:23:31
need an ID. I don't I don't understand.
00:23:32
>> I think the answer speaks for itself. I
00:23:34
mean, uh, to me it's obvious the reason
00:23:36
why you prohibit, by the way, it's not
00:23:38
just saying you can vote without an ID.
00:23:40
They actually prohibit the people
00:23:41
administering the polls from checking.
00:23:43
There's only one reason to do that. You
00:23:45
want to allow cheating, obviously. And
00:23:48
one of the things that Doge found was
00:23:50
that there were lots of illegal aliens
00:23:51
being added to the social security
00:23:53
roles. Now, they weren't necessarily
00:23:54
collecting social security, but in a lot
00:23:57
of
00:23:57
>> they were actually paying into it. So,
00:23:58
it was quite the opposite. My point is
00:24:00
that when you get an SSN number, in a
00:24:02
lot of states, all you have to do is
00:24:04
check a box when you get a driver's
00:24:06
license, which they also give to illegal
00:24:07
aliens in order to be added to the voter
00:24:09
roles.
00:24:10
>> So, they are finding illegal aliens on
00:24:12
voter roles. But look, regardless of
00:24:14
where you are on cheating in elections,
00:24:17
the census just counts total population
00:24:20
and then they aortion house seats and
00:24:23
electoral votes based on total
00:24:24
population, including illegal aliens.
00:24:26
And there is data on this. Trump would
00:24:28
have won the last election by an
00:24:29
additional nine electoral votes if these
00:24:32
changes had been made before the last
00:24:34
election in 72.
00:24:35
>> Do you think uh
00:24:36
>> so just to put a pin on that point? It's
00:24:39
really important because what it means
00:24:40
is that a future Republican would not
00:24:44
need to somehow crack the Democrats blue
00:24:46
wall of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
00:24:48
Wisconsin. Right? So nine electoral
00:24:51
votes is a lot and it does put the
00:24:54
presidency that much further out of
00:24:56
reach for future Democratic candidates.
00:24:59
It provides a powerful incentive and
00:25:01
it's again it's not just the electoral
00:25:02
votes. It's also these House seats.
00:25:04
California would have lost House seats.
00:25:07
I think it was like four if this had
00:25:10
been recognized because again there's
00:25:11
been a huge migration. Jake, you know
00:25:13
this better than anybody since you're
00:25:14
one of the people who've left. The state
00:25:16
is so badly mismanaged that people have
00:25:18
been fleeing blue states in droves. And
00:25:21
the fact that you've got illegal aliens
00:25:23
then replacing that population mass that
00:25:25
effect and allows these blue states to
00:25:28
maintain their level of representation
00:25:30
in the house. That is a huge incentive.
00:25:33
>> Freeberg, do you support
00:25:36
the use of ICE agents DHS to go into
00:25:40
these cities and do you think they were
00:25:42
too violent? And
00:25:45
do you agree with that strategy that
00:25:47
Trump's now seems like pulling back?
00:25:51
>> I mean, I know the answer. We talked
00:25:52
about it on private chat. Yeah.
00:25:54
>> Okay. I'll be very matter of fact.
00:25:56
>> Yeah.
00:25:56
>> Neither of these people should be dead.
00:25:58
It's sad that it happened.
00:25:59
>> Who's to blame?
00:26:00
>> Neither of these people should have been
00:26:02
doing what they were doing.
00:26:05
Federal law enforcement agents
00:26:08
should not wear masks.
00:26:10
They should identify themselves when
00:26:12
asked. Ideally, they wear body cams like
00:26:14
local law enforcement does. I like body
00:26:16
cams. I actually like watching videos of
00:26:18
police wearing body cams on YouTube and
00:26:21
Tik Tok. I think it's a very important
00:26:24
way to hold law enforcement accountable
00:26:26
to their work. There may be reasons why
00:26:28
federal law enforcement can't do that.
00:26:29
If they're undercover and whatnot, they
00:26:30
shouldn't have to identify themselves,
00:26:32
but I think those are important ground
00:26:34
rules. I think that federal law
00:26:36
enforcement should have warrant or
00:26:38
probable cause. They should not be
00:26:40
allowed to randomly ask people for
00:26:43
papers.
00:26:45
I don't agree with that. If that's what
00:26:47
they're doing, and I'm not saying that
00:26:48
that's what I agents are doing.
00:26:49
>> No, no, that's what they were doing.
00:26:50
That's all been proven.
00:26:51
>> I don't know that. I don't know if
00:26:52
that's been proven.
00:26:53
>> Wearing masks, not identifying
00:26:54
themselves.
00:26:54
>> That's not what I'm talking about. Hold
00:26:55
on a second. Hold on a second. There
00:26:57
have been a lot of claims made that
00:26:58
they're going around quote rounding
00:27:00
people up asking for ID and papers. I
00:27:03
don't know if that's true. I have
00:27:04
personally not been convinced of that.
00:27:06
You may have seen something else, but
00:27:07
I've not been convinced of that. But if
00:27:09
that is what they're doing, there is no
00:27:11
probable cause and there's no warrant
00:27:12
attached to that. That should not be
00:27:14
allowed. I think the mechanism for
00:27:16
fixing that, the mechanism for
00:27:18
addressing that is number one to go to
00:27:20
federal courts and file injunctions,
00:27:22
which is actively happening through the
00:27:24
legal process. And there's a due process
00:27:25
that then would take place that would
00:27:27
determine whether these agents are
00:27:29
following the law and doing things by
00:27:30
the rule of law or are not. And if
00:27:33
they're not, injunctions will be imposed
00:27:34
and they can't do what they're doing.
00:27:37
Short of that, no one should take it
00:27:39
into their own hands to obstruct law
00:27:40
enforcement, federal or local law
00:27:42
enforcement. I think that that is wrong.
00:27:44
I don't think that individuals that
00:27:46
disagree with a law or disagree with the
00:27:49
actions of law enforcement officers
00:27:51
should obstruct their actions. The
00:27:53
correct path is number one to protest
00:27:55
peacefully, number two to go to the
00:27:57
courts and file injunctions, and number
00:27:59
three to change the law. To go to your
00:28:02
local,
00:28:03
>> vote for someone and change the law. I
00:28:06
think it's totally okay for protesters
00:28:08
to not like the law. There's a million
00:28:10
laws and regulations and other [ __ ]
00:28:12
that I fundamentally disagree with, but
00:28:14
those don't give me the right to impose
00:28:17
myself physically in the driveway with a
00:28:20
car blocking law enforcement from doing
00:28:22
their job. If law enforcement was
00:28:24
arresting a non-ilgal immigrant murderer
00:28:28
and someone did that, would people be up
00:28:30
in arms? It's because people disagree
00:28:32
with the law. And if you disagree with
00:28:34
the law, you've got to change the law.
00:28:37
And that's okay. Now, right now, it is
00:28:40
the case that it is the law that if
00:28:42
someone came here without going through
00:28:44
the immigration process as defined by
00:28:46
the law, then they are technically here
00:28:49
illegally. That is the law. That's what
00:28:51
it is. And so, there is a course or a
00:28:53
path or a point of view on how do you
00:28:55
enforce that law and that is what people
00:28:57
are having disagreements over. And
00:28:59
again, file injunctions if you don't
00:29:01
like the methods, change the law if you
00:29:03
don't like the law. My personal view on
00:29:06
immigration, just so I can wrap this all
00:29:08
up, I don't see how we're going to do
00:29:10
this in a humane and just way of
00:29:12
removing people from this country who
00:29:13
have been here for a period of time and
00:29:15
have paid taxes and have been good
00:29:16
contributors to this country. I don't
00:29:19
know how you're going to do it. I don't
00:29:20
know how you're going to do it without
00:29:21
inciting a civil war. So I think the
00:29:23
compromise has to be that there has to
00:29:25
be a path to permanent residency and
00:29:27
eventually citizenship for individuals
00:29:29
who have been in the United States for
00:29:31
some period of time who have followed
00:29:33
other laws who have paid taxes and who
00:29:36
have not taken advantage of public
00:29:38
services that they are not supposed to
00:29:39
use. With those conditions met there
00:29:42
should be some path otherwise we're
00:29:44
going to have civil war. I think that
00:29:47
separate to this there's a bigger point
00:29:48
to be made and Ray Dalio has made this
00:29:50
and I will restate it and you guys can
00:29:51
roll your eyes at this but I think that
00:29:53
there's a deep emotional driver to all
00:29:55
of this. People look at this and they
00:29:57
get incited. They get activated
00:29:59
emotionally. Everyone I speak to is
00:30:01
activated emotionally over this issue
00:30:02
and we have to ask ourselves the
00:30:04
important question of why are people
00:30:05
activated so emotionally right now? What
00:30:07
is going on? What is the fundamental
00:30:10
root cause of this? What is the
00:30:11
fundamental root cause of this
00:30:13
prediction model that Ray Dalio has
00:30:14
talked about saying that there's a 35 to
00:30:17
40% chance of a civil war in the United
00:30:18
States based on predictions that he made
00:30:20
in 2020. And it is rooted fundamentally
00:30:24
in the fact that everyone to some degree
00:30:26
feels some amount of oppression right
00:30:28
now. And this is a manifestation of that
00:30:30
oppressed feeling. That oppression comes
00:30:33
from the fact that the world is racing
00:30:34
ahead and people are not a part of it.
00:30:36
that people feel like they're being left
00:30:38
behind and they see victims of that
00:30:40
world and they want to act. And I think
00:30:42
we need to pay attention to that and be
00:30:43
very cognizant of it because I think
00:30:45
fundamentally it is an inevitability
00:30:47
that there will be a civil war if we
00:30:49
don't recognize it and address it and
00:30:51
find some paths of compromise to solve
00:30:53
these problems.
00:30:54
>> Okay, I'm done.
00:30:55
>> Uh, superb.
00:30:57
>> So, it ship it. Episode done. I mean,
00:31:02
>> let's go home.
00:31:03
>> So, yeah, I'm strongly in agreement with
00:31:05
you. the police should um not be
00:31:07
interfered with. I said that here and I
00:31:09
said it on Twitter. You should stay home
00:31:10
if you can't peacefully protest and also
00:31:14
agree with you strongly. The police uh
00:31:16
should be trained to deescalate, wear
00:31:17
body cameras, not wear masks, be trained
00:31:19
properly, all that stuff.
00:31:22
But I I want to make three points here.
00:31:25
And the first is, you know, President
00:31:26
Trump has surrounded himself with a lot
00:31:28
of really competent people, yourself
00:31:30
included, David Rubio, Bessant, Lutnik,
00:31:33
Kushner. We had a lot of them here. my
00:31:35
pal Chris Wright, but he's also
00:31:37
surrounded himself with very
00:31:39
inexperienced sick offense that he
00:31:41
picked based on their loyalty to him and
00:31:43
that group needs to go because that
00:31:45
group is sinking his second term. I'll
00:31:48
put on that list Steven Miller, Christy
00:31:49
Gnome, Cash Patel, and Pam Bondi. Uh
00:31:52
these folks have been a disaster for
00:31:53
Trump. They're not qualified to be in
00:31:55
the positions they're in, and they have
00:31:57
caused a lot of chaos. And back in
00:32:01
August, I explained exactly how
00:32:03
unpopular these,
00:32:06
you know, ICE actions were. And I
00:32:08
implored people, hey, stay home if you
00:32:10
cannot be peaceful. If you want to
00:32:12
record people, that's fine. But I
00:32:14
predicted as well that somebody's going
00:32:15
to get killed. And that these agents
00:32:18
were acting just without training. They
00:32:20
were not deescalating. And they were in
00:32:22
fact provoking a lot of this which I
00:32:24
think was part of the concept that
00:32:26
Steven Miller had was to provoke these
00:32:28
kind of reactions. Nick, you can pull up
00:32:30
my first chart. You remember back in
00:32:32
October was talking about Trump's
00:32:35
sinking approval rating back when these
00:32:39
ICE issues were happening. The Epstein
00:32:42
files weren't being released. Then in
00:32:43
November, I brought this up again.
00:32:45
Trump's uh net approval rating hit 13%.
00:32:50
And then same chart coming up now. He's
00:32:54
uh 18%.
00:32:58
What's And you know, a lot of people
00:32:59
like to use this term taco. Trump always
00:33:02
chicken out chickens out. I don't like
00:33:04
when people use that because I think
00:33:06
they're trying to goat him on. I think
00:33:08
he needs to react to these plummeting
00:33:11
ratings here. If you could play the
00:33:13
Tillis quote, Nick,
00:33:14
>> if I were in her position, I can't think
00:33:16
of any point in pride over the last
00:33:18
year. She's got to make her own decision
00:33:20
or the president does. But she has taken
00:33:22
this administration into the ground on
00:33:24
an issue that we should own. We should
00:33:25
own the issue of border security and
00:33:27
immigration. But they have destroyed
00:33:29
that for Republicans. Something that got
00:33:31
the president elected. They have
00:33:32
destroyed it through their incompetence.
00:33:34
David Miller is in the same boat. this
00:33:36
guy after doing the stupid comments he
00:33:38
made about Greenland getting the
00:33:39
president in a difficult circumstance is
00:33:42
one of the people that came out publicly
00:33:44
and said that this guy was a terrorist
00:33:46
before he had even talked with anybody
00:33:47
on the ground and that's clearly not the
00:33:49
case now. So I mean it's just I mean
00:33:52
Steven Miller never fails to live up to
00:33:54
my expectations of incompetence.
00:33:56
>> And here's Marowski uh with a similar
00:33:59
opinion another Republican.
00:34:00
>> Senator, do you have faith in Christine
00:34:01
Noam as DHS secretary? I I've already
00:34:04
made a statement on that.
00:34:05
>> Oh, I I wasn't there for it.
00:34:07
>> Yeah, I I said that I've lost confidence
00:34:09
in her.
00:34:09
>> Do you think that President Trump should
00:34:11
remove her from the position? Do you
00:34:12
think she should resign?
00:34:13
>> Obviously, up to the president. Um I
00:34:17
think we would be we would be better
00:34:20
served
00:34:22
with leadership.
00:34:24
>> At the end of the day, Americans don't
00:34:27
like to see this violence. They don't
00:34:28
like cruelty. They don't like chaos. The
00:34:30
reason Trump lost to Biden, who's not a
00:34:33
very strong candidate, is because of the
00:34:34
general chaos people felt
00:34:37
with the immigrant ban the last time and
00:34:40
people do want to see the border closed
00:34:42
and that has had a great effect I think
00:34:44
on the country and I think that's
00:34:47
fantastic and he should take a victory
00:34:49
lap for that. But leadership starts at
00:34:52
the top. President Trump put Steven
00:34:54
Miller in charge of all this. Uh I think
00:34:56
he's a bad actor. I think these people
00:34:59
who he hired were picked strictly to do
00:35:01
lawfare and to do this kind of sadistic
00:35:04
violent behavior to feed a MAGA base
00:35:06
that's not going to keep Trump in office
00:35:09
and in fact going to cause him to lose
00:35:11
the second uh to lose the midterms. So
00:35:15
the easy solution which I brought up
00:35:17
here over and over again is if you want
00:35:20
to stop having people come into this
00:35:22
country, you have to look at why they're
00:35:24
coming to this country. They're coming
00:35:25
to this country because they want to
00:35:26
have a better life. That's why they're
00:35:28
coming here. And that's why they'll pay
00:35:30
a coyote 10 or 20 or $30,000 and risk
00:35:32
their own safety coming across that
00:35:34
border where many people die and abused
00:35:36
and are abused. So if you want to stop
00:35:39
this, all you have to do is go to the
00:35:40
business owners and find them. And if
00:35:42
they keep hiring illegal aliens, you
00:35:44
keep finding them and you put them in
00:35:46
jail. But you don't see Steven Miller
00:35:48
doing that. Why? Well, because a lot of
00:35:50
those businesses are the voters who put
00:35:52
Trump in office. They're Republicans.
00:35:54
Yeah. Sure, there's Democrat owned
00:35:55
business owners as well, but you can
00:35:57
solve this whole problem without sending
00:35:59
mass agents in to beat the [ __ ] out of
00:36:01
people, to be violent, to provoke these
00:36:03
kind of reactions. And that doesn't
00:36:06
absolve people driving their cars into
00:36:07
the police. That's horrible and it's a
00:36:10
terrible tragedy. And these people, as
00:36:12
I've said three or four times, uh should
00:36:14
not go out and protest. But you could
00:36:17
solve this. If there are no job
00:36:19
opportunities for illegal aliens, they
00:36:21
will stop coming here. finally agree
00:36:22
with your point strongly, Freedberg,
00:36:24
that we should be compassionate to the
00:36:26
people who have been here 10, 20 years
00:36:27
and paid their taxes. I've said this
00:36:28
here many times. They should be given a
00:36:30
path. America is a country built by
00:36:32
immigrants for immigrants, including the
00:36:34
three of you, my bestie immigrants.
00:36:38
>> And we all came here illegally or our
00:36:41
parents did
00:36:42
>> and we didn't seek into the country.
00:36:44
>> Yeah, absolutely.
00:36:45
>> Now, you kind of gave this diet trial. I
00:36:47
don't know why you've picked Steven
00:36:49
Miller as the vessel of your hatred.
00:36:51
It's like you've
00:36:52
>> No, it's not hatred. I based on
00:36:53
>> There's been a transference. There's
00:36:55
been a transference of your
00:36:56
>> trans just based on his TDS to Steven
00:36:58
Miller derangement syndrome or something
00:36:59
like that.
00:37:00
>> If he if his actions were if his actions
00:37:02
were kind and compassionate
00:37:05
>> if if his if he was compassionate
00:37:08
towards immigrants
00:37:10
and uh recognize the importance of
00:37:12
immigrants to this American story, I
00:37:14
would be fine with it. It's just based
00:37:15
on his behavior. David, I don't have
00:37:17
TDS. You can name call all you want. I'm
00:37:19
just basing it on your behavior.
00:37:21
>> You've decided to do this ad homonym
00:37:23
against him. And look, the big picture
00:37:24
is that threat is basing it on their I'm
00:37:27
basing it on their qualifications.
00:37:29
>> You're not really presenting You're not
00:37:30
really presenting evidence. You're
00:37:31
showing what other people think. You're
00:37:33
showing polling and then what a few
00:37:35
senators think. So basically, you're
00:37:37
trying to build a Hold on. You're Hold
00:37:39
on. Let me finish my point. You're
00:37:40
basically trying to build a case against
00:37:42
him by using the opinions and
00:37:44
declarations of other people rather than
00:37:46
actually presenting evidence and
00:37:48
building that case other than just a
00:37:49
name call and say that he's not
00:37:51
compassionate. The big picture is that I
00:37:53
would say that Steven Miller has been
00:37:54
more correct about immigration than you
00:37:57
have been over the last several years.
00:37:59
For years, you were denying that we had
00:38:01
an open border problem, did you not?
00:38:03
>> No. No. for one year when the spike went
00:38:05
up I said let's get the data on this
00:38:07
because it doesn't make sense that it
00:38:09
would triple year-over-year and then we
00:38:11
found out that it was in fact and with
00:38:13
the new information I changed my opinion
00:38:14
and said yeah this is obviously
00:38:16
happening
00:38:17
that was literally what happened
00:38:20
>> well I don't know I mean during the
00:38:21
buying years I remember we had a bunch
00:38:22
of debates about this and you were
00:38:24
saying
00:38:24
>> my position was let's see the data cuz
00:38:26
the data if you look I I I played this
00:38:28
chart on the podcast many times we
00:38:30
showed like the last four years and then
00:38:31
there was a spike and I said this
00:38:32
doesn't make any sense How did this
00:38:33
spike happen? It's just my opinion. You
00:38:35
don't have to have a you can have a
00:38:36
difference of opinion.
00:38:37
>> Let me go back to the origin of the
00:38:40
chaos in Minnesota. You don't see this
00:38:42
happening in other states. And I just
00:38:44
want to point out one of the major
00:38:45
reasons why. So in other states, you
00:38:48
know, take your pick. When you have an
00:38:50
illegal alien and they get arrested,
00:38:53
they get handed over to ICE or Border
00:38:56
Patrol for deportation. That's what's
00:38:58
happening in Minnesota. the politicians
00:39:00
have given an instruction not to do
00:39:02
that. So, literally, you have criminals,
00:39:05
people who've been arrested. There's a
00:39:06
case that was just um posted today of an
00:39:09
illegal alien in Minneapolis who killed
00:39:13
an innocent mother and severely injured
00:39:15
two others backto back in uh drunk
00:39:18
driving crashes. He did not have a valid
00:39:21
driver's license, did not have
00:39:22
insurance. He was arrested for vehicular
00:39:24
homicide. ICE asked him to be turned
00:39:27
over to them and the authorities in
00:39:30
Minneapolis refused to do that and they
00:39:32
eventually released him. So that puts
00:39:34
ICE in the position of having to go out
00:39:37
and find these guys and arrest them.
00:39:39
That's how all these operations started.
00:39:41
And you make it sound like these guys
00:39:43
are the Gestapo and they just randomly
00:39:45
round people up. That's not what's
00:39:46
happening. They have arrest warrants
00:39:48
with the names of specific people that
00:39:51
they're going after. There are arrest
00:39:52
warrants, but there were also Steven
00:39:54
Miller told them to just go round people
00:39:56
up at specific locations. So,
00:39:58
>> there is that as well. And they've been
00:40:00
trying to hit numbers that they just
00:40:01
can't possibly hit. You have to ask
00:40:03
yourself
00:40:05
>> why didn't we have you have to ask
00:40:06
yourself, I think, Sax, why didn't we
00:40:08
have this kind of violence and unmarked
00:40:11
people, breaking people's rights under
00:40:13
Obama who did far more?
00:40:14
>> I'll tell you why. You want to know why?
00:40:16
Because Obama said that we should
00:40:18
deport. Ultimately, our nation, like all
00:40:21
nations, has the right and obligation to
00:40:25
control its borders and set laws for
00:40:28
residency and citizenship. And no matter
00:40:30
how decent they are, no matter their
00:40:34
reasons. The 11 million who broke these
00:40:37
laws should be held accountable.
00:40:39
>> I'm saying he was able to do it without
00:40:40
sending masked agents in to beat the
00:40:42
>> No, the Democratic party changed. That's
00:40:44
what happened 15 years ago. the position
00:40:46
that Obama Can I just talking about the
00:40:48
policing? You ask me a question. Why
00:40:49
wasn't the policeing? Why didn't this
00:40:50
happen under Obama? Let me tell you the
00:40:51
reason why the policing happen years
00:40:53
ago. The Democrat party was still
00:40:55
somewhat rational on this issue and it
00:40:58
was basically a bipartisan position to
00:41:00
support deportations of illegal aliens
00:41:02
and not to have an open border. The
00:41:04
Democrat party changed their point of
00:41:05
view on this issue. Now,
00:41:07
>> that's not what I'm talking about
00:41:09
policing.
00:41:09
>> Let me finish my point. Tom Hman has
00:41:11
said over and over again, we don't want
00:41:12
to go out on the street. It's dangerous.
00:41:14
They don't want to be put in this
00:41:15
position. ICSE has an incredibly
00:41:17
dangerous job to do. Border Patrol has
00:41:19
an incredibly dangerous job to do. By
00:41:21
the way, the reason why they wear masks
00:41:22
is because they're getting doxed by
00:41:24
these groups who are organizing with
00:41:26
each other on signal and they're being
00:41:28
followed around. They're being stalked.
00:41:30
They're being chased to their hotels and
00:41:32
these guys follow them around. They
00:41:33
block their cars by um interposing
00:41:35
vehicles. They're interfering in in
00:41:38
official operations. They're interfering
00:41:40
with arrest and they're getting in
00:41:42
physical altercations with them. This is
00:41:44
very dangerous for eyes. They don't want
00:41:45
to be in this position. But the reason
00:41:47
why all of this is happening is because
00:41:49
Tim Waltz and Jacob Fry and the rest of
00:41:52
these guys, Lieutenant Governor, they
00:41:53
are saying, "Do not cooperate with ICE.
00:41:56
Do not cooperate with the border
00:41:57
patrol." Telling local authorities in
00:41:59
Minnesota, when you arrest an illegal
00:42:01
alien, do not turn them over to ICE.
00:42:03
It's better to release them. These
00:42:05
people are such anti-ICE zealots that
00:42:07
they would rather release a killer onto
00:42:11
the street than keep them in jail where
00:42:14
they can be turned over to ICE. And
00:42:16
that's the whole reason why they don't
00:42:17
want to keep them in jail is because
00:42:18
that would create a central repository,
00:42:20
if you will, for ICE to go collect all
00:42:22
these illegal aliens. Last year there
00:42:24
was something like 470 convicts, okay?
00:42:28
Illegal aliens, criminals. And I'm not
00:42:30
talking about that their crime wasn't
00:42:32
breaking into the country. I'm talking
00:42:33
about subsequent crimes that were
00:42:35
released
00:42:37
in Minnesota so they they cannot be
00:42:39
rounded up by ICE and deported. These
00:42:41
people are zealots and that is the
00:42:43
source of the problem. And then on top
00:42:45
of that, you've got rhetoric by people
00:42:47
like Tim Walls and the lieutenant
00:42:49
governor calling ICE and Border Patrol
00:42:52
agents who are just trying to do their
00:42:53
jobs the Gestapo and Nazis and riing
00:42:57
people up. And I think that people like
00:43:00
Alex Pretty or Renee Good, they're
00:43:01
victims of this type of rhetoric. These
00:43:04
are left-wing activists who are in this
00:43:07
leftwing echo chamber and they're
00:43:09
baronating in all this rhetoric that's
00:43:13
portraying law enforcement officials as
00:43:15
Nazis and they're embibing this
00:43:17
constantly to the point where they're
00:43:19
full of rage and anger. You see that
00:43:20
video of Alex Pretty attacking Border
00:43:23
Patrol. This is two weeks before he gets
00:43:25
killed. He's kicking the car. He's like
00:43:27
foaming at the mouth. He's in some sort
00:43:29
of rage. This is someone who's
00:43:30
emotionally disturbed and he's got a a
00:43:33
gun on his waistband, which look, every
00:43:36
gun owner knows that you have to be
00:43:38
exceedingly careful if you are carrying
00:43:41
a weapon and then you are dealing with
00:43:43
law enforcement. The last thing you want
00:43:45
to do is go out looking for an
00:43:46
altercation with them, which is what he
00:43:48
did. And by the way, I think it's
00:43:49
completely tragic that the two of them
00:43:52
were killed. I don't want to see that
00:43:53
happen. But again, they are victims of
00:43:56
this political environment, this chaos
00:43:58
that's being whipped up by the elected
00:44:00
officials in Minnesota. This would not
00:44:02
be happening if they simply turned over
00:44:04
the illegal aliens in their custody to
00:44:06
ICE and Border Patrol, which is all that
00:44:08
they're asking for.
00:44:09
>> I've said on this podcast like many
00:44:11
times, but none of you will respond to
00:44:12
it. Why are they doing this instead of
00:44:14
just finding the business owners?
00:44:16
Wouldn't that be a better policy? And
00:44:17
you're in the White House, you're around
00:44:18
these people. Why don't you tell them
00:44:19
why don't we do that? Why don't we just
00:44:21
give fines to business owners who hire
00:44:24
illegals and stop the incentive to come
00:44:26
here?
00:44:27
>> How do you know that they hired
00:44:28
illegals? How would you know that? And
00:44:30
if you know that, then you know the
00:44:32
individual.
00:44:32
>> It's super simple. You would just go do
00:44:35
uh a little investigation. You go to the
00:44:37
car wash, you videotape it like any
00:44:39
other detective or any other federal
00:44:41
agent or a local police officer would,
00:44:43
and then you track those people down.
00:44:45
You very quietly go pick one or two of
00:44:47
them up on the way home. You ask them
00:44:48
for their papers or you go to the owner
00:44:50
and say, "Hey, we have these six people.
00:44:51
Here's their pictures. Here's the
00:44:53
pictures of the six people. Show us
00:44:54
their papers. Show us their social
00:44:56
security number." That's all you have to
00:44:57
do. Freeberg,
00:44:59
>> here's my here's my here's my proposal.
00:45:01
Okay, Jacob, you may have a point there,
00:45:02
Jacob. You may have a point, but I'm not
00:45:04
sure
00:45:05
>> that it's good enough in the case of an
00:45:07
illegal alien who's already been in this
00:45:09
country committing crimes. Okay. Yeah.
00:45:11
So, if you have if you hold on, if you
00:45:12
have a drunk driver
00:45:14
>> who has killed people through drunk
00:45:16
driving and they're they're captured, I
00:45:18
think they should be turned over and
00:45:19
deported immediately.
00:45:20
>> But if you want to do big numbers, like
00:45:21
big numbers, you could just go to a
00:45:23
farm, you could go to a car wash, you
00:45:25
could go to a restaurant, you take
00:45:26
pictures of everybody coming in and out
00:45:28
for their shift, you go to the business
00:45:29
owner and say, "We have these people.
00:45:31
They can you show us their uh paychecks
00:45:34
and their pay stubs?"
00:45:36
>> All right. So, we'll agree to disagree
00:45:38
on some of this and uh we'll agree that
00:45:41
this is a tragedy and that we need
00:45:43
leadership to calm these things down. Uh
00:45:46
and we need to agree on a very
00:45:48
reasonable immigration policy which is
00:45:51
not what we have right now in my
00:45:53
opinion. All right. Claudebot has gone
00:45:55
viral overnight. I have been claed. I
00:45:58
have been one claude. I am all in on
00:46:00
this. Um this is an open-source project
00:46:03
created by a gentleman named Peter
00:46:05
Steinberger. He's an Austrian developer
00:46:07
and entrepreneur.
00:46:09
So, what is it? It's uh basically an
00:46:11
open-source personal assistant. Uh think
00:46:14
like Siri or maybe Jarvis. Have any of
00:46:17
you guys used it yet? Has anybody
00:46:19
installed it yet?
00:46:20
>> I did. I spent 15 minutes and I saved
00:46:22
15% on my car insurance.
00:46:25
>> Are you joking? Sure. You installed it
00:46:26
and then asked it to go.
00:46:27
>> You know what's so funny, Nick? I posted
00:46:29
this. The number of people that didn't
00:46:31
understand that that was a joke.
00:46:33
>> No, I understand it's a joke. Yeah,
00:46:34
>> I know you did. Yeah. Yeah.
00:46:35
>> But there was a bunch of people that
00:46:37
were like, "Really? How did you do it?
00:46:38
Can I do it?" And then some people were
00:46:40
like, "Wait, only 15%." And other people
00:46:42
were like, "Wait, you set it up
00:46:43
yourself. You didn't have somebody help
00:46:44
you."
00:46:46
>> This is the great This is This is
00:46:47
literally the greatest thing ever. Have
00:46:49
you installed it yet, Freedberg?
00:46:51
>> No, I don't want to give
00:46:53
>> Okay.
00:46:53
>> an open source tool access to all my
00:46:55
emails and messages.
00:46:56
>> Have you done it yet?
00:46:58
>> No, because I'm concerned about the
00:46:59
security issues. But I want to I want to
00:47:01
do it, but I'm concerned about the
00:47:02
security.
00:47:02
>> I've spent the last 72 hours doing this.
00:47:05
I'm going to explain to you what we did
00:47:06
at the company. It's mind-blowing. Okay,
00:47:09
so it is basically think like an open-
00:47:12
source Siri or Jarvis, right? You get
00:47:14
into an interface and you can talk to a
00:47:16
virtual assistant and it does things for
00:47:17
you just like chat GPT or XAI might. But
00:47:21
the way it works is you kind of load a
00:47:24
virtual machine if you know what that is
00:47:25
or you can put it on your Mac Mini. You
00:47:27
run this like a server. Then you start
00:47:29
authenticating it with your services.
00:47:31
So, Gmail, Notion, Slack, WhatsApp,
00:47:34
maybe even your password manager. Super
00:47:36
dangerous. Nobody like Claude or XAI or
00:47:40
Microsoft would ever allow you to do
00:47:42
this because it's so dangerous,
00:47:44
obviously.
00:47:46
>> But we did this and we put it to work.
00:47:48
Here's what we did. I created a virtual
00:47:51
podcast producer and we made this
00:47:54
persona
00:47:56
and we created a new Gmail account,
00:47:59
Sachs, a new notion account, a new
00:48:01
WhatsApp account, everything. We created
00:48:03
like basically an a virtual employee. We
00:48:06
put it together and we made it the
00:48:08
producer for my new This Week in AI
00:48:10
podcast. There's a little plug in there
00:48:12
for it. So, we had it start doing
00:48:15
research on guests. So, we said, "Hey,
00:48:17
research guests, right?" just like you
00:48:18
can do in an LLM. Then we connected it
00:48:21
to um the existing feeds like the
00:48:25
podcast feeds and the database of like
00:48:27
people we've had on the show and like
00:48:28
who's booked. Then we said make a CRM
00:48:32
Sachs for all potential guests and
00:48:33
suggest other guests and it vibe coded a
00:48:36
CRM for itself.
00:48:38
>> Can you show this?
00:48:40
>> I said hey do some research on this.
00:48:41
Right. So then we start a thread with it
00:48:43
with the actual producer Oliver who's
00:48:46
working on this. So I said, "Do this
00:48:47
guest research." It did all this guest
00:48:48
research. Now, this is as good as like
00:48:50
Nick or Lisa would do at a first pass,
00:48:53
but it did it instantly. And then I made
00:48:55
a prompt for it to like, and I was using
00:48:57
this prompt, by the way, David, when we
00:48:58
were in Davos for our guests. And so
00:49:01
this like gets the company's name, the
00:49:03
founder information, you know, look for
00:49:05
their competitors, all the stuff that a
00:49:07
producer would do over a day or two. Do
00:49:09
a timeline, give suggested questions,
00:49:11
etc. So I teach it this. So, here's
00:49:13
producer X and it says, "Got it. That's
00:49:17
what uh that's a great guest research."
00:49:20
And I said, "Okay, do the guest research
00:49:21
on this person." It comes back with
00:49:22
that. And it gave me its media
00:49:24
appearances, all the stuff I would want
00:49:25
to do for research. Then I said, "Um,
00:49:28
uh, I think this would be
00:49:30
>> You're interacting with it like an
00:49:31
agent." So, how is it different than an
00:49:32
agent?
00:49:33
>> Watch. Okay, we're getting to it. So,
00:49:35
then I said, um, producer X, email Alex
00:49:39
and let him know that I want to have him
00:49:40
on this weekend in AI. CC me and CC
00:49:42
Oliver. And it says, uh, I couldn't
00:49:45
verify the email, but I'm going to try
00:49:47
this one. And it wrote this email. It
00:49:49
sent the email. Then after it sent it,
00:49:53
>> did he respond?
00:49:54
>> So here's the email to the guest.
00:49:56
>> Oh my god.
00:49:57
>> Hey, Alexis
00:49:58
wanted me to reach out. He'd love to
00:49:59
have you on this weekend to discuss
00:50:01
ExoLabs, your work on distributed
00:50:03
inference on the recent he like did this
00:50:04
like little thing. Let me know if you'd
00:50:06
be interested.
00:50:08
>> So then
00:50:09
>> it's [ __ ] crazy. He says,
00:50:11
>> this guy says, "Sounds great. I'll be in
00:50:13
touch."
00:50:14
>> Then I said, "Here's what I want you to
00:50:16
do. I want you," and we created a group
00:50:19
called replicants. So now we've made
00:50:21
five replicants at the company. And
00:50:23
today is like replicant day or replicant
00:50:25
week. So I told it every time you do
00:50:28
work for me in the replicant room, say
00:50:31
what you did and then also put it on
00:50:33
your calendar. So now it's putting on
00:50:36
its calendar what it did in timestamps.
00:50:39
So he said I did some guest research
00:50:41
here and then yesterday I did this
00:50:42
booking report and that I'm doing this
00:50:45
AI around it that I'm doing this
00:50:47
>> and then I set up a and then producer
00:50:48
lawn had it set up a ticker because we
00:50:50
did this email ticker and did all that
00:50:52
work
00:50:53
>> and the crazy thing is you can start
00:50:55
talking to it directly so I can have a
00:50:58
direct conversation with producer X and
00:51:02
it learns and now it knows everything.
00:51:04
So we started one to be an SDR and then
00:51:08
we are giving it access to our CRM
00:51:10
there. But it built its own CRM, David.
00:51:12
It's building its own SAS tools to solve
00:51:14
its problems. Every time you add it to
00:51:16
something, it gets smarter. So now we've
00:51:19
we're making a LinkedIn for this
00:51:20
persona.
00:51:21
>> The LinkedIn is going to start adding
00:51:23
people. People don't know that these
00:51:26
aren't humans.
00:51:27
>> Yeah,
00:51:28
>> it's insane.
00:51:29
>> All right, let me give you a few
00:51:30
thoughts. So, I was paying close
00:51:32
attention to the whole Claudebot
00:51:33
freakout, you know, over the weekend.
00:51:35
And, you know, again, I wanted to set it
00:51:37
up really badly, but I was too afraid of
00:51:39
the security issues to do it, but I was
00:51:41
watching everyone else do it. And look,
00:51:43
I think the takeaways for me are number
00:51:44
one that this will be the year of the
00:51:47
rise of the personal AI assistant. Until
00:51:50
now, AI has mainly come in the form
00:51:52
factor of a chatbot and it's been used
00:51:55
as a research tool. Some people have
00:51:59
>> search. Yeah,
00:52:00
>> it's better search. There's kind of this
00:52:02
niche case of, you know, fantasy chat
00:52:04
bots where people actually like somehow
00:52:06
talking to a chatbot, but really it's
00:52:08
about better web search and it's about
00:52:10
research. Now, we're moving to a
00:52:11
completely different form factor, which
00:52:14
is again this AI assistant that's an
00:52:16
agent that can do things for you and
00:52:18
it's going to get better and better at
00:52:20
doing different tasks for you.
00:52:21
Everyone's going to have this amazing AI
00:52:23
agent. Now, you know who who is the
00:52:26
beneficiary of this market opportunity?
00:52:28
I mean there's obviously going to be
00:52:29
some startups like the guy who's doing
00:52:31
Claudebot which I guess he renamed it
00:52:32
was it moldbot or
00:52:35
>> it's called Maltbot now because Claude
00:52:37
got upset
00:52:37
>> right so in any event it's Maltbot now
00:52:39
but I think it's a tremendous
00:52:40
opportunity for Google because the
00:52:42
question is who has your data Google has
00:52:44
all my email my calendar my documents
00:52:46
which is exactly the stuff that I would
00:52:48
want to integrate with Cloudbot if I
00:52:49
believed it was safe obviously I've
00:52:51
already made the determination that
00:52:53
Google is safe because they already have
00:52:54
all my data so I think Google is in a
00:52:57
tremendous
00:52:58
position to offer a personal AI
00:53:00
assistant that's connected with your
00:53:01
email and calendar for those of us who
00:53:03
are using G Suite and so on. Obviously,
00:53:06
there'll be opportunities for other
00:53:07
companies as well, but I think this is
00:53:09
going to be such a big product that it
00:53:12
may become the dominant form factor of
00:53:14
AI, meaning more popular than the the
00:53:17
sort of researchoriented chatbot.
00:53:19
Speaking from the policy point of view,
00:53:21
I think it's going to change the policy
00:53:22
debate around AI because so much of the
00:53:25
policy debate over AI is about fighting
00:53:29
the last set of battles around social
00:53:31
media
00:53:32
>> question and answer modality.
00:53:33
>> It's sort of treating AI as like a form
00:53:35
of social media. I mean, I hear policy
00:53:38
makers say all the time, what are you
00:53:39
going to do to protect kids against
00:53:40
predators? And it's like, well, wait,
00:53:42
what predators are you talking about?
00:53:43
This is not social media, right? I mean,
00:53:46
I understand if you want to protect kids
00:53:47
against, I don't know, a fantasy chatbot
00:53:49
that's recommending they do bad things,
00:53:51
but it's just it's very different,
00:53:52
right? This is just a completely
00:53:54
different modality. And I think that the
00:53:56
rise of agents will make that clear that
00:53:58
we're dealing with something that's not
00:54:00
social media. Maybe there's some
00:54:02
analogies to the previous set of policy
00:54:04
battles that were fought over social
00:54:06
media, but I think it's quite different.
00:54:08
So, I think Claudebot is a breakthrough.
00:54:11
I think it's a really interesting proof
00:54:13
of concept and we'll also have to see
00:54:15
exactly who who the big winners are
00:54:17
here.
00:54:18
>> I think what's interesting is that if I
00:54:20
said to you, hey, there's going to be an
00:54:22
AI personal assistant. You would have
00:54:25
some point of view in your mind on what
00:54:27
that means. It's like, oh, it can, you
00:54:29
know, change my calendar,
00:54:31
tell me about my travel, read my email
00:54:34
for me, summarize that that kind of
00:54:35
stuff. But what I think people don't
00:54:37
realize, it's almost like the first time
00:54:39
you use FSD in your Tesla or the first
00:54:41
time you used an iPhone, you realize
00:54:43
that it's so much more that it widens
00:54:45
the aperture of what's possible that
00:54:47
it's not just the assistant in the way
00:54:49
that you might otherwise be thinking
00:54:50
about it, but it's like this super
00:54:52
worker. And the super worker, like to
00:54:54
Jal's point, it it does both scheduling,
00:54:56
calendaring, ideation, knowledge work,
00:54:59
creates new code, creates CRM tools,
00:55:02
books your travel, it does everything.
00:55:04
And then if you start thinking about
00:55:06
having an army of super workers, you're
00:55:08
like, "Oh my god, what's possible?" And
00:55:10
now think about what Elon's doing.
00:55:11
Yesterday, Elon shut down the Model S
00:55:14
and Model X production lines in Fremont.
00:55:17
>> And by the way, you know, a year ago,
00:55:18
I'd never owned a Tesla. And I was so
00:55:20
blown away with FSD that in the last
00:55:22
week, we bought two more Model X's. So
00:55:24
now everyone in my family, we're all on
00:55:26
Tesla because the experience is so good.
00:55:29
But they're shutting down the Model S,
00:55:30
Model X lines to make Optimus. So if
00:55:32
you've got the same thing that Jal's
00:55:34
talking about and experiencing, but
00:55:36
you've actually got it in physical form
00:55:38
in addition to digital form, that's the
00:55:40
future where everyone has a super
00:55:43
workforce and you put two optimists in
00:55:44
your garage and they build and run a
00:55:46
business for you and then everyone
00:55:48
becomes an entrepreneur.
00:55:49
>> What was my prediction, Jason? What of
00:55:51
my prediction?
00:55:51
>> Oh, that they would merge all these
00:55:53
companies and then this week
00:55:54
>> it's happening.
00:55:55
>> It's happening apparently. Um or I
00:55:57
shouldn't say it's happening. We don't
00:55:58
know it's happening, but beep
00:56:00
>> boop.
00:56:02
Between this and my copper prediction,
00:56:04
>> I'm about to retire.
00:56:05
>> You know, copper's up 26% in a month.
00:56:10
>> What is that? Is an annualized.
00:56:12
>> Check this out. S
00:56:14
>> I we invited somebody from Craft
00:56:16
Ventures on and I forgot who's from
00:56:17
Craft Ventures who's going to be on this
00:56:19
week in AI. So, I said, "Can you tell me
00:56:22
who's doing it?" And it said, "Oh, I
00:56:24
couldn't find it." I said, "Oh, it's in
00:56:25
the notion database." So, it goes and it
00:56:27
found it. Oh, Mike Robinson from Craft
00:56:28
Ventures is on February 24th. And then
00:56:30
there's also Brian from Craft or
00:56:33
whatever. And he was on a different
00:56:35
liquidity round table. And I said, "Hey,
00:56:37
can you email Mike and I want to do a
00:56:39
pre-show call with him?" Guessed his
00:56:41
email, sent it. I said, "C Heidi, I
00:56:43
haven't given him an access to my
00:56:44
stuff." And it said, "Oh, do you want to
00:56:45
get his top three times, all this
00:56:47
stuff?" It's crazy what's going on here,
00:56:49
folks. I would say out of 50 hours a
00:56:52
producer does a week, this does 40 of
00:56:55
them. And of what an SDR does, this does
00:56:59
95%.
00:57:01
This is going to be crazy because it
00:57:04
keeps learning. Now, your API bill is
00:57:07
going to be nuts. The first day we did
00:57:09
this, we hit like a $100. I think it's
00:57:11
going to be like $1,000 a day in API
00:57:12
calls. So, my team's like, "Hey, this is
00:57:14
a lot of API calls because people are
00:57:16
going crazy inside Slack and making all
00:57:19
of these agents."
00:57:20
>> Good news, Kimmy 2.5. Yeah.
00:57:23
>> Uh we are ordering Mac um studios, the
00:57:27
really powerful studios with like max
00:57:29
memory on and they're putting Kimmy. Is
00:57:31
that the new open source one?
00:57:34
>> Yeah, we're putting Kimmy on them. We're
00:57:36
going to have free
00:57:38
free for and then it according to people
00:57:41
online like 95% of all these queries can
00:57:43
be done for free with Kimmy.
00:57:44
>> You'll save 90%.
00:57:46
>> It's crazy.
00:57:47
>> It's really crazy.
00:57:48
>> This is independent by the way of
00:57:50
whatever LLM you want to use. You can
00:57:52
swap out LLMs. You could route it to
00:57:53
different LLMs. You can do whatever you
00:57:55
want with it. I tried to have it create
00:57:57
Reddit accounts for me. Like, I want a
00:57:59
Reddit account to go do research. And
00:58:00
it's like, I can't do that. It's against
00:58:02
the term of service. I don't think
00:58:03
people understand how important this
00:58:05
Kimmy K2.5 moment is.
00:58:07
>> Wait, what is Kimmy K2?
00:58:08
>> Just to set some context, right? So, I
00:58:11
think the last few years we've all kind
00:58:15
of lived in a world of what I would call
00:58:17
blackbox AI, meaning you go to your
00:58:20
favorite chatbot, basically, you put in
00:58:23
a prompt and you press enter, right? And
00:58:25
all of those things go to proprietary
00:58:27
models and they're excellent. OpenAI has
00:58:31
some, Anthropic has some, Google has
00:58:33
some, and they all give you back an
00:58:35
answer. Super powerful. But the
00:58:37
important thing that we don't know to
00:58:39
care about right now is that all of that
00:58:41
stuff is gated. What does that mean? You
00:58:43
don't own the keys. You don't own the
00:58:45
blueprints. You have no idea what's
00:58:46
actually going on. And what Claudebot
00:58:49
demonstrated this week is you're one
00:58:52
terms of service update away from
00:58:54
everything breaking, right? Because at
00:58:55
one point, Anthropic didn't like what
00:58:57
was going on and they said, "No, this is
00:58:59
not allowed." So,
00:59:02
we've talked about this battle between
00:59:04
open source and closed source. So all of
00:59:06
the models that that have been winning,
00:59:08
the blackbox models are closed source
00:59:10
models. But open source is important
00:59:12
because it's transparent. It gives
00:59:15
everybody their own sovereignty whether
00:59:18
you're a company and frankly really more
00:59:21
importantly whether you're a country. It
00:59:23
gives you control of your own speed. It
00:59:25
gives you a lot of execution control.
00:59:28
You can audit the weights of the models.
00:59:30
It allows you to host it on your own
00:59:31
hardware. And the most important thing
00:59:34
is the data never leaves your control.
00:59:35
So that's why open source was really
00:59:37
important, but it was always kind of
00:59:39
like an underdog and it wasn't
00:59:40
particularly good. So this week you wake
00:59:43
up, you go to the office and Kim K 2.5
00:59:45
is important. So this is why it's so
00:59:47
important because it was incredibly
00:59:50
profound. It's a trillion parameter
00:59:53
mixture of expert model.
00:59:57
When you farm out work, the proprietary
01:00:00
models keep that agentic layer kind of
01:00:04
secret.
01:00:05
Kimmy Cape 2.5 was like okay look here's
01:00:08
this thing called agent swarm it's a
01:00:10
technology that we built that's also now
01:00:12
public and it allows you to create all
01:00:14
you know 100 sub aents and what that
01:00:17
allows you to do is basically solve any
01:00:19
complicated
01:00:20
multi-step problem in parallel so I
01:00:23
think this is the moment now if I had to
01:00:26
make a prediction
01:00:28
I think there is the clear shot across
01:00:31
the bow of closed source and I think
01:00:33
open source can
01:00:35
Why?
01:00:35
>> Because when Kimmy K2.5 is accessible,
01:00:40
>> it democratizes something this trillion
01:00:42
parameter reasoning
01:00:44
>> that right now you could not otherwise
01:00:46
get. Now you can do vision to code, you
01:00:50
can do massive context windows. It's
01:00:52
really unbelievable and it's available
01:00:54
to everybody.
01:00:56
>> And to just build on it, you're exactly
01:00:58
correct and I think it's a very big
01:01:01
deal. You can run it. This is the other
01:01:04
thing. What What have the two limiting
01:01:05
factors been here?
01:01:06
>> I'm not a big fan of like these locally
01:01:08
hosted models. I think it's all [ __ ]
01:01:09
and janky. It's all like kids mucking
01:01:11
around.
01:01:14
>> I think running these things locally are
01:01:16
stupid and janky.
01:01:17
>> The whole point of open source is to go
01:01:19
and take them into these huge data
01:01:21
centers is to use nextgen silicon. And
01:01:24
we talked about this last week or the
01:01:26
week before where again post Grock what
01:01:29
I think will happen is you're going to
01:01:31
see an explosion of decode silicon. If
01:01:34
you take these next generation systems
01:01:36
and you marry them to open source you're
01:01:39
going to cut the cost of AI by 90%.
01:01:42
And when you do that you know Jason your
01:01:44
bill is going to be 10 bucks a day.
01:01:47
>> Yeah.
01:01:47
>> And you're just not going to stop.
01:01:49
Here's the interesting thing for me like
01:01:51
back to this like running it like there
01:01:53
are now people who figured out how to
01:01:55
daisy chain the Mac studios. So people
01:01:58
are you can see there's two stack there.
01:02:00
People are starting to stack these. This
01:02:02
is commodity hardware running open
01:02:04
source. The there's two advantages to
01:02:06
this one. We have control of all the
01:02:09
data. We have it on our own hardware. We
01:02:11
can run it infinitely. And these things
01:02:14
are only getting better. the M5 chips
01:02:15
coming to these Mac studios and if you
01:02:17
want more power you stack it up and then
01:02:19
the open source models are getting
01:02:20
easier. So what's going to happen is 90%
01:02:23
or 95% of our jobs are going to go to
01:02:25
this local hardware will control it. We
01:02:28
don't have to worry about our
01:02:29
information going up to Samman I canled
01:02:32
I canled all of my OpenAI accounts.
01:02:36
$25,000 gone. It's a matter of time
01:02:38
until the big model makers create an
01:02:41
incremental revenue stream for guys like
01:02:43
you, Jason, to license back all your
01:02:45
prompt and response data. And you'll
01:02:47
probably make enough to pay for the all
01:02:49
the costs of hosting and running these
01:02:51
models. Anyways,
01:02:52
>> yeah. Anyway, I this is like feels like
01:02:55
>> it's a very big moment.
01:02:56
>> It's a big mo it feels like a very big
01:02:57
moment. And then, you know, let alone if
01:03:00
when do you think freeberg we get it on
01:03:03
here? When do we get it on our phones?
01:03:05
when we'll be running Kimmy.
01:03:07
>> We're not even talking about a lot of
01:03:08
the architectural changes that are
01:03:10
happening that we've talked about in the
01:03:11
past. There papers that indicate we
01:03:13
could probably go down by 70 to 100x in
01:03:16
terms of compute need in how the the
01:03:18
model actually runs. So yeah, ultimately
01:03:21
these things end up on the on the iPhone
01:03:23
running locally and you don't need to go
01:03:25
to the cloud. By the way, just having
01:03:27
our nation's AIS are on the line here, I
01:03:30
think this has a dramatic effect. If you
01:03:32
play all of these paps out on the way a
01:03:35
lot of these states have written their
01:03:36
idiotic legislation where those those
01:03:39
legislative approaches encompass
01:03:42
strictly the view of AI being a chatbot
01:03:44
interface run by a single company
01:03:46
running a model in a data center. And if
01:03:48
all of the models end up running locally
01:03:50
on machines in open source, different
01:03:53
contexts, different use cases, all of
01:03:55
like we said from the beginning, all of
01:03:56
the [ __ ] idiotic, dumbass takes by
01:03:59
legislators on what they think they need
01:04:01
to regulate and how go out the window or
01:04:03
they create a lot of confusion on what's
01:04:05
actually going on in the real world and
01:04:07
it puts us at risk. I strongly endorse
01:04:10
the effort by those in the
01:04:12
administration to pass a federal AI
01:04:14
preeemption law that avoids all of this
01:04:16
nonsense in the states and the local
01:04:17
governments. And I think that this
01:04:18
evolution of AI from being centrally
01:04:22
hosted in data centers by closed models
01:04:24
through chatbot interfaces. All of those
01:04:27
layers break. You start to recognize
01:04:29
very quickly why you need to have
01:04:31
federal preeemption on this stuff
01:04:32
because people get way too ahead of it
01:04:33
and it's going to limit innovation.
01:04:35
>> Yeah. Did you just Well, obviously I
01:04:37
agree I agree with that. And again, just
01:04:39
to build on that point, you can't
01:04:41
underestimate how much the policy debate
01:04:44
in Washington has indexed on a single
01:04:48
use case.
01:04:49
>> That's what I'm saying.
01:04:49
>> Which was a niche fantasy chatbot
01:04:53
application,
01:04:54
>> right?
01:04:54
>> Yeah. That's all that people know. Yeah.
01:04:56
That's all they know.
01:04:57
>> That turned into horror stories. I mean,
01:04:58
legit horror stories. But
01:05:01
>> again, that is just not the predominant
01:05:03
use of AI. And it's certainly not going
01:05:05
to be in a year.
01:05:06
>> One way to think about it is imagine if
01:05:08
the internet came out and the only thing
01:05:09
that happened on the internet for the
01:05:11
first three years was like pornography
01:05:13
websites and like just like and then
01:05:15
people are like, "Okay, we got to
01:05:17
regulate the internet." And it's like,
01:05:18
"Hold on a second. This is an idiotic
01:05:20
use case. Perhaps we should take a zoom
01:05:22
out and think about what the internet
01:05:23
could enable and all of the other use
01:05:25
cases." And legislation needs to be
01:05:27
crafted with a bigger view. And perhaps
01:05:29
it's a little too early to make those
01:05:31
judgment calls.
01:05:32
>> Yeah. You got to wonder what impact this
01:05:34
is going to have on the valuations of
01:05:37
these companies. I mean, if you can run
01:05:39
this stuff locally on your own hardware,
01:05:42
you can bracket or put it in a virtual
01:05:43
machine and open source wins, it's going
01:05:45
to change the economics of everything.
01:05:47
And the people I'm talking to in
01:05:48
startups, which is where you always see
01:05:50
the most efficient use of technology,
01:05:52
they're all using Kimmy and what was the
01:05:55
other?
01:05:55
>> Let me ask you a question about that
01:05:56
actually, Chimoth. So Kimmy K2 powerful
01:06:00
model but it is a Chinese model or at
01:06:02
least it originates in China obviously
01:06:04
once it's open source people can fork it
01:06:06
and make their own but does that concern
01:06:09
you particularly
01:06:11
around the use case of coding because
01:06:14
what if there was a secret prompt in the
01:06:17
model
01:06:18
>> zero day attack or something
01:06:19
>> well it's like something built into the
01:06:20
model that's secret that could inject
01:06:22
corrupted code and you know so much
01:06:25
code's now being written by these models
01:06:28
in such volume that I mean humans in the
01:06:31
beginning were checking it all. But now
01:06:32
even the founder of Cloudbot said he he
01:06:34
doesn't even check all the code because
01:06:35
he can't personally supervise all of it.
01:06:37
So as AI coding becomes a bigger and
01:06:39
bigger percentage. Right now it's
01:06:41
probably what like 50%. As it goes to
01:06:43
99% no one's even checking it. You have
01:06:45
to really worry about prompt injections.
01:06:48
>> Exactly.
01:06:49
>> Code injections.
01:06:50
>> I think you're bringing up an important
01:06:51
point. Right now we overly rely on eval
01:06:54
to tell us how good a model is and I
01:06:57
don't think we've developed a standard
01:06:59
to I mean the the big model companies do
01:07:01
it internally but the safety teams
01:07:05
who are responsible for red teaming
01:07:07
these models don't really work as a
01:07:10
broad coalition. Everybody has their own
01:07:12
version of what they do to make sure
01:07:13
that their own models are good and
01:07:14
performant. I think that there's an
01:07:17
opportunity because somebody has to be
01:07:19
able to take an open source model. Let's
01:07:21
just say you're France and you're like,
01:07:24
"Wow, where am I in this whole AI race?
01:07:26
I'm nowhere.
01:07:28
We have a bunch of applications that we
01:07:30
want to develop and we need our own
01:07:32
sovereign AI stack." And so, okay, we'll
01:07:35
take Kimmy K 2.5. What do they do to
01:07:38
your point Sachs to get complete
01:07:41
assurance that that model is reliable
01:07:43
and safe under all weather conditions?
01:07:46
Honestly, the answer is I don't know
01:07:48
what they would do right now. But that's
01:07:50
the opportunity because somebody has to
01:07:52
be able to say, "Okay, look, we're going
01:07:54
to sandbox it in the following way.
01:07:55
We're going to run it under all these
01:07:57
race conditions. We're going to get to
01:07:58
all these corner cases so that we can
01:08:00
tell you that it's actually good to go
01:08:01
and then you can use it." But how long
01:08:03
will that take? And then by that time,
01:08:05
are we on Kimmy K3? And then what is
01:08:08
France supposed to do? I don't know. So
01:08:10
these are complicated questions. But
01:08:12
yeah, we do need an entire reimagining
01:08:16
of how you red team some of these open
01:08:17
source models, obviously.
01:08:19
>> And there's open source models being
01:08:21
made here in the US too, by the way.
01:08:23
>> Exactly. No, no. Meta is doing them.
01:08:25
>> Wherever it comes from,
01:08:26
>> you're going to need AI models to look
01:08:28
for corrupted code and to do the
01:08:30
security eval. And there's going to have
01:08:32
to be continuous monitoring. The good
01:08:33
thing about open source is that when one
01:08:35
person discovers a bug or a flaw or
01:08:38
whatever, they share it with the
01:08:39
community and then it gets patched
01:08:42
globally.
01:08:42
>> The the other problem with open source
01:08:44
though right now is you can't really
01:08:45
fork it and make it your own. Why?
01:08:47
Because there's so much investment by
01:08:49
Moonshot. That's the company that makes
01:08:50
Kim K2 in that example that you'll have
01:08:53
so much drift in one version your fork
01:08:55
will be worthless. So why would you do
01:08:57
it? So again, it goes back to sachs. We
01:09:00
have to be able to say okay Moonshot
01:09:01
will provide Kimmy K2 and every update
01:09:03
thereafter but now we need to stress
01:09:05
test it and we need to redte team it and
01:09:07
we need to be able to say that this
01:09:08
thing is bulletproof and right now there
01:09:11
is no clean way of going to a third
01:09:13
party vendor to do that in a quick
01:09:16
reliable cycle and that's a business
01:09:17
opportunity for somebody
01:09:20
just speaking of the business
01:09:20
opportunity I think there are a number
01:09:22
of American
01:09:23
>> AI companies that are working on open
01:09:25
source models it is a gap that we have
01:09:28
>> so and that is an opportunity I mean,
01:09:30
look, if you're running critical
01:09:32
infrastructure, I don't think you want
01:09:33
to be using a Chinese model, period, on
01:09:37
that critical infrastructure.
01:09:38
>> I think if you can get it validated by
01:09:40
an American company that's trustworthy,
01:09:42
then it's no longer really a Chinese
01:09:43
model. Chinese contributed some really
01:09:45
great ideas and now there's a branch
01:09:47
that you can use. I think it's just hard
01:09:48
to ignore how good this stuff is now.
01:09:51
>> It feels like this was a turning point
01:09:54
this week. Okay, I want to get to one
01:09:56
more important story. But dollar has
01:09:59
dropped as gold and silver and copper
01:10:01
have ripped. Dollar index is down 10% in
01:10:04
the last year. Hit its lowest level in
01:10:07
four years on Tuesday. Trump was asked
01:10:09
if the dollar declined too much. His
01:10:11
quote, "No, I think it's great." Wall
01:10:13
Street thinks Trump wants a weaker
01:10:14
dollar to boost US manufacturing and
01:10:16
exports. Obviously, we have a weaker
01:10:17
dollar. That means the stuff from the US
01:10:19
is cheaper. Foreign stuff becomes more
01:10:21
expensive. Uh and um we have a situation
01:10:25
here, Freeberg, that you've talked
01:10:27
about. Money printing has increased to
01:10:29
$2.5 trillion a year. Trump wants to
01:10:31
print an additional 500 billion more.
01:10:34
That would bring us close to 3 trillion
01:10:35
uh for the military and uh money has
01:10:39
poured into gold and silver which have
01:10:42
way outperformed the S&P. Shout out
01:10:44
Vinnie Lingham. Freeberg, your thoughts
01:10:47
on dollar devaluation and what we're
01:10:49
seeing?
01:10:51
Yeah. So, people talk about the market
01:10:53
going up, but I'll use an analogy. If
01:10:55
you live on an island and there's two
01:10:57
huts on the island and there's a bunch
01:10:58
of shells that people are using for
01:11:01
trade, each house is going to be worth a
01:11:03
certain number of shells. And then if
01:11:05
people went and found a whole bunch of
01:11:06
more shells, the price per house would
01:11:08
go up in number of shells. But there's
01:11:10
just more shells in in the supply. And
01:11:13
effectively, you've inflated everything.
01:11:15
And that's effectively what's gone on
01:11:17
with the US fiscal condition. We've
01:11:19
talked about this many times, but I
01:11:20
think it's always worth a rehash. In a
01:11:23
democracy like we have for the past 250
01:11:25
years, without adequate constitutional
01:11:27
constraints, it has always been the case
01:11:29
that over time spending goes up.
01:11:31
Government spending goes up. And this is
01:11:32
because in a democracy, people ask for
01:11:34
their government to do more every year.
01:11:36
And as they ask for their government to
01:11:38
do more every year, the government
01:11:39
agents who are elected say, "Okay, here
01:11:42
you go." And they spend more.
01:11:43
Eventually, when the borrowing capacity
01:11:44
gets unlocked, which is what happened in
01:11:46
the United States when we went off the
01:11:48
gold standard, you borrow like crazy.
01:11:50
You print money to to fund those
01:11:52
borrowing costs and you use that
01:11:55
fundamentally to drive the next voting
01:11:57
cycle, which is to give people more and
01:11:58
more of what they want. But eventually,
01:12:00
the bill comes to you and in the United
01:12:02
States, the bill is coming to you. Let's
01:12:04
start by looking at the money supply
01:12:05
chart. This is the M2 money supply
01:12:06
chart, showing the rapid rise in dollars
01:12:09
in supply as a function of the central
01:12:11
bank of the United States. the Federal
01:12:13
Reserve making loans to banks ultimately
01:12:16
to fund federal spending. I mean really
01:12:18
an extraordinary number. And if you look
01:12:19
at the M2 money supply chart going back
01:12:22
to 1960,
01:12:24
1955
01:12:26
and you can see postcoid we were hoping
01:12:28
that we would have resolved and sort of
01:12:31
reduced the money supply by some amount
01:12:34
but co really created this accelerating
01:12:36
mechanism and you know we're back on
01:12:38
track in the last couple of years to
01:12:40
increasing the money supply. And so over
01:12:43
time the the US dollar gets devalued as
01:12:45
there are simply more dollars in the
01:12:47
market and US treasuries gets
01:12:49
challenged. So if we take a look here
01:12:51
around the world central banks have
01:12:54
decided that they no longer want to hold
01:12:56
US treasuries. And so this is the value
01:12:58
of gold versus treasuries in central
01:13:01
banks in their inventory. So we are now
01:13:04
seeing that for the first time in
01:13:05
history or
01:13:06
>> no no hold on that's not accurate. It's
01:13:08
not like they're selling. This line just
01:13:10
shows it's stable per se, right? It's
01:13:12
more that the incremental buying is in
01:13:13
real assets.
01:13:14
>> Yeah. But this dollar the dollar value
01:13:16
is also adjusted. So fundamentally I
01:13:18
mean one way to think about this is the
01:13:20
relative value of central bank holdings
01:13:22
around the world. We now see gold
01:13:24
eclipsing US treasuries. So now gold is
01:13:26
a larger share of the holdings. Yeah. So
01:13:28
now gold is the largest share of the
01:13:30
holdings of central banks. If you look
01:13:31
at the next chart which is just over the
01:13:33
past year as JCL pointed out this is the
01:13:35
dollar index. So it's the dollar against
01:13:36
a basket of foreign currencies has
01:13:39
declined you know from a index of about
01:13:42
call it 109 down to 96 today. This chart
01:13:46
actually looks at so what is the US
01:13:48
stock market trading at and instead of
01:13:51
trading it in US dollars what if you
01:13:53
just looked at the US stock market the
01:13:55
total value in ounces of gold. And so if
01:13:58
we had the gold standard still and if we
01:14:02
functionally converted stock market
01:14:04
value from dollars back into gold, you
01:14:07
can see that the stock market in the
01:14:09
United States over the past years, so
01:14:12
this is about seven and a half years
01:14:13
going back to the pre-COVID era, is
01:14:15
actually down, down pretty substantively
01:14:18
from the pre-COVID era. So stock markets
01:14:20
are fundamentally down. Everyone's
01:14:21
cheering, clapping, bouncing up and
01:14:23
down. Stock markets are up. Stock
01:14:25
markets are up. And I'm going to tell
01:14:25
you why this is important in a minute.
01:14:27
Uh, and everyone's, you know, jumping up
01:14:28
and down saying, "Great, the stock
01:14:30
market's up." The stock market's up in
01:14:32
dollar denominated terms. But if you
01:14:33
look at the stock market relative to
01:14:34
gold, it's actually down. And the
01:14:38
sell-off is not just in the stock market
01:14:41
relative to gold, but you can actually
01:14:42
look importantly at the metric that we
01:14:44
all should care the most about, which is
01:14:46
US Treasury yield. So, this is the
01:14:47
30-year. So, the 30-year yield is now at
01:14:50
4.9%.
01:14:52
The average US government's cost to
01:14:53
borrow today is 3.3%.
01:14:57
So if we end up needing to roll all of
01:14:59
the US government debt, assuming we take
01:15:01
on no new debt, which we know is not the
01:15:03
case, $39 trillion of debt outstanding,
01:15:07
the federal government level today, and
01:15:09
it had to get refinanced at this rate,
01:15:11
we would have an incremental annual cost
01:15:13
to service the debt, just the interest
01:15:15
on the existing debt, of roughly $700
01:15:18
billion a year. incremental cost to
01:15:21
service existing debt as interest rates
01:15:23
climb from 3.3 to 5%. And so
01:15:27
fundamentally, this is about 70% of the
01:15:29
current defense budget. It's about 10%
01:15:32
of the overall federal budget. It's a
01:15:34
significant percentage of US GDP, about
01:15:36
3% of US GDP. It's a substantial number
01:15:39
and it creates the spiraling problem
01:15:41
that we're in. Now, I just want to make
01:15:42
one final point. So, there's this
01:15:43
dolorization moment. It's always worth
01:15:45
having a reflection on it, but I just
01:15:47
want to tie it back to Minnesota, Donald
01:15:50
Trump, and socialism.
01:15:53
And I think it's important for us to
01:15:55
just highlight that if you own assets
01:15:58
like we do, the four of us, we own
01:16:01
stocks, we own real estate, we own other
01:16:03
assets. As the dollar devalues and
01:16:06
everything inflates in value, our asset
01:16:09
prices go up and we get wealthier and
01:16:12
wealthier and wealthier. The majority of
01:16:15
Americans do not own assets. They are
01:16:17
net asset negative. As a result, they
01:16:21
live off of income
01:16:23
and they do not benefit from the
01:16:26
ddollarization like asset holders do.
01:16:29
And this is what is ultimately fueling
01:16:31
populism in the United States. And the
01:16:34
populism in the United States is what is
01:16:36
driving socialism. And the response to
01:16:39
those behaviors is what Donald Trump
01:16:40
elected to some degree. and the response
01:16:43
to the Donald Trump actions is what's
01:16:46
driving the civil unrest in Minnesota
01:16:49
and other places. And I fundamentally
01:16:51
believe that much of the unrest, the
01:16:53
civil unrest, and ultimately this divide
01:16:56
in this country is driven by the fact
01:16:59
that ddollarization because of excess
01:17:01
government spending ultimately leads a
01:17:04
majority of people in this country to
01:17:05
feeling oppressed and left behind
01:17:08
because they're seeing a few people in
01:17:10
the country accelerate their net worth
01:17:12
like all of us here. And there's no way
01:17:14
for them to catch up because they don't
01:17:15
actually own assets. So, I'll be I'll
01:17:18
I'll be honest with you guys and make a
01:17:20
confession. I was kind of at I was at
01:17:22
the gym this morning on the treadmill.
01:17:23
>> You were at the gym.
01:17:25
>> Yeah. And while I was there, I was
01:17:26
actually thinking about the wealth tax
01:17:28
stuff that's going on in California. And
01:17:31
I I wonder if it may be an inevitability
01:17:35
in order to keep the United States from
01:17:36
going into civil war. I mean that very
01:17:39
wholeheartedly. Like I just don't know
01:17:41
if there's a way of solving this fiscal
01:17:43
problem without a functional
01:17:45
redistribution of wealth. And the
01:17:46
question is can you do it violently or
01:17:48
nonviolently? And if there's a
01:17:49
nonviolent path, I think that's probably
01:17:51
the preferable path.
01:17:53
>> Did you ever think about do you ever
01:17:54
think about violently picking up some of
01:17:56
those weights?
01:17:58
We can leave that that in or take it
01:17:59
out.
01:18:00
>> The problem with that is look, you know,
01:18:01
where this California wealth tax is
01:18:04
going, right? It's not going to the
01:18:06
quote unquote people. It's going to
01:18:07
these special interests who've been
01:18:09
looting the state for decades.
01:18:12
>> Audit everything before you raise taxes.
01:18:13
It's very simple, folks. Audit
01:18:15
everything.
01:18:16
>> I mean, if the money is going to waste,
01:18:17
foreign abuse, and special interest,
01:18:19
then how do you solve the divide
01:18:21
problem? I mean, I guess the ones that
01:18:23
the special interests are capable of
01:18:25
organizing are able to extract, but
01:18:27
doesn't actually solve the problem. In
01:18:29
fact, everything gets worse because
01:18:32
>> yeah,
01:18:32
>> those government special interests
01:18:34
generally rig the system in their favor
01:18:36
in a way that actually raises the cost
01:18:38
for everybody.
01:18:39
>> So you look at California, everything's
01:18:40
performing worse.
01:18:42
>> Can we pour one out for David Freeberg's
01:18:45
favorite
01:18:47
government program?
01:18:49
>> Free beer.
01:18:50
>> Free beer.
01:18:50
>> Free homeless for 55 homeless people
01:18:54
suffering from the shakes. And they
01:18:56
spent $6 million on it, but it's over. 6
01:18:59
million a year. 6 million a year for 60
01:19:01
bo hobos to get beer because they had
01:19:04
the shakes. The dream is over. The dream
01:19:07
is over. Freeberg. No more free beer.
01:19:09
>> By the way, I think Sax's point is the
01:19:11
right point, which is the resolution to
01:19:13
this isn't a fair
01:19:15
and reasonable redistribution of assets.
01:19:18
It's fundamentally a moment of
01:19:20
extraordinary theft. When there's this
01:19:22
massive movement of capital like this
01:19:24
through a centralized system like the
01:19:26
government, there's no free market
01:19:27
transition of capital and as a result
01:19:29
you end up most seeing a large
01:19:31
percentage of it go into into theft back
01:19:33
into the hands of a few who were really
01:19:35
good at capturing that money as it comes
01:19:36
out of the government's coffers. That's
01:19:38
a good point.
01:19:39
>> You've diagnosed this many times. I
01:19:40
mean, look, Texas and Florida
01:19:43
do a better job for their population
01:19:47
collecting half as much in taxes per
01:19:50
capita as California does. And having no
01:19:52
income tax or capital gains tax,
01:19:55
>> that's because if you commit fraud here,
01:19:57
we put you in a firing squad. That's how
01:19:59
it works. Right to the firing squad.
01:20:01
We're going to go to the range. Let's go
01:20:02
to the Come by Sachs. Come by the ranch.
01:20:04
I have a shooting range.
01:20:06
>> Matt Matt Mayan entered the California
01:20:08
guminatorial race. He's running for
01:20:10
governor.
01:20:11
>> He's running California.
01:20:13
>> Yeah.
01:20:13
>> Uh what does it mean? Who is he? Explain
01:20:15
to the audience why this is important.
01:20:16
>> Well, he's the mayor of San Jose.
01:20:18
>> Chats are on fire.
01:20:19
>> Yeah. He's much more of a moderate and
01:20:21
he's not a union captured candidate.
01:20:24
>> Oh, here's your poly.
01:20:25
>> Yeah, here's poly market. So, Matt Mayan
01:20:27
announced this morning very late entry
01:20:29
to the gubernatorial race. Katie Porter
01:20:32
is kind of the, you know, the output of
01:20:35
the Democratic machine. Tommy Styer is
01:20:36
the billionaire climate change advocate.
01:20:39
But Swallwell, you know, the congressman
01:20:41
from the east,
01:20:42
>> hasn't met a virtue. He doesn't want a
01:20:44
signal.
01:20:46
>> He's literally like Christmas lights
01:20:48
blinking.
01:20:49
>> Tom St.
01:20:50
>> Well, look, if if if Maym, is that the
01:20:52
right way to pronounce his name?
01:20:53
>> Yeah. Matt Mayan.
01:20:54
>> Matt Mayan. California has a jungle
01:20:56
primary, right? So, everyone's running
01:20:58
at the same time. There's no separate
01:20:59
lanes for Democrats or Republicans. If
01:21:01
he ends up top two, let's say it's him
01:21:04
and Swallwell, I think he'll win because
01:21:06
all the Republicans will vote for him.
01:21:08
They'll go for the more centrist
01:21:10
candidate.
01:21:11
>> We had a political strategist over for
01:21:13
dinner. There's a version where the top
01:21:14
two people could be both Republicans
01:21:16
actually right now. Current course and
01:21:17
speed, the top two vote getters are
01:21:19
trending to be both Republican.
01:21:22
>> Yeah.
01:21:22
>> I like the Karen. The Karen's the most
01:21:24
entertaining. She's the one who said,
01:21:25
"Get out of my shot." That's the one.
01:21:27
>> Katy Porter.
01:21:28
>> The get out of my shot one.
01:21:29
>> Yeah. She's tumbling. She's tumbling.
01:21:31
Yeah, she's not doing well. She's coming
01:21:32
down in the she's not likable and she
01:21:34
seems and I think everyone sees right
01:21:36
through her as being, you know,
01:21:37
effectively captured by California
01:21:39
institutions,
01:21:41
>> but Maym and Swallwell much more
01:21:43
independent, but I think it's going to
01:21:45
be a battle between the two of them.
01:21:47
>> Just to go back to your point, Jamas, so
01:21:48
what's interesting is there are two
01:21:50
Republicans running for governor of
01:21:52
California. Chad Biano, who's a sheriff,
01:21:55
and then Steve
01:21:56
>> Steve Hilton,
01:21:56
>> who's a political commentator, used to
01:21:58
be on Fox News. They're both at about
01:22:00
15%. Which actually puts them in the
01:22:03
lead or close to the lead because the
01:22:05
field's so fragmented right now.
01:22:06
Exactly. The problem that they have is
01:22:08
so I guess if the field stayed
01:22:10
permanently fragmented, yes, they could
01:22:11
be in the
01:22:13
>> Could you imagine the melting mines?
01:22:15
>> Yeah. But that's not going to happen as
01:22:17
much as I would like it to because the
01:22:20
Democratic field's going to coalesce and
01:22:21
if it doesn't coales the the party
01:22:23
machine will get together and they'll
01:22:25
tell a bunch of people to drop out and
01:22:27
get real
01:22:28
>> and they'll they'll basically shift it.
01:22:29
So the problem with the Republicans is
01:22:31
and it actually be better if there was
01:22:33
one Republican instead of two because
01:22:34
they need to be at like 30%. Right.
01:22:37
>> Right.
01:22:37
>> But you know they're each going to get
01:22:39
15%. They they have more of a ceiling is
01:22:41
what I'm trying to say. Right.
01:22:42
>> Yeah. That's true. That is true.
01:22:43
>> Yeah. It's only the final two that make
01:22:45
it into the general. So, if the rest of
01:22:47
the Dems literally stay equal and
01:22:49
there's five Dems that are at like 5 to
01:22:51
10% each, you could end up seeing the
01:22:53
two Republicans in the top two spots.
01:22:54
>> I don't think that's going to happen. I
01:22:55
don't think you're going to end up with
01:22:56
five Dems at at 10%. I think what could
01:22:59
happen though actually is it's probably
01:23:01
better that you have two Republicans
01:23:02
rather than one because the disaster
01:23:05
would be let's say you end up with
01:23:08
Swallwell and one of the Republicans in
01:23:11
the runoff, then Swallwell definitely
01:23:13
wins. That's what always happens, right?
01:23:16
>> The best chance for Matt Mayan is that
01:23:18
it's him versus either a Democrat or a
01:23:21
Republican actually.
01:23:23
>> And then if he's up against a Democrat,
01:23:24
a more liberal Democrat like Swallwell,
01:23:27
the Republicans will support Maym and
01:23:28
he'll win. And if he's up against a
01:23:30
Republican, then he'll also win because
01:23:31
all the Democrats will support him. And
01:23:33
remember, this is like a plus 20 or 30
01:23:36
blue state. So,
01:23:37
>> and by the way, he is such a good guy.
01:23:39
He's been such an effective mayor of San
01:23:41
Jose. you know, he cleared up
01:23:42
homelessness. I mean, his polic actual
01:23:45
work running something stands out
01:23:47
amongst the rest of these folks. So, I
01:23:49
think he's got a real shot, Sachs, at
01:23:51
moving up real fast, even though he's
01:23:52
coming.
01:23:52
>> Well, yeah. Look, if he plays his cards
01:23:54
right, he could win. I mean, look, I
01:23:55
think there is a a path here for
01:23:57
California restoration. You get someone
01:23:59
like Matt Mayan as governor, maybe Rick
01:24:02
Caruso takes another shot at running for
01:24:04
mayor in LA.
01:24:05
>> I think everyone recognizes that.
01:24:07
>> Get in the game.
01:24:08
>> I think everyone recognizes that Karen
01:24:10
Bass has been a disaster. She, you know,
01:24:12
aided and abetted the
01:24:13
>> burning down of the Palisades. And then
01:24:16
if you defeat the wealth tax so that the
01:24:18
>> Wait, did Trump take over,
01:24:20
>> you could have a path?
01:24:21
>> Did Trump just take over the rebuild in
01:24:23
Pacific Palisades with an executive
01:24:25
order? Did I see that in my feed?
01:24:26
>> He did. Yeah. Well, you know, there's
01:24:28
been a very small number of permits
01:24:29
granted. I mean, how long has it been
01:24:32
like 18 months now?
01:24:33
>> Sound [ __ ]
01:24:34
>> Wait, so Sax, would you move back if
01:24:36
there was a great restoration in
01:24:37
California?
01:24:41
I feel like somehow it's just not going
01:24:42
to happen. You know, it's like
01:24:44
>> it's over. Not in our lifetime.
01:24:46
>> I feel like the fact that you're telling
01:24:48
me that Ma May is this great candidate
01:24:50
and, you know, the whole tech world's
01:24:51
going to get behind him. I'm sure that's
01:24:52
true. And then somehow I think it's the
01:24:54
reason he's going to lose and I think,
01:24:57
you know, we'll end up with Swallwell,
01:24:59
who I think
01:24:59
>> you're so jaded, Sax. I think that
01:25:01
somehow
01:25:03
>> well Swall is considered to be kind of a
01:25:06
lightweight and a pretty dim bulb.
01:25:11
>> Friend of the pond, Eric Swall, come
01:25:13
back anytime. Who interviewed him with
01:25:14
me?
01:25:15
>> Jim, was that you? Did you interview him
01:25:17
with me?
01:25:18
>> Yeah, I did. Yeah, you did. Yeah. Yeah.
01:25:20
Yeah.
01:25:20
>> Yeah.
01:25:21
>> I mean, just manifestly not up to the
01:25:23
challenges that are going to beset
01:25:26
California in the coming years. You need
01:25:28
someone really stellar to clean things
01:25:30
up after the fiscal insanity of the
01:25:32
Newsome years.
01:25:33
>> Well, look, I'll restate this on the
01:25:35
show very clearly. California has a
01:25:38
trillion dollar fiscal cliff coming up
01:25:40
because of the pension obligations. I
01:25:41
don't know if you guys know this. I'll
01:25:42
make this one point very important to
01:25:44
know. They once tried to change the
01:25:47
benefits, the pension benefits, and they
01:25:49
lost a court case. And so there's
01:25:51
precedent in California state court that
01:25:54
you cannot change pension benefits on
01:25:56
the date that someone was hired. You can
01:25:58
never change their future benefits.
01:26:00
Really important to know. So all of the
01:26:03
benefits that have been given to every
01:26:04
California public employee up to this
01:26:06
day or that they've been promised, they
01:26:08
are promised for life and you're not
01:26:10
allowed to take them out and they cannot
01:26:11
be disposed of except for some form of
01:26:14
bankruptcy. And there is no mechanism by
01:26:17
which the state can declare bankruptcy.
01:26:19
So fundamentally and functionally, there
01:26:21
are two ways that California can be
01:26:22
saved. Number one, you pass an amendment
01:26:25
to the Constitution to fix this pension
01:26:27
liability problem. And number two is the
01:26:29
state has the ability to declare
01:26:31
bankruptcy. Everything else is all about
01:26:32
how long are you keeping the state alive
01:26:34
for.
01:26:34
>> Well, I I I support that that change to
01:26:37
bankruptcy law. I just think it'll be
01:26:38
hard to get. But, you know, we could
01:26:39
try. And look, if you had a governor of
01:26:41
California
01:26:43
come to the federal government and say,
01:26:44
"We would like this," then there's a
01:26:45
much higher chance of it happening. But
01:26:47
actually, I think one question I think
01:26:49
one question
01:26:50
>> for you to ask in evaluating this is
01:26:52
what does Gavin Newsome want? Because
01:26:54
obviously he's running for president in
01:26:55
2028, you know, who would he like to
01:26:58
replace him as governor? You know, and
01:27:00
obviously he doesn't want a Republican
01:27:02
because that'd be a rebuke. You know,
01:27:04
does he want Swall? Does he want someone
01:27:07
who will appear even weaker and stupider
01:27:11
than him? or does he want someone like
01:27:13
Maym who will be appearing
01:27:16
>> to clean up the state? I think he might
01:27:18
want the idiot
01:27:20
>> although it's a it's a tough it's a
01:27:21
tough tough choice for him.
01:27:23
>> She'll just scream. I like
01:27:24
>> Well, here's the thing is he also
01:27:25
doesn't want the state to fall apart
01:27:27
while he's running for president cuz he
01:27:28
might be blamed for that too.
01:27:30
>> So, does he want someone like Compton
01:27:31
like Maym who's criticized him because
01:27:33
Maym has criticized Newsome on things
01:27:36
like homelessness, right?
01:27:38
>> So, Gavin is super thin skin.
01:27:40
>> They can get past that.
01:27:41
>> I don't know. But Gavin is super thin
01:27:42
skinned, so I'm sure he resents that. So
01:27:45
probably the machine gets behind
01:27:46
Swallwell,
01:27:48
even though it probably means a train
01:27:49
wreck for the state. But we'll see.
01:27:51
>> Yeah, that's doesn't seem like a good
01:27:53
idea. Yeah, I think he would want.
01:27:56
>> But this is a big opportunity for tech
01:27:57
to flex his political muscles to see.
01:27:59
>> Yeah, let's see. Let's see.
01:28:00
>> Let's see if they can do it. Let's see
01:28:01
if they can do it.
01:28:02
>> It's not just tech. It's anyone that
01:28:04
doesn't want an establishment governor.
01:28:06
And I think that includes Hollywood. It
01:28:08
includes agriculture. It includes large
01:28:10
swats of the state's economy. So, let's
01:28:12
see what happens.
01:28:12
>> All right, everybody. The AllIn event
01:28:15
series continues. All-in Summit Los
01:28:17
Angeles September 13th to 15th. Tickets
01:28:22
are now taking applications. So, join us
01:28:24
in September. And if you are a venture
01:28:27
capitalist, LP in funds, sovereign
01:28:30
wealth fund, um, endowment, we're going
01:28:33
to be having our first all-in liquidity
01:28:35
event May 31st to June 3rd. Go to
01:28:39
allin.com/events
01:28:40
to apply for a ticket to liquidity as
01:28:43
well. And we'll see you all next time on
01:28:46
the world's greatest podcast, the All-In
01:28:49
podcast. Go ahead and subscribe to our 1
01:28:53
million subscriber channel on YouTube.
01:28:55
That's right. YouTube just broke 1
01:28:58
million. All right. Love you, besties.
01:28:59
Bye-bye.
01:29:01
>> Bye-bye. Love you, Bruce.
01:29:04
>> We'll let your winners ride.
01:29:06
Rainman David
01:29:11
>> and it said
01:29:11
>> we open sourced it to the fans and
01:29:13
they've just gone crazy with it.
01:29:24
>> Besties are
01:29:27
my dog taking your driveways.
01:29:31
>> Oh man, my habitasher will meet the
01:29:33
ugly. We should all just get a room and
01:29:35
just have one big huge orgy because
01:29:37
they're all just useless. It's like this
01:29:38
like sexual tension that they just need
01:29:40
to release somehow.
01:29:45
>> Your feet.
01:29:47
>> We need to get merch.
01:29:49
>> I'm going all in.
01:29:57
I'm going all in.
