RETURN TO CHANNEL

Search Captions & Ask AI

Hot Swap growing, donors revolt, President Kamala? SCOTUS breakdown: Immunity, Chevron, Censorship

July 04, 2024 / 01:23:06

This episode of the All-In Podcast covers the changing landscape of American politics, prediction markets, and the upcoming All-In Summit. The hosts, including Chth Poopaa and David Sacks, discuss the implications of Kamala Harris's rise in the Democratic nomination predictions and President Biden's declining support. They analyze Biden's upcoming interview with George Stephanopoulos and its potential impact on his presidency.

The conversation shifts to the Supreme Court's recent rulings, including the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine, which limits the power of federal agencies in rule-making. The hosts express their views on the implications of this decision for regulatory authority and the balance of power between the executive branch and the courts.

They also discuss the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, particularly in relation to Trump's actions during his presidency and the ongoing legal challenges he faces. The hosts debate the potential consequences of this ruling for future presidents and the legal system.

The episode concludes with a light-hearted discussion about the Rick's Cabaret recession index and its implications for the economy, along with humorous banter among the hosts.

TL;DR

The episode discusses prediction markets, Biden's presidency, Supreme Court rulings, and the upcoming All-In Summit.

Video

00:00:00

all right everybody welcome back it's

00:00:01

hot swap summer here at the Allin

00:00:05

podcast episode

00:00:08

1086 of the world's number one podcast

00:00:12

calling in from the home office in Italy

00:00:15

chth poopaa how are you doing

00:00:17

sir great how are you you look so

00:00:20

relaxed look at you look at

00:00:22

you you but it's only been two days that

00:00:25

I'm working I mean I'm not that relaxed

00:00:27

yet but this place does put you in the

00:00:29

right mood I got to all right saxs I'm

00:00:32

sure that it's been an uneventful week

00:00:34

for you how are you doing in the great

00:00:37

state of California from our

00:00:39

headquarters at the all-in tower in San

00:00:41

Francisco how's the all-in tower doing

00:00:43

why are you doxing me what's going on

00:00:45

here CU you live in San Francisco

00:00:47

everybody knows that all you have to do

00:00:49

is look for the protests follow the

00:00:51

protest and you'll find sex also with us

00:00:54

of course from the ohal headquarters is

00:00:57

that Backdraft the house is on fire

00:01:00

house is on fire but house you're

00:01:01

referring to which house which house

00:01:03

America Democrats or Biden's house

00:01:06

there's a political party there I mean

00:01:08

you can interpret it as you wish oh okay

00:01:10

there you go your butt is your butt on

00:01:12

fire did you have some bad Indian food

00:01:15

did you hit the taco truck what happened

00:01:17

there's a heat wave in the west right

00:01:19

now he stopped at the taco truck the

00:01:22

West is on fire the West is on fire okay

00:01:25

okay Dr Doom if you want to come to the

00:01:27

Allin Summit now in year three we've got

00:01:30

a ton of programming updates but the

00:01:33

tickets are going to sell out we just

00:01:36

released another 100 tickets I'm sorry

00:01:38

you have a fly like a tack in your head

00:01:40

right now you look like Mike Pence Jesus

00:01:43

is it a Mike Pence moment it's a Mike

00:01:45

Pence fly it's a Mike Pence fly yeah it

00:01:47

is a pence moment God or it could be

00:01:50

like a a Biden moment circling the

00:01:52

dead God that's too dark that's pretty

00:01:55

dark it's pretty dark okay three two

00:02:00

let your winners

00:02:02

ride Rainman

00:02:06

David and instead we open source it to

00:02:09

the fans and they've just gone crazy

00:02:12

[Music]

00:02:14

withen for folks who are interested in

00:02:17

meeting the other lunatics who listen to

00:02:19

this pod if you have no money and no

00:02:22

budget you can come to one of the 50

00:02:26

meetups that are currently happening

00:02:28

around the world next week on Thursday

00:02:29

July 11th go to Allin podcast.co meetups

00:02:34

Allin podcast.co meetups you can host or

00:02:36

you can join them it's for

00:02:39

$0.0 now if you're doing well you got a

00:02:41

little extra cheddar and you want to get

00:02:43

together at the all-in summit that's in

00:02:45

September we held back 400 tickets

00:02:47

according to freeberg who is running the

00:02:49

summit now he's released 100 this week

00:02:52

so get your applications in and if you

00:02:54

are trying to score a ticket or a

00:02:56

speaking G gig just don't email me email

00:03:00

freedberg freedberg any updates on the

00:03:02

content people want to know what's on

00:03:03

the on the docket we're definitely going

00:03:05

to be talking about the changing

00:03:07

landscape of American politics so we are

00:03:09

going to have some representation there

00:03:11

uh to to have that conversation we're

00:03:13

going to be talking about the the future

00:03:14

of media we're going to be doing some

00:03:16

really cool technology deep Dives in

00:03:18

areas like robotics age reversal

00:03:21

EVs and uh talking a lot about AI meets

00:03:24

Enterprise software so we have a number

00:03:26

of you know the leading Enterprise

00:03:29

software CEO joining us for

00:03:30

conversations on that front so it's

00:03:32

shaping up to be really amazing

00:03:34

programming like Jason said we're we

00:03:36

held back 400 tickets from the initial

00:03:39

batch and we're going to release 100

00:03:40

this week so put an application in we're

00:03:42

trying to be selective and it's going to

00:03:45

be amazing the parties are going to be

00:03:47

awesome really excited how it's coming

00:03:49

together you're doing some uh bird of a

00:03:52

Feather dinners I understand this year

00:03:53

some New Concept can you explain that to

00:03:55

me the first night of the summit we're

00:03:58

we've rented out a bunch of great

00:03:59

restaurants around town in LA and we're

00:04:01

putting people together for dinner at

00:04:03

all these different restaurants and then

00:04:04

the parties are nights 2 and three which

00:04:07

are going to be you know beautiful it's

00:04:09

gonna be great everybody comes to the

00:04:10

parties but that first night everyone

00:04:12

comes to the dinners everything yeah

00:04:13

it's gonna be great so so we're trying

00:04:14

to create more space for people to meet

00:04:15

each other I know that's been a big

00:04:17

thing in the past in the meetups and at

00:04:18

the Summit is people love meeting other

00:04:20

folks in the communities so yeah smaller

00:04:22

groups so the dinners will be 200 people

00:04:24

or something like that you can expect

00:04:25

couple hundred depending on the location

00:04:27

yeah yeah and then the bigger parties

00:04:28

will be everybody 1800 people so where

00:04:30

do people apply for this it's at summit.

00:04:33

Allin podcast.com okay there you go

00:04:36

folks and you can come to the free

00:04:38

events you can come there all right just

00:04:40

uh usually we when we do the docket I

00:04:42

pursue a mullet docket I do the business

00:04:44

first and the party in the back but man

00:04:46

we got to start with Washington I've

00:04:47

never supported the mullet strategy I

00:04:50

know that I know that you've been anti-

00:04:51

mullet from the beginning you want this

00:04:53

to be a political show no no no no no I

00:04:55

never said be a political show exact I

00:04:57

always said we start with the biggest

00:04:59

most topical issues first and it could

00:05:02

be business or it could be politics

00:05:03

correct you were discriminating against

00:05:05

the politics you were insisting that it'

00:05:07

be a business issue even if the business

00:05:08

issue wasn't relevant topical or

00:05:11

interesting here we go no I was not I

00:05:13

think you're talking about freedberg

00:05:14

freedberg was the one that's true it

00:05:16

mostly came from freeberg who is right

00:05:19

who brought the ratings of this pod to a

00:05:20

whole new level yeah free who brought

00:05:23

the Maga lunatic who built this thing

00:05:25

who built me vad from Robin Hood he is

00:05:28

the guy who did

00:05:30

from did by the way I mean the the

00:05:33

ratings of this pod hit some sort of new

00:05:35

stratospheric level not just with

00:05:38

President Trump interview but last week

00:05:41

whatever I mean the point is last week

00:05:43

was I think the

00:05:45

most crazy week in the history of

00:05:48

politics and it's only going to get

00:05:50

crazier so let's start off with hot swap

00:05:53

summary you heard of you first or maybe

00:05:54

not hot swap summer continues you know

00:05:56

previously historically if you wanted to

00:05:58

understand who's winning an election you

00:05:59

look at the polls not perfect obviously

00:06:01

some of these polls still call land

00:06:03

lives yada yada but then people built

00:06:05

models obviously 538 all this kind of

00:06:07

stuff but it seems that this year and

00:06:10

this election cycle people are really

00:06:11

focused on prediction markets AKA

00:06:14

betting markets and uh we're looking at

00:06:17

them in real time and obviously people

00:06:20

have skin in the game so you can I'm

00:06:23

interested in the panels take on the

00:06:24

sharps on these platforms and if you

00:06:26

think that they're more accurate than

00:06:28

say some of these polls or the

00:06:30

aggregators of polls but kamla Harris is

00:06:32

now the favorite to be the Democratic

00:06:35

nominee according to one of them so just

00:06:38

let that soak

00:06:39

in in the last 24 hours VP Harris's

00:06:43

chances of being the Democratic nominee

00:06:45

have gone from 18% to 50% at the same

00:06:48

time President Biden has dropped from

00:06:50

66% to

00:06:52

28% there are a bunch of long shots Moon

00:06:54

shots in there new Michelle Obama

00:06:57

Gretchen Whitmer all in the 18 12% but

00:07:00

they were low single digits prior to

00:07:03

last week's debate as you can see in the

00:07:06

chart Biden and Harris were about even

00:07:08

this morning uh the taping of this is

00:07:09

Wednesday July

00:07:11

3 but the New York Times reported that

00:07:16

Biden told an ally he's considering

00:07:18

dropping out so we should note the White

00:07:22

House a White House spokesman said this

00:07:24

is absolutely false but this is the

00:07:27

money chart from I think poly market and

00:07:30

we keep updating this document in real

00:07:32

time while we're taping chances of

00:07:34

biding dropping out are now at

00:07:37

77% that's up from 60% this morning

00:07:40

after debate after we record the show we

00:07:44

have to do before we publish a whole

00:07:46

well I I don't think he's gonna do that

00:07:48

because he is scheduled to do a sitdown

00:07:50

interview with George Stephanopoulos I

00:07:53

think they're recording it on Friday

00:07:55

right which is two days there oh

00:08:00

he's going to do an interview with

00:08:01

Stephanopoulos on Friday and then

00:08:02

Stephanopoulos is showing it in two

00:08:04

parts on Saturday and Sunday so it's

00:08:06

going to be edited so we don't know what

00:08:08

they're going to edit in or edit out at

00:08:11

this point though the media is in such a

00:08:12

freeding frenzy that I don't think that

00:08:15

ABC is going to cover for Biden so I

00:08:18

suspect it'll probably be a pretty fair

00:08:21

representation of the actual recorded

00:08:23

interview in any event that's coming out

00:08:25

this weekend I think the Biden

00:08:27

presidency basically hinges on this

00:08:28

interview if Biden can show that he's

00:08:33

sharp and he's responsive and not scile

00:08:35

and presumably he's going to sit down

00:08:37

and do this at the best hours of the day

00:08:38

right they can't make that excuse

00:08:39

anymore so is that before nap time or

00:08:41

after nap time right exactly so I'm sure

00:08:44

he can do this at a time when he has the

00:08:46

good stuff I think if he knocks it out

00:08:48

of the park maybe he can quell all of

00:08:51

this speculation but if not if it goes

00:08:53

poorly then I think he's done so this is

00:08:56

the last chance again it's like this is

00:08:58

like the third last chance

00:08:59

yeah because think about it I mean the

00:09:01

accusation is that he's seile that's not

00:09:04

a hard thing to disprove if you're not

00:09:07

actually cile right you just need to go

00:09:09

in

00:09:09

there right it's a pretty low bar right

00:09:13

not cile yeah so he just needs to go in

00:09:16

there and talk for whatever it is an

00:09:18

hour and he's not gonna be fed hard

00:09:21

Hardball questions probably be pretty

00:09:22

softball questions he just has to prove

00:09:24

that he's not scile if he can do that

00:09:26

it'll calm things down Stephanopoulos

00:09:29

generally does a a good job he's not a

00:09:30

sick aant I think he he considers

00:09:32

himself a legit journalist and will will

00:09:35

actually well this is he throw some fast

00:09:37

balls I think in Bernstein moment I mean

00:09:41

like if if Stephanopoulos wants to go

00:09:42

into the Hall of Fame this is his

00:09:44

opportunity if he absolutely if he

00:09:46

throws the high heater to Biden and

00:09:48

basically is the one

00:09:50

that delivers to Cuda then his name will

00:09:54

be in history alongside Biden for that

00:09:57

reason think about it straty if if

00:09:59

you're the if you're the Democratic

00:10:01

Party leaders and you are evaluating who

00:10:06

to choose to replace Biden the first

00:10:10

thing you do is you have to double down

00:10:13

on Biden because if you are neutral to

00:10:16

negative on Biden or passive it's

00:10:19

immediately interpreted as he's being

00:10:20

swapped out and then you don't have time

00:10:22

to pick the right candidate in order to

00:10:24

have the time to pick the right

00:10:25

candidate you have to first double down

00:10:26

on Biden be really declarative that he's

00:10:28

our candidate put him on media put him

00:10:30

on talk shows while you were figuring

00:10:32

out who's going to replace him and what

00:10:34

the strategy is to get that person to

00:10:35

win so there's a there's a chance that

00:10:38

what's actually going on is a little bit

00:10:39

more of a structured strategy around

00:10:41

find the right candidate set up the

00:10:43

right program to get them elected figure

00:10:46

out how we're going to move the $120

00:10:47

million that we raised from Biden over

00:10:49

to whoever this new candidate is you can

00:10:51

only you can only move it to uh Harris

00:10:53

you cannot move it you cannot move the

00:10:55

entire entirey of thatd you you've got

00:10:58

to together a real plan you can't just

00:11:00

do the hot swap you've got to have a

00:11:02

plan for the hot swap which means in the

00:11:03

meantime you got to buy time and the

00:11:05

best way to buy time is throw Biden

00:11:06

forward and be like hey look this guy's

00:11:08

G to go do media he's still our guy

00:11:10

you're correct that they're buying time

00:11:11

obviously while they try to figure this

00:11:13

out and the powers that be which powers

00:11:15

that be the Biden Camp which is not the

00:11:18

political machine it's his literal

00:11:19

family Hunter jaill Etc um what they're

00:11:23

actually doing and this will be the next

00:11:26

nois prediction that'll come true is

00:11:29

they're going to

00:11:32

do I didn't have time to get like a all

00:11:36

all I heard was lick my

00:11:38

anus it's NIS not n us so no shanus

00:11:43

prediction coming in here hot here's

00:11:45

what will happen freeberg they going to

00:11:47

do all caps all caps locks alert must

00:11:50

credit no shanis they're GNA do a

00:11:53

Democratic primary speedrun here's

00:11:55

what's going to happen they're going to

00:11:56

do five debates in 10 weeks and then

00:11:59

whoever wins wins Kamala he's gonna

00:12:02

resign Kamala becomes president Kamala

00:12:04

gets to um run doesn't speed she gets to

00:12:08

speedrun like everybody else Dean

00:12:09

Phillips gets to come in everybody

00:12:11

speedruns it the they take over the

00:12:14

media the media will go crazy over the

00:12:17

summer massive ratings boom and we have

00:12:21

a winner come in and they demolish Trump

00:12:24

that's not going to happen yeah you said

00:12:25

he's not going to get hop swapped as

00:12:27

well noer canis has gone off the rail

00:12:29

you said he wouldn't get hot swapped so

00:12:31

you have no question if you run a debate

00:12:34

it shows it shows weak the party the

00:12:37

party needs to select a leader and they

00:12:39

need to say this is our candidate

00:12:41

because if they if they do this it's too

00:12:42

diffuse it weakens whoever ends up

00:12:44

winning it's whoever ends up winning is

00:12:47

it strengthens the part it strengthens

00:12:48

the party because they say listen he

00:12:50

decided to resign we wanted to do the

00:12:52

most democratic thing possible what's

00:12:54

the most democratic thing possible we

00:12:56

put all our candidates out there and you

00:12:58

the people choose chth tell him I'm

00:13:01

right I think this is one of the dumbest

00:13:03

predictions you've made and you've made

00:13:05

you made some real doozies in your date

00:13:06

the hot swap is GNA happen so you didn't

00:13:09

call it the problem with your hot swap

00:13:10

theory has always been that not only

00:13:13

would Biden step down but that magically

00:13:15

they would choose the best candidate we

00:13:17

would get a Jeff Bezos we get a Jamie

00:13:19

Diamond that somehow we would get

00:13:21

someone who represented all of Trump's

00:13:23

policies without being Trump but you

00:13:25

would get some magical moderate to

00:13:26

emerge in the Democratic party that's

00:13:28

not going to happen okay thanks to your

00:13:30

incessant demands for the hot swap okay

00:13:34

you and many others and this feeding I I

00:13:37

love it yeah you in part along with many

00:13:39

others have caused this Feeding Frenzy

00:13:41

we are going to get president kamla

00:13:43

Harris she's the only alternative you

00:13:45

can see this in the prediction markets

00:13:47

just a few days ago it was sort of

00:13:49

evenly divided between there was her

00:13:51

there was Gavin Nome there was Gretchen

00:13:52

Whitmer now it's just her why does that

00:13:54

happen because they realize they can't

00:13:56

sidestep kamla Harris without offending

00:13:59

major constituency in the Democratic

00:14:01

party equally important maybe even more

00:14:03

important they would lose roughly a

00:14:05

billion dollars of contributions to the

00:14:07

Biden Harris campaign if neither Biden

00:14:10

nor Harris is running at the top of the

00:14:12

ticket they'd have to refund all of that

00:14:15

money back to the donors who contributed

00:14:17

it there's no way they're going to start

00:14:19

over from zero in terms of fundraising

00:14:21

so they've realized that if Joe steps

00:14:24

aside there is only one feasible

00:14:27

candidate for them which is KLA Harris

00:14:29

let me ask you a question if Jamie

00:14:31

Diamond declared that he's going to he

00:14:33

he would be happy to take on the

00:14:34

candidacy for the Democratic

00:14:36

party he would call his friend Warren

00:14:39

Buffett he would call his friend Jeff

00:14:42

Bezos he would call up his own personal

00:14:44

banker and say we've got half a billion

00:14:46

let's go and let's have a run at this

00:14:49

there are certain folks that are outside

00:14:51

of the typical political spectrum that

00:14:54

might actually have a shot at doing the

00:14:56

extraordinary here and stepping up and

00:14:59

doing exactly what Trump and others that

00:15:01

support Trump don't want to see happen

00:15:04

which is a candidate that can actually

00:15:06

challenge Trump on the merits of their

00:15:08

experience on their values on their

00:15:11

capabilities As Leaders as Executives

00:15:13

and on their past performance and I

00:15:15

think that someone like that might be

00:15:18

the strategist's kind of move to say

00:15:22

this is the one thing we can do that can

00:15:24

defeat Trump because we all know from

00:15:26

the polling that Harris doesn't stand a

00:15:28

shot we tried that four years ago and

00:15:30

you're missing the history which is Mike

00:15:31

Bloomberg tried that exact same thing

00:15:34

and there was one word that was said to

00:15:36

Mike Bloomberg and his candid imploded

00:15:38

and it was the word billionaire so the

00:15:40

idea that you're going to get some other

00:15:41

billionaire that all of a sudden is less

00:15:43

hated I mean Mike Bloomberg has s so so

00:15:45

much good quite honestly and so if he

00:15:47

can't kind of Escape The Scarlet Letter

00:15:51

of that of the b word I don't know how

00:15:52

anybody but blumberg but here's why

00:15:54

Bloomberg ran against other Democrats

00:15:56

this is a person that is running against

00:15:58

another billionaire which is Trump and

00:16:00

so if you have two people who are now on

00:16:02

equal footing and it is the Trump versus

00:16:06

Howes this person get a lot of people in

00:16:07

this country I suspect let them cook go

00:16:11

that's you're operating you're operating

00:16:13

under the Charming delusion that the

00:16:15

Democratic party cares about democracy

00:16:18

this is basically a party that's run by

00:16:20

political insiders that hates

00:16:22

billionaires and people like this people

00:16:25

like Warren Buffett and Jamie Diamond

00:16:27

they pay the Democrats protection money

00:16:30

okay that's how Democrats see them we're

00:16:32

going to go shake them down to get money

00:16:33

from them they're not going to hand over

00:16:35

the Reigns of the party don't disagree

00:16:37

IE but let me ask you a question this

00:16:40

this is this is what Trump

00:16:43

didum he rewrote the rules of the Party

00:16:46

by running you're right no he sh no hold

00:16:48

on he ran and shattered the party the

00:16:51

established power structure remember it

00:16:52

was it was the bush family's party when

00:16:55

Trump first ran Jeb was supposed to be

00:16:57

the nominee right he was

00:16:59

inherit the mantle from W the way that W

00:17:02

inherited from his father and Trump came

00:17:04

in there and appealed directly to

00:17:06

Republican primary voters and called the

00:17:08

forever Wars a mistake and said he was

00:17:10

going to build the wall and said he's

00:17:12

going to reset things with China issues

00:17:14

that were latent in the Republican party

00:17:17

and he took over the Republican Party

00:17:18

the way you're supposed to through

00:17:19

democracy through voting that

00:17:22

opportunity is gone here because the

00:17:24

Democratic primaries happened last year

00:17:26

and the Biden team ensured that he would

00:17:29

basically win the primaries handily so

00:17:31

they control all the delegates remember

00:17:33

that totally they control the delegates

00:17:35

they're not going to release them to a

00:17:37

Jamie Diamond or some other billionaire

00:17:39

let me ask the party let me let me ask

00:17:42

you a question so if they if they end up

00:17:43

facing the terminal nature of this which

00:17:46

is if we don't put someone in that can

00:17:48

win we lose we are not going to win yeah

00:17:51

it is over why do you think that KLA

00:17:53

can't win that's their thinking right

00:17:54

now is that she stands a better shot

00:17:56

than bid let's assume let's assume that

00:17:58

they take a of the PO they take a Read

00:18:00

Of The Nation they actually do a real

00:18:02

look at the circumstances on the ground

00:18:05

which is that she is not going to win if

00:18:07

they looked at that and they said you

00:18:08

know what we need to win and some sense

00:18:11

comes into the head of the leaders of

00:18:14

the democratic party and they say who

00:18:15

can win and a person like Jamie Diamond

00:18:18

plls that he can win there is a chance I

00:18:21

think that maybe they say this is how

00:18:23

we're going to get back to the White

00:18:24

House they're never going to hand the

00:18:25

Reigns of of the party to a total

00:18:27

outside the Democratic party is the

00:18:29

ultimate insider party and they are

00:18:31

going to pick an insid it's insiders

00:18:33

picking insiders and I think they've

00:18:35

realized over the past week imp

00:18:36

particular that they cannot sidestep

00:18:38

around KLA Harris both because it would

00:18:40

be a slap in the face to her

00:18:42

constituency and the money issue so it's

00:18:45

commo or a bus for them it's either

00:18:46

commo or I think it's a really good it's

00:18:48

a really good point what we'll see is

00:18:50

just how rational the Democratic party

00:18:52

leadership is are they going to continue

00:18:54

to play based on Insider first

00:18:58

principles or will they actually take a

00:19:00

first principal's point of view on how

00:19:02

do we win the election and I think it

00:19:04

will be very revealing about how the

00:19:06

leaders of the democratic party think

00:19:09

based on the decision they make and

00:19:10

they're donors for you well I don't know

00:19:11

if that's true because I actually think

00:19:13

that there's a because the donors are

00:19:14

fleeing the ship right yeah there's a

00:19:16

rift between the donor class and the

00:19:18

Democratic party leadership correct and

00:19:20

I think the donor class doesn't want to

00:19:21

lose and by the way Saks what you're

00:19:23

saying is probably right but I think it

00:19:25

could actually end up being a signal

00:19:27

that there might be a change in how the

00:19:29

who the donors end up supporting the

00:19:30

next go around um for a to realize a

00:19:34

leadership change in the Democratic

00:19:35

party look what what the prediction

00:19:37

markets are showing is that it's not

00:19:38

going to be a free-for-all it's either

00:19:40

going to be Harris or Biden I mean

00:19:41

that's what the prediction markets are

00:19:42

showing and I think that's fundamentally

00:19:44

right uh but look I I think there's real

00:19:47

danger here to the to the country in

00:19:49

this because what a lot of people are

00:19:51

saying and I guess it makes sense is

00:19:53

that if Biden's not fit to run again how

00:19:55

is he fit to serve out the rest of his

00:19:58

term as to serve his term he's got to

00:20:00

resign okay so if he resigns and that's

00:20:03

probably the thing that helps Harris the

00:20:05

most right because now she gets sworn in

00:20:07

as commanderin-chief she's the president

00:20:10

of the United States President yeah it's

00:20:12

a big it's a major glow up for her and

00:20:14

it imuse her with all of this gravitas

00:20:16

and credibility that she's now the

00:20:19

president of the United States they can

00:20:20

send her to G7 meetings and deal with

00:20:22

other world leaders they've got four

00:20:24

months to basically take this candidate

00:20:27

who everyone thought was ready remember

00:20:29

a year ago during the primaries when

00:20:31

Biden ran again one of the reasons why

00:20:33

is because everyone said that Comm is

00:20:34

not ready you know every interview she

00:20:36

does is basically a cackle or word salad

00:20:39

in any

00:20:40

event no one thought she was ready now

00:20:44

they have like basically made her seem

00:20:47

much more significant by giving her the

00:20:50

presidency but my point is this we're in

00:20:52

the middle of a

00:20:53

war we're in the middle of a war with

00:20:55

Russia just a week or two ago we are

00:20:59

Russ we're in the war or we're providing

00:21:01

weapons both a week or two ago American

00:21:05

cluster bombs were used to kill Russian

00:21:08

civilians sunbathing on the beach in

00:21:11

cria okay our weapons are targeting

00:21:15

killing Russian civilians the Russians

00:21:17

in response to that said we are no

00:21:19

longer in a state of peace with the

00:21:22

United States they did not say we're in

00:21:23

a state of War but they said we're no

00:21:25

longer in a state of peace and the

00:21:26

Russians have indicated that they may

00:21:28

escalate horizontally by giving Advanced

00:21:32

weapons to our enemies for example

00:21:34

they've talked about giving cruise

00:21:35

missiles to the hoodies okay so all of

00:21:38

this is happening right now in real time

00:21:40

on the world stage and you're going to

00:21:42

remove Biden who look I don't like

00:21:44

Biden's

00:21:45

policies and I don't think he's compos

00:21:47

menus for more than a few hours a day

00:21:50

but I would still rather have Biden as

00:21:53

commander-in-chief for the next six

00:21:55

months then take the risk of putting

00:21:56

Harrison there who's inexperience

00:21:59

who's a lightweight and who might want

00:22:01

to prove how tough she is let's get

00:22:03

chath in for the final word here chath

00:22:05

your thoughts on what's going to happen

00:22:06

make your prediction between now and

00:22:08

September what what do you think's the

00:22:10

the the mid game here before we get to

00:22:12

the end

00:22:13

game I honestly don't know but I think

00:22:16

that we are in a precarious place where

00:22:18

things are going to get

00:22:21

worse Biden actually

00:22:24

approved private contractors now going

00:22:27

into Ukraine and starting to to fight

00:22:29

Americans will be on the battlefield as

00:22:32

of I think this was just a a few days

00:22:35

ago if you remember the movie Wag the

00:22:38

Dog I think that it starts to create all

00:22:40

these weird scenarios where people will

00:22:43

want to create major distractions to try

00:22:45

to keep the

00:22:47

evidence and the attention away from

00:22:49

this core issue that after the debate

00:22:51

everybody is focused on and I think the

00:22:53

reality is that if you were accused if

00:22:55

any of you were accused of being

00:22:57

mentally incap itated what you would

00:22:59

probably do is go on every single talk

00:23:02

show go on every single news show go on

00:23:04

every single podcast press conference

00:23:06

you would just do so much public facing

00:23:10

work so as to completely dispel this

00:23:12

idea so that you could firmly say it was

00:23:14

a cold although now this week it's jet

00:23:17

lag it was it was jet lag C the time of

00:23:21

day whatever it was you'd be able to

00:23:23

just completely take the wind out of the

00:23:26

sales I think we're still getting only a

00:23:29

controlled dribble of information and

00:23:32

access to the president of the United

00:23:34

States so he's going to be on

00:23:35

Stephanopoulos he's going to show up for

00:23:38

a NATO meeting and so you're only seeing

00:23:41

drips and drabs of somebody who now a

00:23:43

lot of people think is not in a position

00:23:45

not just to run but let alone run the

00:23:47

country you said last week Democratic

00:23:49

party will have a a meaningful reset

00:23:52

still still thinking that sh the issue

00:23:54

that the Democrats will have to face is

00:23:56

the person that they probably want to

00:23:57

run is is someone different than kamla

00:24:00

Harris and the problem that they're

00:24:02

going to have to confront is there's a

00:24:04

part of it which is fundraising and I do

00:24:06

think that David's right there was an

00:24:07

article in the Ft where one of the oped

00:24:10

writers said they're in this sort of

00:24:11

identity politics trap in sorts because

00:24:14

they will have to run her no matter what

00:24:16

and even if somebody did show up with

00:24:18

the financial wherewithal and I think

00:24:21

freeberg actually brings up a really

00:24:22

interesting thought experiment if there

00:24:25

was somebody that could take the

00:24:26

Democratic mantle who could completely

00:24:28

self fund their campaign but he happened

00:24:31

to be just a white

00:24:33

man what would the Democrats do relative

00:24:36

to K Harris and I think that they would

00:24:38

be in kns around what to do because of

00:24:41

the identity politics issue I think they

00:24:43

have made it an important issue this

00:24:45

idea of inclusiveness as they've defined

00:24:47

it got it so it sets up for I think a

00:24:50

very complicated summer yeah the other

00:24:53

thing you have to keep in mind is how

00:24:54

the Electoral College works and how the

00:24:56

ballot system works is that you don't

00:24:58

infinite time you have to get all of

00:25:00

this wrapped up and cinched up by the

00:25:02

middle of August at the

00:25:04

latest and so we're very much on like a

00:25:07

four or six week shot clock and I don't

00:25:09

think the Democrats are doing what they

00:25:12

need to do in order to completely take

00:25:15

the wind out of the sales of this

00:25:17

narrative that Biden is not prepared or

00:25:19

capable and the only way that you can do

00:25:21

that is by having him appear 24x7 in

00:25:25

real time in front of hundreds of

00:25:27

millions of people as often as possible

00:25:29

and they're just not and so since

00:25:30

they're not doing it they had ample time

00:25:32

to do it he's yeah he's he's obviously

00:25:35

and by the way the the other problem

00:25:36

that it creates is that you're starting

00:25:38

to see some of these fissures inside of

00:25:40

the team there was a really charged

00:25:42

article from axios that dropped which

00:25:44

basically said that there are three

00:25:46

people that have corded off access to

00:25:48

the president it named yeah that was

00:25:49

weird Joe Biden and tomasini and some

00:25:51

other person and my initial thought when

00:25:53

I read this was other than Joe Biden

00:25:55

who's a recognizable person I had no

00:25:57

idea who these other two people were

00:25:59

and I thought that's really precise for

00:26:01

somebody like that who has inside access

00:26:04

to all of these sort of insiders to put

00:26:07

that article up so I think you're

00:26:09

starting to see the sort of leaks in the

00:26:11

fissures yeah and then that's sort of

00:26:14

this next phase that will make things a

00:26:15

little bit ugly and contorted let me ask

00:26:17

one question here because we got we got

00:26:18

to move on to the Supreme Court

00:26:20

stuff Sachs two poor question one is

00:26:24

there a chance that he has had a

00:26:25

diagnosis already and they're covering

00:26:27

that up and two if they covered up

00:26:30

something like that what is the

00:26:34

ramification of it because it's clear to

00:26:36

everybody he's in cognitive decline it's

00:26:39

clear it's been a couple of years of

00:26:40

cognitive decline no no no that that was

00:26:42

asked of kjp in a press conference

00:26:45

yesterday she was very explicit no and

00:26:47

the reason no that she doesn't know she

00:26:49

doesn't know no no no the answer was

00:26:51

much more explicit has he been diagnosed

00:26:53

and she said no and the reason she said

00:26:56

no is because that is very credible for

00:26:58

to say because he hasn't taken the tests

00:27:01

okay so that's your there look it was

00:27:02

obvious now for months if not years that

00:27:05

there's been a huge cover up of his

00:27:07

cognitive decline and the media has

00:27:09

participated in this anyone who raised

00:27:12

that question was treated as being a

00:27:13

partisan or a liar and just for a good

00:27:16

example of this I know you described

00:27:18

George Stephanopoulos as a straight

00:27:19

shooter but when Nikki Haley was on his

00:27:21

show a few months ago and I'm not a fan

00:27:23

of Nikki haly at all but she started

00:27:25

making this point and Stephanopoulos L

00:27:28

wouldn't let her finish I mean basically

00:27:30

shouted her down so the media was

00:27:32

actively suppressing the story you take

00:27:34

Morning Joe a scarsborough he was saying

00:27:37

that this version of Biden is the best

00:27:38

he's ever been I we've been hearing all

00:27:40

of that kind of stuff for months they

00:27:42

were describing true videos showing

00:27:45

Biden being out of it they were

00:27:46

describing those as being fakes clean

00:27:49

fakes they invented this new term for

00:27:51

perfectly real videos that basically

00:27:53

would reflect his condition so the media

00:27:55

has been engaged in a gigantic cover up

00:27:57

of this and as a result

00:27:58

the country is in really bad shape

00:28:02

because we have to go through the next

00:28:03

six months either with a scen out

00:28:06

president who has limited cognition or

00:28:09

we could end up with a new president who

00:28:12

has untested inexperienced and based on

00:28:15

every interview she's given in the last

00:28:17

four years appears to be completely

00:28:18

clueless at a moment in time where I

00:28:21

think we have the most dangerous foreign

00:28:22

policy situation since the Cuban Missile

00:28:26

Crisis this a really horrible situation

00:28:28

and hold on it's it's the media Bears a

00:28:30

lot lot of the responsibility and what

00:28:32

should have happened okay what should

00:28:34

have happened is we should have had a

00:28:36

robust Democratic primary a year ago

00:28:39

sure based on concerns about Biden's

00:28:42

cognitive abilities reported by an

00:28:44

honest media we never had that yeah so

00:28:47

did you guys see this clip by the way

00:28:48

there's a clip on Twitter where somebody

00:28:51

put together a clip on next six minutes

00:28:53

of 100 sort of spokespeople

00:28:58

proxies and they all had the same thing

00:29:00

to say about President Biden which is he

00:29:02

is sharp as attack and it was all sharp

00:29:05

as attack which end of the attack the

00:29:07

round part what was so funny to me is I

00:29:09

thought to myself if I asked a hundred

00:29:11

people on the street what do you think

00:29:13

of Elon Musk you'd have a hundred

00:29:15

different statements there' be a general

00:29:17

theme but you would not have even 50

00:29:20

people repeat the exact talking points

00:29:22

obviously and so you have this funny

00:29:25

situation where a hundred different

00:29:26

people were basically saying the exact

00:29:28

same talking point so it's not even a

00:29:30

point of view it was just something that

00:29:32

they were told to say by somebody else

00:29:34

and back to your point both both sides

00:29:36

sa is the real issue which is that you

00:29:37

don't really have an honest media here

00:29:39

and so there is no check and balance on

00:29:42

power right now imagine if this Feeding

00:29:43

Frenzy happened a year ago well the

00:29:45

contrast and compare I want to make is

00:29:47

everybody has a point of view about

00:29:50

Donald Trump and I was thinking about

00:29:51

this the reason why everybody has a

00:29:52

point of view about Donald Trump is

00:29:54

everything that has happened in his life

00:29:57

is completely transparently documented

00:29:59

there really is nothing hidden at this

00:30:01

point and so you have a point of view

00:30:03

because you've been given all of the

00:30:05

stuff right and there's endless amounts

00:30:09

of new stuff that come out about the old

00:30:11

stuff and so you know and that's what's

00:30:14

so interesting you have the ability to

00:30:16

come to your own decision and it's not

00:30:18

packaged through these filters yet with

00:30:20

President Biden I think it's so

00:30:22

constrained and

00:30:23

controlled and I think you have to

00:30:26

understand and appreciate that decline

00:30:29

let's assume that he isn't for the sake

00:30:30

of the United States but if he is in it

00:30:33

it only gets worse from here and it

00:30:35

compounds in compounds and compounds

00:30:37

that is what happens and so not only do

00:30:39

you have to wonder what the next five

00:30:41

months are like what does it look like

00:30:43

in 18 and 24 and 36 months that is a

00:30:47

really important issue here clearly

00:30:49

Biden can't serve a second term but the

00:30:51

question is what what do we do now and I

00:30:54

got to say it's amazing to me that the

00:30:56

Democrats are not considering

00:30:58

the one option that is kind of obvious

00:31:01

which is you let the man run the most

00:31:03

dignified campaign he can he's the

00:31:06

candidate you chose and oh satire saaks

00:31:09

is back here he is no this is not sa sa

00:31:11

this is not satire saxs the real problem

00:31:13

here is the Democrats refuse to lose

00:31:15

they want to cling to power however they

00:31:18

can they refus to let democracy just

00:31:21

work democracy working would be to do

00:31:23

the speedrun I have a question what

00:31:24

would you do with the money would you

00:31:25

just not spend it then and just save

00:31:28

well this is really interesting so there

00:31:30

is an analog okay in 1996 Bob Dole was

00:31:33

the Republican candidate for president

00:31:36

and quite frankly he was too old he was

00:31:37

seen as a relic Clinton was fairly

00:31:40

popular and it was pretty obvious that

00:31:42

he was just a loser and he was going to

00:31:43

lose did the Republicans engage in

00:31:46

Shenanigans to try and fix the situation

00:31:48

no they just accepted the inevitable

00:31:50

that Dole was going to lose and what

00:31:52

they did is they pulled financing from

00:31:54

his campaign at least in the final month

00:31:56

and they redistributed to House and

00:31:58

Senate candidates and actually they did

00:32:00

better in the House and Senate they held

00:32:03

on to the House and Senate I think they

00:32:04

lost a few seats but way less than they

00:32:06

were expecting to and they kind of ran

00:32:08

on a campaign that you know you can't

00:32:11

trust slick Willie so keep us on split

00:32:14

the ticket and keep us on as a check

00:32:17

against him and it actually worked

00:32:19

fairly well it was the best the

00:32:20

Republicans could do but frankly they

00:32:22

let Bob Dole run a dignified campaign my

00:32:25

advice to the Democrats would be don't

00:32:27

have Biden sign doing a shakeup

00:32:30

Democrats listen to Sachs there's your

00:32:32

political counsel if you're if you're a

00:32:34

democratic right now when you put an

00:32:36

untested unexperienced clueless

00:32:39

president in there who was gonna want to

00:32:40

show how tough she is and bring in her

00:32:42

own

00:32:42

team of this dangerous situation let

00:32:45

Biden run a dignified campaign and lose

00:32:48

my advice to the Democrats is to embrace

00:32:50

an outsider give the people what they

00:32:54

want freedom of choice freedom to elect

00:32:58

a leader and bring someone in that falls

00:33:01

outside of the traditional political

00:33:03

spectrum that does not want to hold

00:33:04

public office because it's not their

00:33:06

career they can bring money to the table

00:33:08

they can bring credibility to the table

00:33:10

and they can win votes and compete

00:33:12

effectively against Trump if your goal

00:33:14

is to retain the White House

00:33:17

Camala give us two Nam Jamie Diamond

00:33:20

Jamie Diamond Bob a second name Bob Iger

00:33:24

yeah it's a great one jie bober

00:33:28

one yeah it's called wishcasting you're

00:33:30

doing wishcasting SX I'm not speaking

00:33:32

about realism I'm speaking I'm speaking

00:33:33

about what it would take to win yes if

00:33:35

they actually want to have a shot at

00:33:37

winning someone that could win a popular

00:33:38

vote someone that could actually win

00:33:39

votes away from Trump because you can't

00:33:41

introduce someone like Whitmer or more

00:33:44

this late in the season when no one in

00:33:46

the United States knows who the heck

00:33:47

this person is but when you have someone

00:33:49

with credibility with Economic and

00:33:50

Business success with executive

00:33:52

Authority with capital and connections

00:33:55

into the Democratic party but isn't part

00:33:57

of the political machine that you and

00:33:59

many others in the Democratic party are

00:34:01

now starting to hate let's go you have

00:34:03

an opportunity to actually win yes and

00:34:05

if they were smart and they got their

00:34:07

together they would say you know what

00:34:08

it's time for a change just like the

00:34:09

Republicans had to do when into the part

00:34:12

use the Republican Playbook brilliant

00:34:14

freeberg brilliant okay well you guys

00:34:15

better have a magic lamp with a Genie in

00:34:17

it because that's the only way this is

00:34:19

going to happen well listen it's I'm

00:34:21

just trying to keep the show fresh okay

00:34:23

okay here we go next topic here we goe

00:34:26

get the final word here we go I'm giving

00:34:28

freeberg the final Ro he had the best

00:34:31

take I'm giving freeberg the the final

00:34:33

word oh you're pulling your McNeil

00:34:35

absolutely yeah okay here we go there

00:34:37

were seven rulings in a bunch of scotus

00:34:39

activity over the last week but these

00:34:41

are really important consequential

00:34:43

decisions we are going to talk about

00:34:45

three of them and I'm going to try to

00:34:48

get through these quickly obviously you

00:34:50

could talk about these for hours and

00:34:52

people will be you know doing case

00:34:54

studies on them for a long time but let

00:34:56

me try to do this quick so we can get

00:34:58

everybody's take on them the first one I

00:34:59

want to talk about is net choice this is

00:35:01

the content moderation cases that you

00:35:04

may have heard of there were two very

00:35:05

controversial laws passed in Florida and

00:35:07

Texas in 2021 in the wake of January 6th

00:35:11

the Florida law if you weren't aware of

00:35:13

it and I don't suspect most people are

00:35:15

would cover platforms with over a 100

00:35:17

million monthly active users or 100

00:35:19

million in annual revenue in other words

00:35:21

they're targeting X YouTube Facebook

00:35:24

meta those kind of sites and they would

00:35:26

require those platforms to notify users

00:35:28

if their posts are removed or altered

00:35:31

and the platforms would have to make

00:35:32

General disclosures about their

00:35:33

operations and policies and the Texas

00:35:36

law it was very similar platforms over

00:35:37

50 million monthly active users and it

00:35:40

would require them to notify users whose

00:35:42

posts were removed and provide an

00:35:43

explanation of why all that kind of

00:35:45

stuff both of these laws were challenged

00:35:48

in court in 2021 just to give you an

00:35:50

idea like why I think the conservatives

00:35:53

were upset about this obviously Trump

00:35:57

being suspended indefinitely on Twitter

00:35:59

Facebook and other platforms or the

00:36:01

labeling of content like we've seen on

00:36:03

our own channel on YouTube net choice is

00:36:05

a tech industry group includes Facebook

00:36:07

and YouTube and the parent companies of

00:36:09

those and they sued to block these two

00:36:12

laws jce Kagan a liberal wrote the

00:36:15

unanimous decision obviously no

00:36:16

dissensions here and the majority held

00:36:19

the editorial judgment and the cation of

00:36:20

other people's speech is a unique

00:36:22

expressive product of its own which

00:36:24

entitles it to first amendment

00:36:26

protection so just to give you an

00:36:28

example if you wanted to create a social

00:36:29

network where you can't be anonymous

00:36:30

like LinkedIn you can do that if you

00:36:32

want to do something like Twitter X and

00:36:33

have Anonymous accounts you can do that

00:36:34

as well if you want to create a social

00:36:36

network with adult content you can do it

00:36:38

or like Zuck is doing on threads

00:36:40

interestingly they are downplaying

00:36:42

political content obviously other

00:36:44

platforms amplify political content so

00:36:49

let me um and so the end of all this in

00:36:52

terms of how the court handled it is uh

00:36:54

they offered some guidance and sent the

00:36:55

cases back to the lower courts to

00:36:57

clarify a bunch of stuff just to keep

00:36:59

this brief shth what are your thoughts

00:37:02

on this obviously some of the ideas here

00:37:05

like letting users know why they were

00:37:08

banned or why content was taken down I

00:37:10

think the overwhelming majority of users

00:37:11

would like to have that but is this the

00:37:13

government's role I'm not enough of a

00:37:16

legal scholar to know the details of

00:37:18

this case except to say that when the

00:37:21

entire court goes in One

00:37:24

Direction it's probably because this

00:37:27

never should have been brought to the

00:37:28

court in the first place and they're

00:37:29

giving a very clear message it wasn't

00:37:31

even ideologically strained to figure

00:37:33

out what the right answer should be so

00:37:36

sax obviously your chosen party was the

00:37:39

one who brought this you have concerns

00:37:40

about the platforms doing this but do

00:37:42

you have equal concerns about the

00:37:44

government then I guess being the ones

00:37:46

who have to enforce these is this a good

00:37:50

ruling well I think that with respect to

00:37:53

the Texas and Florida laws I think their

00:37:55

heart was in the right place they were

00:37:56

motivated by the right things which was

00:37:58

to reduce censorship on the social media

00:38:00

platforms specifically censorship of

00:38:02

conservatives which is to say they're

00:38:04

their

00:38:05

citizens but those laws probably were

00:38:08

overly Broad and they infringed on the

00:38:12

free speech of Corporations because I

00:38:14

guess corporations get free speech too

00:38:16

and basically what the ruling says is

00:38:18

that content moderation receives the

00:38:20

same First Amendment protections as any

00:38:22

other kind of speech so the decisions of

00:38:24

what content you're going to keep up or

00:38:27

take down on your own property is itself

00:38:31

a speech decision and the government has

00:38:33

to respect that so that's what the

00:38:35

ruling here was saying I think it's not

00:38:37

a bad decision I wish the Supreme Court

00:38:39

however had coupled this with a better

00:38:42

decision in the Missouri versus Biden

00:38:43

case which they they basically said that

00:38:47

the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue

00:38:49

so they didn't necessarily give a

00:38:51

dispositive ruling in that case but they

00:38:53

threw it they threw it out and Yeah and

00:38:56

basically what that case was was about

00:38:58

was the Biden Administration was engaged

00:38:59

in attempts to influence or pressure

00:39:03

social media companies to take down

00:39:04

speech it's a practice known as

00:39:06

jawboning and I wish they had coupled

00:39:09

this decision with a better decision in

00:39:12

in Missouri versus Biden saying the

00:39:14

government's not allowed to coer social

00:39:16

networks to take down speech either and

00:39:19

they refused to do that so I wouldn't

00:39:21

say these are like the greatest set of

00:39:23

decisions with regard to free speech

00:39:25

that the Court's ever done hope that

00:39:27

they will come back in the future once

00:39:30

they find a plff with the right standing

00:39:32

to address that issue yeah that's a key

00:39:34

issue freeberg your thoughts yeah so

00:39:36

I've said for a long time we've

00:39:38

obviously had conversations about

00:39:40

Twitter and Shadow Banning and some of

00:39:42

the other activities on what are

00:39:44

typically called social media platforms

00:39:46

at the end of the day these are all as

00:39:48

I've shared in the past my belief is

00:39:50

they're all content companies they have

00:39:51

a choice as Executives and as editors of

00:39:55

those companies to decide how to edit

00:39:57

talize the content on their platforms

00:39:59

they can choose to create content with

00:40:01

writers that they pay on staff like a

00:40:03

newspaper M they can choose to create

00:40:05

content with actors and directors that

00:40:07

they pay to create novel video series

00:40:09

for them like HBO might or they can

00:40:11

choose to make content creation

00:40:14

available to third parties that don't

00:40:16

get paid like users and at the end of

00:40:18

the day what they choose to do with that

00:40:20

content and how they choose to display

00:40:22

that content is up to them as an

00:40:24

editorial platform that is ultimately

00:40:26

creating content for other consumers I

00:40:28

don't view that user generated content

00:40:30

platforms are a right of the consumers

00:40:33

to have access to share their thoughts

00:40:36

they have the internet to do that they

00:40:37

have many other places that they can go

00:40:38

to to create blogs to create websites to

00:40:41

do whatever else they want to do to

00:40:43

express themselves but to have a

00:40:45

technological platform that lets them

00:40:47

submit content that then the editors get

00:40:49

to decide how and where they show that

00:40:51

content I think they should understand

00:40:52

because it's in the terms and conditions

00:40:54

when you sign up so I don't believe in

00:40:56

social media platforms utilities and I

00:40:58

don't think that the government should

00:40:59

have any role in deciding what is or

00:41:02

isn't on those platforms this goes both

00:41:04

ways I think that the company should

00:41:06

decide what kind of platforms they want

00:41:08

to have whether they want to have free

00:41:10

speech that allows inappropriate content

00:41:13

or content that might be offensive or

00:41:15

whether they want to have a highly

00:41:16

moderated platform to make it more

00:41:18

broadly available or appealing to users

00:41:20

it's entirely up to them and I really do

00:41:22

appreciate the ruling because I think

00:41:24

that the government should have less of

00:41:25

a role in intervening and deciding how

00:41:27

companies create content and how they

00:41:28

editorialize that content yeah so I

00:41:30

think that's well said and I I was in

00:41:32

the same sort of Camp as you freeberg

00:41:34

which is this is like a battle of

00:41:35

snowflakes here like the Liberals

00:41:37

obviously were cancelling people on

00:41:39

these platforms and now like the mag of

00:41:40

folks want to come in and have the

00:41:41

government regulate it if you want to

00:41:44

compete here just create a new product

00:41:46

or service in the market you're on the

00:41:47

board of Rumble sacks like they're doing

00:41:50

really well and if you squeeze too tight

00:41:52

and your platform doesn't work it's the

00:41:54

marketplace should you know figure out

00:41:56

who the winners are and you know it's

00:41:59

it's not a situation where you want the

00:42:01

government getting in there because then

00:42:03

they're going to go to a newspaper and

00:42:05

there's so much precedent here I you

00:42:06

know I actually read some of the of

00:42:08

these rulings which is really

00:42:09

interesting they're written phenomenally

00:42:11

well will put in the show notes the

00:42:13

actual links to the PDFs of these

00:42:14

decisions they're well worth

00:42:16

reading and in this case they brought up

00:42:19

a bunch of the previous law was

00:42:22

fascinating like people wanted to force

00:42:23

a newspaper to allow you know one

00:42:26

candidate to reply and give him space

00:42:29

they were like no you can't do that it's

00:42:30

their newspaper they decide what they

00:42:32

publish another person wanted to have a

00:42:34

corporate newsletter be forced to give

00:42:37

information about the other sides you

00:42:39

just don't get to do that I'll just say

00:42:40

one more thing what what else is

00:42:41

striking is just how insular and

00:42:43

protectionist Texas and Florida are

00:42:45

being and it's not just with this law

00:42:48

it's also with the lab grown meat or

00:42:49

cultivated meat laws that they've passed

00:42:51

and other states are passing similar

00:42:52

laws which is limiting innovation in the

00:42:54

state and limiting freedom to operate in

00:42:56

the state in order to protect interests

00:42:59

of individuals and corporations that

00:43:00

already exist within that state so it's

00:43:02

really important to note this isn't a

00:43:04

good or a bad thing but those states are

00:43:06

operating in a way the lawmakers of

00:43:08

those states are operating in a way

00:43:09

that's trying to protect the interests

00:43:11

of the individuals and businesses in the

00:43:12

state over the freedoms that might and

00:43:15

the Liberties that might otherwise be

00:43:16

available I think we often talk about

00:43:17

these states being more free but these

00:43:19

laws and the cultivated meat ban laws in

00:43:21

my opinion indicate that these states

00:43:23

are actually on the

00:43:24

contrary they're much more kind of

00:43:26

protectionist where your take on that

00:43:27

sax to freeberg point I mean I think

00:43:29

this this um ruling might have been

00:43:31

necessary from a constitutional

00:43:32

standpoint because corporations do have

00:43:34

free speech rights but again I would say

00:43:37

that I think that the laws of Texas and

00:43:39

Florida were coming from a good place

00:43:41

which is they were trying to protect the

00:43:43

rights of their citizens to engage in

00:43:45

free speech I think it's just

00:43:46

unfortunate that in this case it's a

00:43:48

zero some game and as a result those

00:43:51

laws were were invalidated I think that

00:43:53

makes sense but I still think we have a

00:43:54

problem I agree with you the platforms

00:43:56

have to much power what what is your

00:43:58

proposed solution you obviously don't

00:44:00

want to have the government in there

00:44:02

like running a newsroom or running

00:44:03

Twitter X because you yourself we saying

00:44:05

hey the government's too involved in X

00:44:08

and these platforms and doing this

00:44:09

jawboning so obviously having them more

00:44:12

involved is bad right you're against

00:44:14

them being involved yeah I think it's

00:44:15

really tricky to figure out how to solve

00:44:17

this got it I think for one thing you

00:44:19

don't want the government jawboning

00:44:21

these sites to take down content that

00:44:23

clearly should be a free speech

00:44:25

violation I'm disappointed the court

00:44:26

didn't get to that I think we're totally

00:44:28

missing the bigger picture there's like

00:44:30

a lot of fear-mongering that I think has

00:44:33

happened with respect to the Supreme

00:44:34

Court and that it's all of a sudden

00:44:38

become some super

00:44:40

ideological super rigid super activist

00:44:44

place and I think it's in fact much of

00:44:47

the opposite and the data supports that

00:44:49

and so I think it's important for people

00:44:51

to know that what's actually happening

00:44:53

is that many of these decisions are very

00:44:56

much split along non-ideological lines

00:45:00

and I think that that's an important

00:45:01

thing so I just like I'm pulling this up

00:45:02

and I just want to read some of these

00:45:04

things to you US versus rahimi which is

00:45:07

a federal law that prohibits people

00:45:09

subjected to domestic violence

00:45:12

restraining orders from having a firearm

00:45:14

that was an 8 to1 decision where all but

00:45:16

Thomas supported that makes a lot of

00:45:18

sense you would

00:45:20

think racial gerrymandering that was

00:45:22

more ideological where it was a

00:45:23

conservative Block versus Sodor Brown

00:45:26

and

00:45:27

Trump V Anderson which is Trump getting

00:45:30

back on the Colorado ballot

00:45:33

90 FDA versus The Alliance for hypocracy

00:45:44

versus us which is whether Idaho's

00:45:47

strict abortion law conflicts with the

00:45:48

federal law non ideological where it was

00:45:51

Gorsuch Alo Thomas and katangi brown

00:45:54

Jackson who descended So It Goes On and

00:45:57

on and I think what's so interesting

00:45:58

about all of this is that I had thought

00:46:01

that this was not like what it was what

00:46:03

I thought what had happened is Trump

00:46:05

stacked the Supreme Court all of a

00:46:07

sudden we are ripping all these laws

00:46:10

apart this longstanding sort of doctrine

00:46:14

of what has passed but yet I think

00:46:16

what's actually happening is people are

00:46:18

pretty

00:46:19

thoughtfully pushing the responsibility

00:46:22

to the states and I think that the

00:46:24

Court's decisions are relatively

00:46:27

unpredictable in the sense that it's not

00:46:28

just a conservative Block versus a

00:46:30

liberal block I think that's the real

00:46:32

story and when you unpack a bunch of

00:46:34

these decisions in that context that's

00:46:36

what's so interesting to me is like

00:46:37

these are pretty nuanced decisions that

00:46:40

get at the heart of a lot of key

00:46:42

important issues happening across non-

00:46:44

ideological lines the Jan 6 One katangi

00:46:46

Brown Jackson it was the Biden appointee

00:46:48

that basically supported this thing that

00:46:49

may throw out 200 plus convictions for

00:46:51

Jan 6 and Amy con bear was on the other

00:46:53

side this is an unpredictable Supreme

00:46:55

Court I think they think for themselves

00:46:57

they seem to be

00:46:58

independent and I think they are coming

00:47:00

to their own conclusions that's the only

00:47:02

thing to take away from the distribution

00:47:03

of the votes that should make people

00:47:05

feel a little bit better so I think this

00:47:07

next ruling is the most important one

00:47:09

and I think it will be the most

00:47:10

important one that we've seen with this

00:47:12

new

00:47:13

court that has three of the nine

00:47:16

justices placed by Trump to your point

00:47:19

shth and this one is seisman the Looper

00:47:22

versus Rondo decision overturn Chevron

00:47:26

okay so this one takes a little

00:47:27

explaining the court overruled a

00:47:28

landmark 1984 decision in the chevron

00:47:31

case from 40 years

00:47:33

ago for context the original ruling

00:47:36

created the Chevron Doctrine where the

00:47:38

government and federal courts generally

00:47:40

defer to the stances of federal agencies

00:47:43

unless Congress has written specific

00:47:45

laws on an issue the 1984 ruling upheld

00:47:48

the epa's interpretation of the Clean

00:47:49

Air Act it's very influential this has

00:47:52

been cited by federal courts over 18,000

00:47:54

times in 40 years it was overruled in

00:47:57

another 6 to3 decision where the justice

00:47:59

is voted along party lines shof

00:48:01

basically this shifts power back to

00:48:03

federal judges and courts instead of

00:48:04

administrative agency staff by experts

00:48:07

academics all that kind of stuff in the

00:48:09

majority opinion Roberts conservative

00:48:12

obviously said the Chevron Doctrine

00:48:14

violates the administrative procedures

00:48:16

Act of federal law that directs the

00:48:17

courts to review actions taken by

00:48:18

federal agencies he also pointed out

00:48:20

that the courts are regularly expected

00:48:21

to deal with technical questions so this

00:48:23

should not be considered beyond their

00:48:24

ability to scope Kagan a liberal wrote a

00:48:26

critical descent she said the agency

00:48:28

staff with scientists and experts are

00:48:29

more likely to have the expertise to

00:48:31

make these decisions rather than the

00:48:32

judges she also pointed out that the

00:48:35

system had been functioning for 40 years

00:48:37

and this ruling will create a massive

00:48:39

quote jolt to the legal system chth get

00:48:41

in there do you remember when President

00:48:43

Biden tried to pass the budget two years

00:48:46

ago and he was one vote short and Joe

00:48:50

Mansion ended up putting it over the top

00:48:52

but he negotiated what was a redo of a

00:48:56

bunch of Regulation and he was promised

00:48:59

that there would be this regulatory

00:49:01

overhaul that happened and that was sort

00:49:04

of why he had decided to vote for that

00:49:07

budget bill it ended up not happening so

00:49:11

the reason why I think he had saw that

00:49:13

and he discussed this is that there are

00:49:15

so many businesses that now suffer from

00:49:17

the regulations of these agencies

00:49:20

because when the agency enacted that

00:49:22

regulation it was just a different time

00:49:24

and place and there was no clean way to

00:49:28

go back to an independent body and say I

00:49:31

understand what your intention was in

00:49:33

1985 when you wrote that regulation but

00:49:36

in 2024 things have

00:49:38

changed can we reconsider and basically

00:49:42

what the courts have done now will allow

00:49:45

companies who believe that regulations

00:49:47

are either overwrought or

00:49:50

misguided for today's market landscape

00:49:52

and bring it to an independent Judiciary

00:49:55

and have them decide and I think that

00:49:58

that's a very reasonable check and

00:49:59

balance and I think that's that makes a

00:50:01

lot of sense folks can pass laws and if

00:50:04

folks believe that those laws do you

00:50:06

undo harm now you have a mechanism to go

00:50:08

and actually explain your case to

00:50:11

somebody independent who can then make a

00:50:13

judgment I think that that's a good

00:50:15

check and balance freberg I know this

00:50:16

was the one you most wanted to talk

00:50:18

about uh what's your take on this end of

00:50:21

the age of experts and throwing things

00:50:24

back to the court what will be the

00:50:25

practical ramifications I know how much

00:50:28

experience you guys have had dealing

00:50:31

with Federal Regulators you have a lot

00:50:34

more than I think agencies and yeah I've

00:50:36

worked in a lot across a number of

00:50:38

federal agencies in in businesses I've

00:50:40

been involved in and I can tell you it

00:50:43

is as I'm sure you would expect there's

00:50:45

a lot of bureaucratic morass in in these

00:50:48

agencies and if you think about it it's

00:50:51

because the agencies are effectively

00:50:53

under the Chevron Doctrine vested

00:50:56

Unlimited lied authority to create rules

00:50:59

and regulations that they then determine

00:51:02

are meant to represent the laws that

00:51:04

were passed by Congress but more often

00:51:07

than not those rules and regulations

00:51:08

begin to bleed outside of the lines of

00:51:12

the intention of the laws when they were

00:51:15

passed and this is because those

00:51:17

agencies by creating new rules and

00:51:19

regulations this isn't this isn't some

00:51:22

like you know I have a subversive reason

00:51:24

for doing this but these agencies have

00:51:27

an incentive for creating more rules and

00:51:29

regulations because they then get to go

00:51:31

back to Congress and ask for more budget

00:51:34

and hire more people and grow the

00:51:36

importance and the scale of their agency

00:51:39

this is the natural kind of organic

00:51:41

growth that arises in any living system

00:51:44

and any organization of individuals is

00:51:46

also a living system and has the same

00:51:48

incentive it wants to have more

00:51:50

resources it wants to get bigger it

00:51:52

wants to do more stuff it wants to be

00:51:53

more important and the Chevron Doctrine

00:51:56

has allowed agencies to operate

00:51:59

independent and outside of the lines

00:52:01

that were defined in the laws that were

00:52:02

passed that that then vested them this

00:52:05

Authority that then they can go and say

00:52:06

I want more budget I want to get bigger

00:52:09

and I'm optimistic that this ruling will

00:52:12

limit the agency's authorities and limit

00:52:14

their ability to create more

00:52:16

bureaucratic overhead more headcount

00:52:19

more individuals that need to now go and

00:52:21

administer the rules and regulations

00:52:24

that they themselves create and so I'm

00:52:26

actually very optimistic and hopeful

00:52:28

about this uh this change now the

00:52:30

downside the negative to this is that

00:52:32

there are a number of really important

00:52:35

regulatory roles that agencies have come

00:52:38

to play that never got passed as bills

00:52:41

like Environmental Protection rules and

00:52:44

there's a negative consequence that will

00:52:46

arise to some degree with respect to

00:52:48

health of the environment health of

00:52:49

people Etc but I think net net Congress

00:52:52

needs to do its job it needs to go back

00:52:54

to session and it needs to sit down

00:52:56

needs to pass laws that really clearly

00:52:58

Define what is and what isn't going to

00:53:00

be legal going forward and then the

00:53:02

agencies operate strictly within those

00:53:04

bounds so so to recap it could get a

00:53:06

little messy but it's a better healthier

00:53:08

system because this system has become

00:53:10

super bloated over 40 years that was my

00:53:13

take on it as well saak what's your take

00:53:15

on this this feels like a a huge win to

00:53:17

me what do you think well I agree with

00:53:19

that and I agree with what freeberg said

00:53:21

look when when this decision the Chevron

00:53:23

decision came down in 1984 at the of the

00:53:26

Reagan Revolution conservatives actually

00:53:28

liked it they they praised it because we

00:53:31

were coming off a period of an activist

00:53:34

Court you know the the Warren court and

00:53:36

they thought that shifting power from

00:53:38

the courts to the agencies would

00:53:39

actually be a good move well it turns

00:53:41

out it completely backfired um which

00:53:43

Cheveron when it came out was not a

00:53:45

widely noticed decision since then it's

00:53:46

been cited 18,000 Times by federal

00:53:49

courts it's turned out to be enormously

00:53:52

important and influential and the reason

00:53:54

for all those citations is it's the core

00:53:56

s deferring to the ru making of an

00:53:59

agency you know what Chevron basically

00:54:00

says is as long as the agency's

00:54:03

interpretation is reasonable or you

00:54:05

could say not unreasonable then the

00:54:07

agency can basically promulgate the rule

00:54:09

and what this has led to is an orgy of

00:54:11

rulle making by all these federal

00:54:13

agencies and so most of our laws now

00:54:17

effectively are being made by unelected

00:54:19

bureaucrats who are part of this

00:54:22

three-letter alphabet soup of government

00:54:23

agencies it's not the Congress it's not

00:54:25

the court it's not the president it's

00:54:27

this fourth branch of government that's

00:54:29

not in the Constitution which is the

00:54:31

administrative State and so the

00:54:33

administr administrative state has

00:54:34

become incredibly powerful as a result

00:54:36

of Chevron Doctrine and now I think by

00:54:39

reversing it you actually give a chance

00:54:41

for the restoration of democracy

00:54:44

basically the agencies are not empowered

00:54:47

to essentially make whatever rules they

00:54:48

want as long as they superficially

00:54:50

appear reasonable they actually have to

00:54:52

show that their rules are within a

00:54:55

statute that they that they were

00:54:57

directed by Congress to effectively

00:54:58

engage in the ru making so this is a

00:55:00

step in the right direction for sure but

00:55:02

again the real problem here is reigning

00:55:03

in this unelected administrative State

00:55:06

yeah jamat any final thoughts here as we

00:55:08

move on to the next

00:55:10

one seems like the Supreme Court is

00:55:13

doing a great job agree all nine of them

00:55:16

I mean they really they really seem to

00:55:18

be doing a tremendous job I give them a

00:55:22

lot of credit I feel like I've become a

00:55:24

conservative maybe I'm a conservative

00:55:25

nowas I don't know I I may have to sit

00:55:27

down and confess to you because I read a

00:55:30

number of these decisions and I was like

00:55:31

I agree I agree and this is supposed to

00:55:33

be a conservative court so I'm not

00:55:35

sure it's actually it's not it's not

00:55:37

it's an originalist court it's not a

00:55:38

conservative Court this is what I'm

00:55:40

saying like these are words that are

00:55:41

planted by people that want you to

00:55:43

believe their version of the

00:55:45

LIE great point there are a lot of

00:55:48

originalists on the court and what the

00:55:49

originalist doctrine says and sxs you

00:55:52

can correct me is I read the

00:55:54

Constitution with faith and Fidelity and

00:55:56

I just see what it's what it says not I

00:55:59

interpret it not I fill in the words I

00:56:01

just what it says is what we're allowed

00:56:03

and I think that there's some there's a

00:56:05

really good version of America in that

00:56:08

view of the world yeah I mean I would

00:56:10

say it's not even necessarily an

00:56:12

originalist or conservative court it's a

00:56:14

333 Court meaning there's three

00:56:16

conservatives there's three liberals and

00:56:17

there's three Justice in the middle you

00:56:19

have this middle block led by the Chief

00:56:21

Justice Roberts with Kavanagh and

00:56:23

Barrett and then you got the

00:56:24

conservatives with gorsa and Thomas and

00:56:28

Alo and sometimes the middle block goes

00:56:30

with the Liberals sometimes it goes with

00:56:31

the conservatives again it's more of

00:56:33

like a triangle and as we know the

00:56:36

triangle is in best shape for equipo

00:56:38

right because it creates balance and I

00:56:40

think what we have right now is a

00:56:41

balance court and I think on the whole

00:56:42

they've done a good job and I think it's

00:56:45

kind of sad that in reaction to some of

00:56:47

these decisions you've got powerful

00:56:49

lawmakers like Elizabeth Warren who are

00:56:51

explicitly calling for packing the court

00:56:54

they're actually saying you know put a

00:56:55

bunch of Justice on here to ruin this

00:56:57

equipoise that we have I think it's

00:56:59

really sad I think that the court right

00:57:01

now is one of the last highly functional

00:57:03

institutions in American public life and

00:57:06

for elected leaders to be calling for

00:57:08

its destruction is just sad well I you

00:57:11

know I think what here and here's an

00:57:13

image from axio showing you know six

00:57:16

Republican nominated and three Democrat

00:57:19

nominated I think to give the

00:57:21

counterargument you know roie way um

00:57:24

being overturned was something the

00:57:25

majority of the country didn't want

00:57:27

these three people were added For That

00:57:29

explicit Purpose By Trump people have

00:57:32

trauma uh pain over that reasonably I

00:57:35

think and then the truth is though if

00:57:38

they are you know just one standard

00:57:40

deviation here as you can see in this

00:57:42

axios chart which is based on some data

00:57:46

I don't I don't trust this chart I think

00:57:48

this this chart is worthless Jason I

00:57:49

think let exp actual articles no but I'm

00:57:52

saying look at the actual how they voted

00:57:55

if you look at it

00:57:56

my point is this is meaningless a child

00:57:58

could have drawn this it means nothing

00:57:59

no no a child didn't draw it chamat this

00:58:01

was how do you know read because I'm

00:58:04

reading the source because I'm reading

00:58:05

the source of the data this is based on

00:58:07

something called The Martin Quinn score

00:58:08

an analysis by political scientist

00:58:10

Andrew Martin Kevin Quinn known as the

00:58:12

Martin Quinn score places judges on an

00:58:14

IDE ideological Spectrum a lower score

00:58:17

indicates a more liberal Justice where a

00:58:19

higher score indicates a more

00:58:20

conservative Justice and then they went

00:58:23

through all of their decisions

00:58:26

subjective classifier a subjective

00:58:28

classifier was created by these two

00:58:30

random people and you're now Regita the

00:58:32

score like it means something no I think

00:58:34

it's an interesting way it's an

00:58:36

interesting chart to discuss to

00:58:39

understand a little bit of their

00:58:40

meanings what I would encourage anybody

00:58:42

to do is to look at the actual substance

00:58:45

of the decisions and the votes and what

00:58:48

you will see is that people are not as

00:58:50

easily predictable as that chart would

00:58:52

show and I think that's what's

00:58:54

important uh okay

00:58:57

um I think that chart supports exactly

00:59:00

what you just said Sachs right

00:59:03

yeah I mean not exactly I mean again I

00:59:05

view it as a 333 Court a lot of other

00:59:08

people have written about that and

00:59:09

they've got their own diagrams and

00:59:10

charts to show that look I think it's a

00:59:12

court like I said in equipoise I don't

00:59:14

think it's partisan I think it's it's

00:59:16

being reasonably fair I don't agree with

00:59:18

every single ruling like I said I would

00:59:20

have liked to seen a different result in

00:59:23

Biden V Missouri however I think on the

00:59:25

whole they're doing a good job and it

00:59:26

really should be a scandal that you've

00:59:28

got powerful lawmakers explicitly

00:59:31

calling for the court to be packed I

00:59:34

mean that would be a disaster right

00:59:35

because you have nine justices which is

00:59:36

a good number you try to increase that

00:59:38

to 13 then the next time the Republicans

00:59:40

have control they're going to increase

00:59:42

it to 15 or 21 or whatever and pretty

00:59:44

soon we're going to have 100 justices on

00:59:46

the court you'll ruin it you know really

00:59:49

nine justices should be a constitutional

00:59:50

requirement we should just fix it at

00:59:52

nine and not mess with that so it's just

00:59:55

SC handless to me that you've got

00:59:57

politicians who are reacting to

01:00:00

reasonable Decisions by saying that we

01:00:02

need to pack the court okay quick it

01:00:04

here this is an important story for you

01:00:05

choth Scot has also agreed to hear a

01:00:07

case on the limits of online porn in its

01:00:09

next term which starts in October the

01:00:12

law in questions will it will it impact

01:00:15

incognito mode because if it is

01:00:19

just you're in

01:00:22

trouble just I think there's a did you

01:00:25

fle it or are you could you imagine if

01:00:28

they banned incognito mode I think you

01:00:31

might want to do a deep dive into how

01:00:33

Incognito incognito mode is you may want

01:00:35

to get a VPN I'm pretty sure Texas is

01:00:38

GNA ban incognito mode exactly Texas and

01:00:42

Florida I think a couple of these sites

01:00:45

because of the threat of you know this

01:00:48

these laws of ageg gating they've just

01:00:51

decided to wholesale leave certain

01:00:54

states by IP address therefore for the

01:00:56

sale of vpns in Texas went up because

01:00:59

when you went to certain porn sites and

01:01:00

said hey because of Texas's proposing

01:01:02

these laws we're not going to allow you

01:01:04

to visit this website Nick do the NBC

01:01:07

thing the more you know the more you

01:01:11

know okay scotus agreed to hear a case

01:01:13

on the limits of online porn in its next

01:01:16

term which starts in October the law in

01:01:18

question was passed by Texas legislature

01:01:20

in 2023 requires porn sites to verify

01:01:22

the age of their users and restrict

01:01:24

access for minors it seems reasonable

01:01:26

fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans

01:01:28

upheld the law sending it to the Supreme

01:01:29

Court if upheld users would have to

01:01:30

submit personal info that verifies their

01:01:33

over 18 to watch porn the law is opposed

01:01:36

by the ACLU and the Free Speech

01:01:38

Coalition which is a trade group

01:01:40

representing adult entertainers and

01:01:41

companies they argue it places an undue

01:01:43

burden on adults wishing to access

01:01:45

constitutionally protected free

01:01:46

expression oh speaking of porn and its

01:01:48

related

01:01:50

businesses the Rick's Cabaret recession

01:01:54

index is back on did you guys see this

01:01:56

it was on Twitter so Rick's Cabaret is a

01:01:58

collection of public strip clubs

01:02:01

and and and what's interesting about the

01:02:04

Rick's Cabaret stock price is that it

01:02:06

has pre-aged the last two recessions and

01:02:08

whenever the stock Dives people people

01:02:11

have said it actually predicts an

01:02:14

upcoming recession and the stock just

01:02:17

you know puked up like 25 or 30% in the

01:02:19

last week oh boy there it is so people

01:02:23

do not have the cheddar to go to the

01:02:26

Cabaret and go splashy cashy I got

01:02:30

it Cabaret it's called it's called

01:02:32

Rick's Cabaret but the strip club index

01:02:34

says a recession is is on the offense I

01:02:37

prefer Cabaret it's just it's more

01:02:39

Charming all right so I'm surprised

01:02:42

you're not discussing the immunity case

01:02:44

that's the one that all the pundit

01:02:46

hyperventilating I made it I made it

01:02:48

last I'll uh counter the Rick's ceret

01:02:51

recession indicator as valid anymore

01:02:55

based on the theory of our good friend

01:02:57

on the group chat who I think has done a

01:02:59

very good job highlighting that the

01:03:00

strip club industry has been decimated

01:03:02

by only fans as a result Rick's Cabaret

01:03:05

is more likely down because of only fans

01:03:07

and the lack

01:03:09

of shall we say employee base available

01:03:13

to work in these establishments because

01:03:15

they make more money working online at

01:03:16

only fans now that was a theory post

01:03:19

posited by one of our good friends but

01:03:21

you got to think that that showed up in

01:03:23

the data at least a year or two years

01:03:25

ago know cuz how long has only fans been

01:03:27

around a long time I'm guessing right

01:03:29

but I Peak during covid because you know

01:03:32

you couldn't go to a cabaret if you

01:03:33

wanted to take in a cabaret

01:03:35

show and have a you know a bottle of

01:03:38

champagne at a cabaret show you couldn't

01:03:40

do it so you're the thesis of our friend

01:03:43

is the the thesis of our

01:03:46

friend yeah only fans took all the

01:03:49

entertainers out of the strip club

01:03:51

industry because they make more money

01:03:52

online cabet Cabaret industry uh the

01:03:54

Cabaret industry sorry please edit that

01:03:56

Nick and as a result the quality of the

01:04:00

product at the Cabaret business has

01:04:01

declined and as a result Revenue has

01:04:03

declined and it took a little bit of

01:04:05

time to earn that in so so the virtual

01:04:06

Cabaret industry that's our friends Fury

01:04:08

we give him a big shout out we will yeah

01:04:11

shout out beep call it the beep Theory

01:04:14

yeah the beep Theory so the the Elite

01:04:16

Cabaret

01:04:17

artists can make more money on only fans

01:04:20

they go there and then that leaves the

01:04:23

less refined artists

01:04:27

real why it's so good so pure I'm trying

01:04:31

to navigate this and not get labeled sax

01:04:34

where are you on this what's your

01:04:35

opinion

01:04:38

SX trying to get into cabinet position

01:04:41

so uh anyway so far 16 red states have

01:04:44

passed or agreed to pass age G j's got

01:04:47

the Dunder Mifflin index of

01:04:49

whatever sorry I couldn't hear it you

01:04:51

guys started laughing too quickly say it

01:04:53

again cut out you had the dunder mlin

01:04:56

score of

01:05:00

XYZ Mifflin

01:05:03

so quick J I'll check the Dr Mifflin

01:05:06

score what do it

01:05:10

say I don't understand the dunder M

01:05:13

score didn't you ever watch the office I

01:05:15

don't watch the office office oh my God

01:05:17

J what is wrong with you you I never got

01:05:20

into it I never got into it I've

01:05:22

probably watched it like four times

01:05:23

that's the paper company where they work

01:05:25

yeah

01:05:26

apparently we've had a huge victory for

01:05:28

Trump in the immunity case Trump sued in

01:05:31

this case based on special counsil Jack

01:05:33

Smith's prosecution of trump for alleged

01:05:37

attempts to overturn the 2020 election

01:05:39

and his role in January 6 if you don't

01:05:41

remember that

01:05:43

case since there's so many cases against

01:05:45

Trump this was uh based on Trump

01:05:47

pressuring Mike Pence to not certify the

01:05:49

election his phone call to get the

01:05:52

11,780 votes that were missing in

01:05:55

Georgia or Giuliani and the wackpack

01:05:57

trying to fake electorates to overturn

01:06:00

the election Trump argued that he should

01:06:02

be immune from prosecution for acts

01:06:05

committed while he was President cotus

01:06:07

ruled 63 along party lines that former

01:06:11

presidents can't face prosecution for

01:06:13

actions that related to core powers of

01:06:16

their offit office and official official

01:06:19

official that was the core powers of

01:06:22

their office and that all official Act

01:06:25

receive at least the broad presumption

01:06:28

of immunity here's the quote under our

01:06:30

constitutional structure of separated

01:06:32

Powers the nature of Presidential Power

01:06:34

entitles former president to Absolute

01:06:37

immunity for criminal prosecution for

01:06:38

actions within his conclusive and

01:06:41

preclusive constitutional Authority and

01:06:43

he is entitled to at least presumptive

01:06:45

immunity from prosecution for All His

01:06:48

official acts there is no immunity for

01:06:51

unofficial acts that would be outside

01:06:53

the duty of the President's chief

01:06:55

justice

01:06:56

Roberts emphasized that decision that

01:06:58

the decision doesn't necessarily mean

01:06:59

presidents are above the law in her

01:07:02

dissenting opinion justice so to Mayor

01:07:05

wrote that under the new ruling criminal

01:07:07

law can't be applied to presidents even

01:07:09

if they misuse their office for personal

01:07:11

gain she wrote that if the president

01:07:13

orders the Navy SEAL Team Six to

01:07:15

assassinate a political rival he is now

01:07:16

insulated from Criminal prosecution

01:07:18

another quote the president is now a

01:07:20

king Above the Law she closed with this

01:07:22

line with fear for our democracy I

01:07:25

descent notably this breaks a tradition

01:07:27

of closing with I respectfully descent

01:07:29

so Trump's attempts to overturn the

01:07:31

election results case now hinges on

01:07:33

whether Trump's conduct was Private or

01:07:36

related to his official Duty for example

01:07:39

the lower courts now have to determine

01:07:41

when Trump pressured Pence to not

01:07:43

certify the election if that was an

01:07:45

official business of being president or

01:07:48

not or when he called Georgia and said

01:07:50

hey can you find me 11,000 votes was

01:07:52

that official Duty or was it outside his

01:07:55

duty

01:07:56

president Trump has already cited the

01:07:57

immunity ruling in requesting a New York

01:07:59

judge throw out his conviction in the

01:08:01

hush money case sentencing for that was

01:08:04

pushed back from July 11 to September

01:08:06

because of this ruling Sach there's your

01:08:08

wrong what do you think J well ja what

01:08:10

do you think this is I'm really curious

01:08:13

what I mean I I read the or the I'm

01:08:17

halfway through the the original PDF and

01:08:21

I do think the president needs immunity

01:08:24

obviously for conducting business and

01:08:26

then I do think if they step outside the

01:08:28

lines

01:08:29

they should not have immunity and then

01:08:32

the devil will be in the details here

01:08:34

and that's what courts and juries exist

01:08:36

to do so when he told Mike Pence to not

01:08:39

certify the election he's obviously not

01:08:42

doing that as part of his duty as

01:08:44

president when he called Georgia to get

01:08:46

the 11,000 votes he was not doing that

01:08:49

that's why he had outside counsil there

01:08:51

that's why he hired Giuliani in the

01:08:53

wackpack what do you think what do you

01:08:54

think of s to was hypothetical of using

01:08:56

Seal Team 6 to kill a political Rival

01:08:59

Well I that was you think that that's

01:09:01

you think that he would be immune from

01:09:02

Pro anybody would be immune from

01:09:03

prosecution for that no that seemed a

01:09:06

little bit hysterical and actually that

01:09:07

came up in the

01:09:09

discussions I actually listened to the

01:09:11

audio version of this when they were

01:09:13

doing the the Q&A basically um and and I

01:09:16

think you listened to it too freeberg

01:09:17

when had talked about it so yeah I think

01:09:20

the devil will be in the details here

01:09:21

and how they execute it obviously you

01:09:23

need to have immunity if you're going to

01:09:26

I don't know take actions you know to

01:09:28

assassinate Osama Bin Laden right or or

01:09:30

whatever it is but you know it's it is a

01:09:33

a bit concerning this concept of being

01:09:36

able to Shield the president when he

01:09:40

asks I don't know the Attorney General

01:09:42

to do something illegal so these are the

01:09:44

details that are going to need to be

01:09:45

worked out here and obviously it's a

01:09:47

split decision so the Supreme Court

01:09:49

themselves can't agree on this I think

01:09:50

that there's just so much we don't know

01:09:52

about what it takes to be the president

01:09:54

of the United States the example that I

01:09:55

gave you guys in the group chat is like

01:09:57

look at the whole Iran Contra affair how

01:10:00

complicated was that can any of us

01:10:01

really understand what all of the

01:10:03

interplay was when Ronald Reagan decides

01:10:06

to work around a weapons embargo sell

01:10:10

weapons to Iran take money funnel it and

01:10:13

fund descend denas in the middle of all

01:10:16

of that there was a huge cocaine trade

01:10:18

that was kind of enabled or

01:10:21

supported I mean who how do we know I

01:10:24

think there's just a lot of attitude

01:10:25

that you give to the one person that you

01:10:28

elect to be president and so maybe it's

01:10:30

just a good reminder for all of us that

01:10:32

we are electing one person we cannot be

01:10:34

electing five or six people we're not

01:10:36

electing a shadow cabinet we're electing

01:10:38

one person and this is just a reminder

01:10:40

of how much power that one person

01:10:43

has saak you have

01:10:45

thoughts I think this was an easy

01:10:47

decision all the majority did was codify

01:10:50

explicitly what has long been presumed

01:10:53

that presence and joy Brad immunity for

01:10:55

official acts that they undertake in the

01:10:58

exercise of their constitutional

01:11:00

Authority and the duties of their office

01:11:02

it was established decades ago that

01:11:05

presidents enjoy broad immunity from

01:11:06

civil lawsuits so it's already been the

01:11:09

case that presidents can't be sued civy

01:11:12

well criminal liability is even harder

01:11:15

to prove so if you have the broad

01:11:16

immunity from civil you should have

01:11:18

broad immunity from Criminal as well and

01:11:21

the Supreme Court I think had never

01:11:23

ruled on criminal immunity because they

01:11:24

never had to no former president's ever

01:11:26

been subjected to the type of lawfare

01:11:28

that's been deployed against Trump who

01:11:31

also happens to be the political

01:11:32

opponent of the current president so I

01:11:34

think it's a shame that the Supreme

01:11:36

Court has had to rule on this did they

01:11:38

get every detail right I don't know I

01:11:40

don't know what it means for the future

01:11:42

however I know the reason they're doing

01:11:44

it which is we've had this unprecedent

01:11:46

lawfare against Trump and that's why

01:11:48

they've been forced to do this so

01:11:50

ultimately I think this is the right

01:11:51

decision no it does not authorize drone

01:11:54

strikes against the president's

01:11:55

political enemies that's insane it does

01:11:57

not make the president Above the Law or

01:11:59

a king and I think that Roberts in his

01:12:02

ruling said the the key things he said

01:12:05

that the desense position in the end

01:12:07

boils down to ignoring the Constitution

01:12:10

separation of powers and the Court's

01:12:12

presedent and instead fearmongers on the

01:12:15

basis of extreme

01:12:17

hypotheticals and then he says that the

01:12:20

desense Overlook the more likely

01:12:22

Prospect of an executive branch that

01:12:24

cannibalizes it self with each

01:12:26

successive president free to prosecute

01:12:28

his predecessors yet unable to boldly

01:12:31

and fearlessly carry out his duties for

01:12:34

fear that he may be next I think that's

01:12:36

really the key line here is that you're

01:12:39

posing all these insane hypotheticals

01:12:41

instead of recognizing the Practical

01:12:43

reality that if you don't give

01:12:45

presidents immunity then the next

01:12:47

president's going to prosecute the old

01:12:49

president and future presidents will be

01:12:51

hamstrung in doing this very important

01:12:53

job that's already cold enough so I

01:12:56

think that this was just a necessary

01:12:58

decision there was no way around it and

01:13:01

the president already has civil immunity

01:13:03

you got to give him criminal immunity

01:13:04

too freeberg your thoughts I guess the

01:13:06

the steel man on the other side would be

01:13:09

you know Trump doing things like calling

01:13:11

Georgia and asking to find votes or

01:13:14

pressuring the president the vice

01:13:15

president to overturn the election

01:13:18

results after 60 fil legal cases you

01:13:21

know is what's concerning the other side

01:13:24

so do you have a take on it I think that

01:13:26

the distinction between acting in

01:13:30

their executive capacity as president of

01:13:33

the United States versus their personal

01:13:36

capacity as an individual candidate or

01:13:38

an individual that could

01:13:41

benefit through some other means is a

01:13:43

really good distinction I think how the

01:13:46

courts ultimately adjudicate that

01:13:47

distinction is what's still ahead but I

01:13:50

do think that the clarity of that

01:13:51

distinction is critical I it seems like

01:13:54

the right thing how this is going to

01:13:56

play out with respect to election

01:13:57

interference does interfering in the

01:14:00

election constitute one's role as an

01:14:02

executive overseeing the federal

01:14:04

election process or does it constitutes

01:14:08

one's personal benefits that may arise

01:14:09

if one is individually elected is the

01:14:11

key determinant that the lower court

01:14:13

will likely have to make maybe that gets

01:14:15

kicked back up again in the

01:14:17

future if there's a disagreement over

01:14:20

the decision that the court does make

01:14:21

with regards to that distinction where

01:14:23

do you stand on that saxs you previous

01:14:25

episodes that said you didn't believe in

01:14:26

this election interference and you

01:14:28

thought Trump lost have you changed your

01:14:30

position on that or are you still in

01:14:32

that position uh that's totally

01:14:34

irrelevant to the Court's decision let

01:14:36

me ask follow up to that then so in the

01:14:37

case of do you think Trump was acting

01:14:40

officially when he asked Georgia to find

01:14:42

the votes when he asked Pence to

01:14:43

overturn the election or do you think he

01:14:45

was acting in his duty I think that that

01:14:48

what you just described there is what's

01:14:49

known as a question of fact in the legal

01:14:52

system there are questions of Law and

01:14:54

questions of fact and what the Supreme

01:14:56

Court has done is given us a Doctrine

01:14:59

they've answered the question of law

01:15:00

they've basically given us a three-part

01:15:01

test they've said that when the

01:15:03

president acts within his exclusive

01:15:05

constitutional Authority he gets broad

01:15:07

immunity when he does an official duty

01:15:09

but that's not in that category he gets

01:15:11

presumptive immunity meaning that the

01:15:13

prosecutor can still go after him they

01:15:15

just have to rebut the presumption and

01:15:17

when he gauges in a personal act there's

01:15:19

no immunity so look what has to happen

01:15:22

now is if Jack Smith wants to continue

01:15:23

this prosecution of trump he's going to

01:15:26

have to make the argument that Trump's

01:15:28

Acts were either personal or were part

01:15:32

of his duties but he's going to rebut

01:15:34

the presumption so th that is the now

01:15:36

the question of fact that Jack Smith

01:15:38

would have to litigate and I'm not going

01:15:40

to litigate it here I don't know the

01:15:42

answer to that but again I would

01:15:43

separate questions of Law and questions

01:15:45

of fact what the Supreme Court has done

01:15:46

I think has given us a useful doctrine

01:15:50

that the presidency now needs in light

01:15:52

of the reality of laware see this is the

01:15:55

I think chth that is super fascinating

01:15:57

because I could see President Trump and

01:16:00

and his lawyers saying hey very simple

01:16:02

you know we we think there was election

01:16:04

interference so yeah we called Georgia

01:16:07

to make sure that those 11,000 votes

01:16:09

were were there and hey you know we

01:16:11

thought this was not a fair election so

01:16:12

I was acting in my duty and when I told

01:16:14

Pence to not certify the election I can

01:16:17

see them making that argument what do

01:16:18

you

01:16:19

think I don't I don't know the specifics

01:16:22

of these cases but ah I think it's going

01:16:24

to force

01:16:25

a prosecutor to have a really strong

01:16:27

point of view and have evidence and then

01:16:29

go after somebody but again I think

01:16:32

you're focusing too much on Trump Robert

01:16:34

said in the decision you have to look

01:16:38

past the exigencies of the current

01:16:39

moment this is a set of rules that's

01:16:42

about past presidents and future

01:16:43

presidents this is for

01:16:45

forever and so that's the most important

01:16:48

thing here which is there's a set of

01:16:49

rules that I think we can all agree on

01:16:51

because the man that we all elect

01:16:54

dutifully El

01:16:55

is the most powerful person in the world

01:16:57

we knew it before we know it now so even

01:17:01

more important that we make sure we're

01:17:04

picking one person and that person is

01:17:05

capable of doing the job you may not

01:17:08

agree but they need to be competent and

01:17:11

capable of doing the job yeah well they

01:17:13

definitely have to be competent and this

01:17:15

case was brought by Trump over this

01:17:18

specific issue so I think that's if we

01:17:20

look at this specific judgment here

01:17:22

that's what they're going to have to

01:17:23

determine in the coming

01:17:25

months or years with this case is was he

01:17:27

acting in his duty or was he not that's

01:17:30

going to be a really between between

01:17:32

this ruling and another case called

01:17:34

fiser versus us which is the January 6

01:17:36

obstruction case where the Supreme Court

01:17:38

in a six3 majority found that sarban

01:17:42

Oxley was being misused to create a new

01:17:46

crime called obstructing an official

01:17:47

proceeding when you combine that

01:17:49

judgment with this judgment I think Jack

01:17:51

Smith should just resign it's pretty

01:17:53

clear that suprem Court has kicked the

01:17:55

legs out from under his case and by the

01:17:57

way katangi katangi Jackson supported

01:18:00

that decision that's right so again not

01:18:01

a not a hypological not a hyper paron

01:18:05

Court they just ruled that starban oxy

01:18:07

had nothing to do with what happened on

01:18:09

January 6 and it was being misused by a

01:18:11

creative prosecutor and I told you when

01:18:14

these jacksmith cases first came I said

01:18:16

it's not the job of a prosecutor to be

01:18:18

creative their job is to narrowly

01:18:20

interpret the law and to enforce the law

01:18:22

and you combine these rulings together

01:18:24

and you can see that Jack Smith has now

01:18:26

an even more uphill battle it's time for

01:18:29

him to resign stop Ric 200

01:18:32

convictions it's not just one two it's

01:18:35

200 of them small percentage of the

01:18:38

overall convictions though they took

01:18:39

hundreds of people who did not engage in

01:18:42

any violence on January 6 many of them

01:18:44

just wandered through an Open Door in

01:18:46

the capital and they were prosecuted to

01:18:48

the hillt they were sent to jail for

01:18:50

that because this doj wanted to send a

01:18:53

statement they wanted to use them

01:18:55

as a political talking point and that's

01:18:57

a shame I think hundreds of people were

01:19:00

horribly mistreated by the judicial

01:19:02

system as as part of a political

01:19:05

prosecution now there are except for the

01:19:08

ones who beat police and brought problem

01:19:10

putting those people in jail no problem

01:19:12

anyone who use violence go directly to

01:19:14

jail do not pass go but some of these

01:19:16

people just took a tore through the

01:19:19

capital all those people got suspended

01:19:21

sentences and trespassing they to Jail

01:19:24

the ones who went chansley spent three

01:19:25

years in jail yeah the ones who went to

01:19:28

jail were the ones who beat cops or

01:19:31

chansley

01:19:32

that just because he wore the Viking

01:19:34

remember the guy with the Viking oh yeah

01:19:36

so they also went to jail Shaman if you

01:19:39

did damage if you vandalized yeah that

01:19:41

was the other reason people went to jam

01:19:42

I saw a video of him getting a guided

01:19:43

tour through the capital I mean if you

01:19:45

vandalized a capital building I guess

01:19:47

you have to do something he moved to D

01:19:49

around no I think they like shattered

01:19:52

the windows and you know he didn't I

01:19:54

never saw any video of him doing that

01:19:56

anyway they they picked on him because

01:19:58

he was an easy target because he looked

01:19:59

like a weirdo and he had the Viking

01:20:01

horns and he has he has a history of

01:20:05

mental problems and so they put that man

01:20:07

in jail for years yeah I'm not concerned

01:20:10

about him I'm concerned about the ones

01:20:12

who brought all the long guns to the

01:20:13

hotels around the capital to have backup

01:20:16

Firepower but you know hey uh

01:20:18

everybody's got a different opinion on

01:20:19

this we uh that ws Up all In podcast you

01:20:22

can you can you can have those concerns

01:20:24

I don't think it lets you put inoc some

01:20:25

people in jail yeah I think you can hold

01:20:27

both of those ideas I don't think

01:20:28

anybody innocent should go to jail and I

01:20:30

don't think the oathkeeper should have

01:20:31

brought guns to the capital okay they

01:20:33

didn't they brought him to Virginia just

01:20:34

to be clear yeah they brought them to

01:20:36

the hotels around them huge large cashes

01:20:39

ingin correct yeah inginia yeah they

01:20:41

drove to the capital on January 6th guns

01:20:44

to the hotel I'm not defending them no

01:20:47

I'm not defending them I'm just

01:20:48

clarifying there were no guns at the

01:20:49

capital because that's they were in the

01:20:51

hotel a lie but I don't think innocent

01:20:54

people who just wandered through the

01:20:55

capitals should go to jail and that

01:20:56

clearly we agree we are we agree they

01:20:58

should not go to jail they should get

01:20:59

trespassing tickets okay this episode

01:21:03

186 of the world's number one podcast

01:21:06

did Biden resign while we're taping

01:21:08

Biden just went on a campaign call and

01:21:09

he said let me say this as clearly as I

01:21:11

possibly can as simply and

01:21:13

straightforward as I can I am running no

01:21:16

one's pushing me out I'm not leaving I'm

01:21:18

in this race to the end and we're going

01:21:19

to win whoa I think it's more likely

01:21:22

than not that they're not going to

01:21:23

replace by in because the only feasible

01:21:27

alternative is Harris and should' be

01:21:29

worse and I I think it's more dangerous

01:21:31

for the country frankly I'd rather to

01:21:33

see Biden finish out his term than put

01:21:36

someone

01:21:37

new even if he had Trump two bad it's

01:21:41

two bad choices jcal and I don't agree

01:21:44

with Biden's policies but there's

01:21:45

continuity there okay four the chairman

01:21:47

dictator from the home office in Italy

01:21:50

jamapa your Sultan of Science and the

01:21:53

Rainman yeah definitely definitely

01:21:56

cabinet position David saaks I am the

01:22:00

world's greatest moderator of the number

01:22:01

one podcast in the world we'll see you

01:22:03

next time byebye love you boys

01:22:05

[Applause]

01:22:06

byebye let your winners

01:22:09

ride Rainman

01:22:13

David and instead we open source it to

01:22:16

the fans and they've just gone crazy

01:22:17

with it love queen of

01:22:20

[Music]

01:22:27

besties

01:22:29

are that's my dog taking your

01:22:34

driveway oh man

01:22:36

myet we should all just get a room and

01:22:38

just have one big huge orgy cuz they're

01:22:40

all useless it's like this like sexual

01:22:42

tension that they just need to release

01:22:44

[Music]

01:22:50

somehow we need to get merch our

01:22:55

[Music]

01:23:00

I'm going all in

Badges

This episode stands out for the following:

60
Best concept / idea

Episode Highlights

Hot Swap Summer Continues
The political landscape is shifting rapidly, with Kamala Harris now a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.
“Let that soak in: Harris's chances have skyrocketed from 18% to 50%.”
@ 06m 43s
July 04, 2024
Biden's Last Chance
Biden's upcoming interview could determine his political future as speculation grows about his viability.
“Biden's presidency hinges on this interview; he must prove he's sharp and responsive.”
@ 08m 28s
July 04, 2024
Democratic Party Dilemma
The Democratic party faces a critical decision on leadership as Biden's position becomes uncertain.
“They cannot sidestep Kamala Harris without offending major constituencies.”
@ 18m 40s
July 04, 2024
Media's Role in Biden's Image
The media's coverage of Biden's cognitive abilities raises questions about transparency.
“The media has been engaged in a gigantic cover-up of this.”
@ 27m 57s
July 04, 2024
The Future of the Democratic Party
Debate on whether the Democrats should embrace an outsider candidate for the next election.
“Let the man run the most dignified campaign he can.”
@ 31m 01s
July 04, 2024
Supreme Court Ruling on Content Moderation
The ruling affirms that content moderation is protected under the First Amendment, impacting social media platforms.
“Content moderation receives the same First Amendment protections as any other kind of speech.”
@ 38m 18s
July 04, 2024
Overturning the Chevron Doctrine
The Supreme Court overruled the Chevron Doctrine, shifting power back to federal judges and courts.
“Reversing Chevron is a step in the right direction for restoring democracy.”
@ 54m 41s
July 04, 2024
Online Porn Legislation
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding Texas laws requiring porn sites to verify users' ages. The law is opposed by free speech advocates who argue it burdens adults.
“If upheld, users would have to submit personal info to watch porn.”
@ 01h 01m 30s
July 04, 2024
Rick's Cabaret Recession Index
Rick's Cabaret stock price has historically predicted recessions, and its recent drop suggests economic trouble ahead. The index indicates that people are spending less on entertainment.
“The strip club index says a recession is on the offense.”
@ 01h 02m 34s
July 04, 2024
Supreme Court Immunity Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have immunity for actions related to their official duties. Justice Roberts emphasized that this does not mean presidents are above the law.
“Under our constitutional structure... the nature of Presidential Power entitles former president to Absolute immunity.”
@ 01h 06m 30s
July 04, 2024
Call for Jack Smith's Resignation
Criticism of the prosecutor's approach and a call for resignation.
“It's time for him to resign, stop the 200 convictions.”
@ 01h 18m 29s
July 04, 2024
Judicial System Critique
A discussion on the perceived mistreatment of January 6th defendants.
“Hundreds of people were horribly mistreated by the judicial system.”
@ 01h 19m 00s
July 04, 2024

Episode Quotes

Key Moments

Political Landscape00:34
Biden's Interview08:01
Democratic Dilemma18:40
Cognitive Decline27:05
Content Moderation Ruling38:18
Presidential Immunity1:06:30
Prosecutor's Resignation1:18:29
Biden's Assurance1:21:11

Words per Minute Over Time

Vibes Breakdown

Podcast thumbnail

01:15:57

Trump assassination attempt, Secret Service failure, Inside the RNC, VC liquidity problem

Podcast thumbnail

01:21:36

Presidential Debate Reaction, Biden Hot Swap?, Tech unemployment, OpenAI considers for-profit & more

Podcast thumbnail

February 17, 2024

01:43:42

E166: Mind-blowing AI Video: OpenAI launches Sora + Is Biden too old? Tucker/Putin interview & more

Podcast thumbnail

January 20, 2025

02:46:59

All-In Inauguration Day Livestream with the Besties from Washington, DC!

Podcast thumbnail

August 30, 2024

02:11:44

In conversation with Reid Hoffman & Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Podcast thumbnail

02:10:17

In conversation with Vivek Ramaswamy

Podcast thumbnail

01:35:59

E131: 2024 Fantasy President picks, debt ceiling agreement, Dollar dominance & more

Podcast thumbnail

01:25:38

Biden chaos, Soft landing secured? AI sentiment turns bearish, French elections

Podcast thumbnail

November 11, 2020

01:18:15

E12: Biden wins, Pfizer vaccine, markets rip, Trump's next act, COVID endgame scenarios & more

Podcast thumbnail

October 18, 2024

01:18:44

Dueling Presidential interviews, SpaceX’s big catch, Robotaxis, Uber buying Expedia?, Nuclear NIMBY

Podcast thumbnail

August 02, 2024

01:19:10

Kamala surges, Trump at NABJ, recession fears, Middle East escalation, Ackman postpones IPO

Podcast thumbnail

September 20, 2024

01:24:50

Big Fed rate cuts, AI killing call centers, $50B govt boondoggle, VC's rough years, Trump/Kamala