8/24/26: Bessent Launches Economic D-Day, Jeffries Meets w/ Kushner, Flock Convention Exposed By Activists

This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human. This episode sponsored by She's Birdie. You lock the hotel room door, then check it again, and maybe one more time, because even the nicest room can feel unfamiliar at night. That's why She's Birdie created BirdieBox. With She's Birdie, you can bring peace of mind with you. BirdieBox is a portable travel door alarm for hotels, dorms, Airbnbs, and anywhere you stay away from home. Just attach it to the door frame, switch it on, and if someone opens the door, BirdieBox blasts a loud siren and flashing alarm to alert you and everyone nearby. Because the best part of travel isn't worrying. It's sleeping soundly. BirdieBox from She's Birdie. Locking in peace of mind wherever you stay. For safer, more confident travel, visit She'sBirdie.com. That's S-H-E-S-B-I-R-D-I-E.com. I survived. Survived nine months in captivity. And I've spent my life exploring how other people survive what should have destroyed them. I'm Elizabeth Smart, and these are The Survivor Files. Every week, I'm with survivors who live through the unthinkable. Abducted, stalked, controlled, and nearly silenced. These are stories about what it takes to make it out alive. Listen to The Survivor Files with Elizabeth Smart on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. If your bookshelf and your For You page are equally important to your personality, welcome home. Pro Society is a weekly podcast that's part book club, part group chat for anyone who thinks Pride and Prejudice and Love Island deserve the same level of discourse. Each week, we're connecting the dots between books, the internet, and pop culture with your favorite writers, book talk creators, and plenty of overthought opinions. Yeah, I'm obsessed. I'm obsessed. Listen to Pro Society on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, guys. Sagar and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at BreakingPoints.com. All right, U.S. Treasury Secretary declaring war on the world in the Financial Times today. Except it didn't actually show up in the paper. People who are just listening to this are going to be so confused. So Scott Besson, the American Treasury Secretary, last night put out an op-ed basically saying that anybody who doesn't join the United States in his economic assault on Iran, will be sent to hell. Literally, that's what he wrote. I was hoping to find it in the paper today, but no. It's just an online edition only. Ryan Grim, Financial Times subscriber, is another delightful surprise. It's a good paper. If you're listening to this, Ryan just opened the show with his head behind a copy of the Financial Times. That's what the rustling was in the background. Well, it's a good paper because they will basically report the news directly because it's a good paper. It's a good paper because it's for people who, say, own a mine in Senegal. And so they actually need to know what's going on. Like, they don't want to be lied to, like the New York Times audience. Right. And that's where the Financial Times comes into the picture. And Scott Besson threatening economic D-Day, which we're going to break down for everyone. Big show. We're also talking about this meeting that happened between Jared Kushner and Hakeem Jeffries that has everyone on the Democratic Party enmeshed in yet another major. What would we even call this? Like, conflagration? I guess. It's just very weird. It is very weird. What is going on here? It's very weird. Flock held the convention and didn't let journalists in. And we have some funny video about that and more serious details to get to. On that front as well, we're going to break down a crazy story about former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale. Brian, I almost called you. I was saying Brad and Ryan at the same time and combined with Brian. Combined into Brian. You're also known as Eric. You have many names. That's right. So Parscale's business partner, in South America, is now under arrest in Bolivia for hiring a hitman to kill his ex-girlfriend. And she survived and she is now unraveling he and Parscale's entire elaborate scheme that they've been unfolding with Brad Parscale's Israeli money. He is a registered foreign agent for Israel. Utterly incredible. Story. We're going to have some footage from you of Parscale's partner sobbing in an elevator surrounded by reporters. Absolutely wild. And nobody is talking about it. Ryan, you also wanted to discuss this James O'Keefe verdict, which appears like a pretty significant, honestly, win for journalists. Yeah. D.C.'s Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on behalf of O'Keefe. So O'Keefe versus democracy partners, a Democratic-leaning partisan organization that he basically ran a sting on, a pretty resounding victory for him, which creates some, what I would say, new protections for press freedom. So we don't have to cheer O'Keefe, but we can cheer the O'Keefe ruling. Yeah. I mean, it's always good to be able to record when you're a journalist. So we'll have details on that. And you've got one. Well, in that block, we'll also talk about this ridiculous Fed plot that they're, championing right now. I have the NBC headline open in front of me. FBI thwarts an alleged ISIS-inspired plot to bomb New York Capitol. The better headline would be FBI thwarts an FBI-inspired plot to bomb New York Capitol. But we'll dig into that. And we have a guest, Gabriel Zucman, right? Yes. Zucman is the, probably the foremost scholar on wealth inequality at this point, a professor in Berkeley and also in France. In France, he's the father of the eponymous Zucman tax, which is a 2% annual tax, on billionaires. But actually in France, it's 100 million euros and up. It did not pass in France. It continues to be a controversy there. But we're going to talk about the California billionaires tax that is on the ballot there. And also just, you know, where this movement is going. And that looks like we also have an AMA scheduled today. So if you want to be part of the AMA sessions we do here live on the show, head over to Breaking Point dot com. We're still running a free month long trial. So Breaking Points dot com, if you've ever wanted to try out the premium membership where you get the full show without any breaks, totally uncut in your inbox before everyone else. And you get to participate in the AMA. So you can head on over at Breaking Points dot com. We're still running that free month long trial. Get on board. All right. So turning to economic D-Day. Let's do it. So Treasury Secretary Scott Besant is holding a two o'clock p.m. Eastern Time press conference at the Treasury Department. Hey, Treasury, I submitted for my press credentials for this. I have not heard back. Come on, hurry up, get on that. Last night, he published an op-ed in the Financial Times that the Financial Times didn't bother to put in their print newspaper, which is kind of interesting. Let's go through some of it. It's completely insane. Frankly, it doesn't look like something he wrote. I don't know if I wrote this. It makes absolutely no sense. I think the thrust of it. I think what he's trying to say is that he's going to bring about economic isolation of Iran this afternoon. And you might say to yourself, wait a minute, I thought we've been doing that for forty seven years. I think what he's going to say is that he's going to then apply secondary sanctions to countries that do business with Iran, which would be China, like most particularly now, if you remember, back in the spring of twenty twenty five. Trump and Besant began their economic agenda by trying to in April and May of twenty twenty five, trying to economically isolate China. Remember, they started out, they put tariffs on everybody and then they said, actually, we're going to roll back these tariffs. We're only putting tariffs on China and everybody's going to join us in isolating China. And about two weeks later, he completely capitulated on that, because it was an utterly stupid idea. Now he's going to try to do that with Iran, trying to bring China in. So he begins this just like this is one of the scariest op eds I've ever read, because it's like this. This is a government led by complete and total maniacs who are divorced from reality. He starts out with. Come on, man. In nineteen forty three, the Allied powers convened the Tehran conference to plot the course of an uncharted act. First of all, a bunch of mixed metaphors, terrible writing, plot the course of an uncharted act. Yeah, just what are you doing? Who wrote this? As Roosevelt and Churchill weighed a campaign that would culminate in the Normandy landings, they asked themselves what could be done, quote, to bring the greatest pressure to bear on the enemy. The only connection that this has to anything is Tehran, that the conference happened to be in Tehran. Like, what do you, like, so right away I'm embarrassed for them, just from a literary and journalistic perspective. Like, what kind of an opening is this? Now, he goes on to say Trump has, you know, smashed Iran's military. It weakened its nuclear program, which he spells in the English way, which is always funny to see from an American. Now, we are entering the end game. And you've been hearing this metaphor from J.D. Vance, too, right? That we're in the end game. Which, the thing you could take away from this is that the U.S., as far as it is concerned, is done with its military assault on Iran, that they've shot everything they've got. Now, they might get dragged into it again. Yeah. But from their perspective, they're done with this. So, then he goes on to talk about Pascal. He sure does. Emily, as our expert on Christian philosophy, will be able to maybe walk us through this. In the 17th century, French philosopher Pascal gave enduring expression to the dilemma beneath this temptation. He understood that uncertainty does not absolve men or nations of divine judgment. In fact, it demands a more exacting appraisal of risk and imposes a higher price for error. Pascal, he goes on, Pascal's eponymous wager now applies to Iran's lifelines. Nations that, in courting reprieve from Tehran, continue to replenish the very regime from which they seek protection and now exceed the limits of America's tolerance. So, that's clearly aimed at China, Qatar, UAE, Turkey, Iraq, all these countries in the region that are cutting deals with Iran, that do business with Iran. I have not been able to figure out how on earth Pascal's wager applies here. So, Pascal's wager, for the people who don't know, he says, hey, there may or may not be a god, right? We don't know. But think about the wager. If there is a god and you don't believe in one and you're wrong, you're spending eternity in hell. If there is not a god and you believe in one, well, you led a religious life and then you die and nothing happens. No harm, no foul. So, from his perspective, given those two rational choices, you might as well just believe because what do you have to lose? How does this apply here? It doesn't. It doesn't. It has to. There has to be somewhere in his mind. To be honest, if we bring this back to the opening graph, the lead of this op-ed, it seems to me like what they know they're really saying is they've exhausted their military options, to your point, and they're now trying to very flamboyantly declare some speechwriter was trying to make a very poetic rendering of that argument. Is this because the Iranians are constantly citing poets in Tocqueville? Probably it is. That's probably exactly what it is. They're like, we know one, Pascal. That guy had a wager. They say it then. So, Bazanur, whoever wrote this, says at the end, the world should understand that our objective is to sever every economic lifeline that sustains the tyrannical regime until Tehran stands alone. Pascal considered salvation to be a choice as a great wave of American resolve. Comes ashore. Are Iran's enablers willing to wager their future against it? Yeah. So, this is what they're, I think this is an important graph in this. It's probably one in a thousand words. The alternative for those who tether themselves to Tehran is the foreclosure of any path to lasting prosperity. Illicit finance will flourish, as it so often does, where confidence has collapsed. And any nation that serves as a financial artery of a withering regime should expect to share in its isolation, to become a sanctuary for terrorists, to become, in the eyes of the United States, a global pariah. He goes on to say, the president has created the conditions to leverage every agency, authority, action, and every action that many assumed we would never summon. This is, I think, why they felt confident stretching to Pascal's wager, saying, well, if there's a United States god, the geopolitical stage, wouldn't you be smarter to just act as though? Wouldn't it be more rational to act as though the United States will, yet is going to use its godlike powers over the economic well-being of the globe? That's, so that was what I thought they meant. But the problem with that is. It's a hell of a stretch. Let's say Iraq, take Iraq, for example, is presented with this Pascal's wager. You either believe that America is god or America is not god. So you believe America is god, and then you sever all ties with Iran. That is completely different than Pascal's wager, which is, you go to church and you believe in God. Like, there's not a whole lot of cost. He's saying, and in fact, there's actually a benefit because you live a better, more fulfilling life. Iraq, by cutting itself off from Iran, would be devastating its own economy. Pascal never said you should devastate your own economy, just on the off chance that the United States is god. So, right, right. He says, any remaining tie to Iran will hasten the economic ostracism of countries and entities, whether that will be the United States or the United States. So, I mean, I think that's, I think that's a good answer. I think that's a good answer. alongside its economy, Iran resorts to military action against U.S. forces or its Gulf neighbors make the mistake. President Trump will respond swiftly and decisively. So, I pulled up Iran's biggest import partners, at least as of 2024. By far and away, the biggest was China, 40%. Turkey and then Brazil, almost tied with Turkey and Brazil. Then after that, Germany and India. If you, if you're Trump and you actually could do this, wouldn't you have done this before going to war? Well, indeed, the same op-ed talks about how Trump has crippled the Iranian economy. So, this is an op-ed that, again, I think is very, some speechwriter, very, or some op-ed writer, very flamboyantly is trying to cover up for the fact or is trying to stretch this into an act of power to say, we've exhausted all of our military options. We don't want to lose more American troops on the ground. And now what we're going to do is make a really serious threat of economic D-Day. Yeah. Well, there is one entity, however, who is abiding by the boycott of the entire region, and that is the American military. Let's, let's put up A2. Here's one of these generals appears on MSNBC, Barry McCaffrey. In my judgment, the U.S. armed forces have probably permanently lost access to 15 Persian Gulf bases. Iran now poised to control access to the Gulf states. U.S. will have to negotiate new access in Western Saudi Arabia, Israel, Southern Europe. So, the U.S., at least, is taking the Besant wager and saying, you know what, fine. The Besant wager. We will. We will be nowhere near Iran. Loud and clear at the Pentagon. Yes, we got you, boss. Well, A1 points out, this is Scaramucci, of all people, pointing out, USS Abraham Lincoln's resupply problems were a mystery. Iran hit NSA Bahrain, that's the fifth fleet's main logistics hub, hard in February. And then the Navy had to shift to Diego Garcia, 2200 miles away, instead of 800. Transit times roughly tripled, et cetera, et cetera. We've been covering this for a while, but that's a pretty fair point. Yeah, he's making a solid point. Now, there are some who are OK with this. Iranian analyst, I guess we can call her an analyst, on Fox News here. Let's roll A3. What is the American appetite for increased prices on those goods? And, you know, for me, as an Iranian, a person of Iranian descent, my appetite is quite high for high gas prices and for higher prices of goods, because for me, it's a humanitarian issue. OK, well, she's good with higher gas prices. Hope you are, too. So Neil Kashkari, who's the one of the, what is it, Minneapolis Fed? Yeah, Minneapolis Fed. So he recently voted against the Fed's decision to, you know, keep interest rates flat, saying that because of what's going on with this Iran war, it's driving so much inflation that they should actually be increasing interest rates. Let's listen to Kashkari here. More data has yet to come between now and our next FOMC meeting, so I don't want to prejudge things. But what's happening in the Middle East, the conflict with Iran, is now a big driver of what's happening on inflation, because, as you know, energy goes into every facet of the U.S. economy. The longer that conflict, the more turmoil there is, the longer it goes on, the bigger effect it ends up having on the U.S. economy and on inflation. And even if it's driven by geopolitical factors like that, ultimately it does affect inflation. Ultimately, it does have a bearing on the Federal Reserve's mandate. And so the longer that goes on, the less confident I am that inflation is going to return to target. You know, for five years, we've been saying inflation is going to return to target. In the next year or two, it just keeps getting pushed out. We're going to have to do more. So now he's saying that just as the Fed is having its annual gathering in Jackson Hole this week, this is, you know, it's supposed to be a sleepy summer week. That's often, that's why they choose Jackson Hole. I guess it's beautiful at this time of year, probably. Can't beat it, I'm sure. It's not going to be sleepy for them. This is not going to be a sleepy week at all. I think we're going to see an extraordinary amount of economic jitters, as the Financial Times likes to call it. People are absolutely panicking. And Trump has put Kevin Warsh into the Fed because he wants, interest rates to be cut. Yes. But his own policies, whether it's the trade war that he launched with Canada over the weekend for some reason, or whether it's this Iran war, keeps driving inflation up, which then puts pressure on the Fed to raise interest rates to get prices back down, but at the same time increases borrowing costs and, you know, screws up the housing market and, you know, pulls the thread on this fragile economy. And Trump was on this worst kick before he started the Iran war. That tells you what kind of a mess Trump has gotten himself into here. By the way, that Iranian-American analyst was on Mark Levin's show. I cannot even convey what a disaster it is for the supporters of this war to have people going on television and saying they have an appetite for higher gas prices, for higher prices. For humanitarian reasons. Yeah. What are you doing? Thousands of miles away. Also, humanitarian reasons. We're going to starve 90 million people is what he's saying today. Like, today we're going to completely strangle the entire country for humanitarian reasons. We're just too good. Too damn good. So Mike Johnson was asked whether or not they're still going to win the house if this war is still going on. He was. So he's been saying it's time to wrap this up for a very long time. He has, actually. That's probably been undercovered as an aspect of this, is that Mike Johnson knows. He's like, OK, we could, yeah, let's wrap this up. He's hearing from the members who have to go home and defend this in the middle of the midterm cycle. And they're not happy about it. Mike Johnson not happy about it. I mean, some of them, to be fair, are happy about it, but not exactly happy about how it's going, to say the least. Now, he was at the Fox News set outside the F1 race. Yes. Yesterday, which I have to say was awesome. Heard it was actually well run. It was beautiful. My understanding is that it wasn't really run by America 250, but it was run by Penske and that whole, they kind of took over all the logistics. But it looked like when you're at like a Dave and Buster's and you're in one of those cars, you're like driving through the pyramids on an arcade game. It looked like that. It was absolutely gorgeous. I wish I would have gone to that. It looks kind of fun. Yeah, it was pretty cool. Now, I mean, I just watched it on TV, but it was pretty cool. Now, in the middle of all of this, Mike Johnson gets asked, on Fox News about Iran, here is his answer, A5. Can Republicans go win and hold control of the House if the Iran war is still going on in November? Absolutely. It would be helpful to get that thing resolved in the next 73 days, but if it's not, we're still going to win. That thing, it would be helpful to get that thing resolved, Ryan. In the meantime, the Treasury Secretary is threatening economic D-Day, crippling, by the way, some, like NATO allies, if Turkey is a massive trading partner with Iran. If that's actually going to happen, we're going to start strangling other people's economies as well, because we've run out of military options and have already sanctioned Iran to the hilt. Mike Johnson, I don't think that thing is going to be wrapped up. No, it's not looking good. Not looking good. Meanwhile, one of the sailors on the, who is still suffering with this 250 plus days on the Lincoln, his father was detained by ICE and put up A6. And the Department of Homeland Security responded to this. There were a couple of ways they could respond to this. They could say nothing at all out of respect for the sailor who's out serving his country right now. They could even say, you know what, we're going to release this guy because he has a valid work permit. He's been following all the rules. He has an active asylum claim or whatever his particular situation is. Instead, they put out a statement saying, basically, F you. The fact that you're serving the country doesn't give your father the right to break our laws. That was their statement. So the father is going to continue to fight for his freedom in court while his son is fighting for everybody else's freedom from whatever threat Iran is allegedly casting our way. We'll keep an eye on that one. In the meantime, let's go to another fight. The one now between Hakeem Jeffries and every other Democrat. If he woke up, without a doubt, he was going to hurt me. I started feeling that there was someone at the end of my bed, and I just started screaming. They are abducted, stalked, controlled, and nearly silenced. But these aren't stories about what's taken from them. They're stories about what it takes to make it out alive. This is Prose Society, the weekly podcast that's part book club, part group chat for thought daughters, pop culture obsessives, and anyone who thinks Pride and Prejudice and Love Island deserve the same level of discourse. I'm Eli Rallo, and every week we're connecting the dots between books, the internet, and the conversations everyone can't stop having. I'm going to have to look up this story. I'm obsessed. I'm obsessed. From bestselling authors and your favorite book talk creators to the latest pop culture moments, nothing is off the table. It's like if you can hide some real messages inside compelling characters, then that is a Trojan horse. Whether you're looking for literary deep dives, smart pop culture conversations, or a community of readers who love to think a little too much, you're in the right place. Listen to Prose Society on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. See you between the pages. All hell broke loose after the New York Times reported, we can toss this up on the screen, exclusive New York Times report here from Maggie Haberman, double byline, Maggie Haberman and Annie Carney. Jeffries and Kushner met privately as midterm attacks fly. The lead of the story says Representative Hakeem Jeffries met privately in recent weeks with Jared Kushner and discussed potential areas of common ground, according to five people with knowledge of the meeting. The rare engagement was held in a private meeting. The meeting was held in a private meeting with New York City, offered up by a mutual friend of the two men, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting and a third who was briefed on it. By the way, we should mention Jared Kushner before Donald Trump ran as a Republican. Kushner and Ivanka Trump were Dem donors who were hosting fundraisers for the likes of Cory Booker in their own home. So not entirely surprising that there would be a mutual friend brokering this session. Through aides, the Times reports, neither man would comment on it, which was described by one person. The session was described by one person, with knowledge of it as a broad conversation on a range of topics. This set off a predictable firestorm from people who are already deeply frustrated with Hakeem Jeffries among Democrats, Ryan, and not surprising, but also not surprising that Hakeem Jeffries met with Jared Kushner, to be honest. Right. And that's why people are so frustrated with Hakeem Jeffries, that they would like to be surprised by this, but they're not. And the fact that they're not surprised by it is just what's going on here. This should be one of the prime people you're going to investigate if you take power. In fact, we put up B3. Yeah, that's a good point. This is Tommy Veeder, the pod save the world, pod save. Jared Kushner has no actual government job. He just uses his family connections to get money from Gulf autocrats and fund corrupt deals. The only way Rep. Jeffries should work with him is with demands for documents and subpoenas. I mean, that seems pretty clear. That, you know, this is one of the most corrupt administration. This is the most corrupt administration in American history. And he is, even though he's not a part of it, is a central node of that corruption. As soon as he left, Trump won, you know, he just cashed a $2 billion check from Saudi Arabia to launch him. That he's still rocking with as he's negotiating deals that involve Saudi Arabia. Yeah. And he's, and the reason he's not an official part of the is so that he doesn't have to have any remote kind of. obligations to the public. And for Jeffries to still treat him like a member of the administration shows that what, shows that that scheme on his part has worked, has effectively worked. Meanwhile, young Ducey over at Fox. Ducey the Younger. Ducey the Younger. Uh, talk to, uh, Mike Johnson, Speaker Mike Johnson about this. Let's roll a little of that. President Trump's son-in-law, the man in line to be Speaker of a Democratic-led House, if you guys lose the majority. Uh, they were together. What did you think when you saw that? I, I heard about it the first time this morning. Um, I know Jared is a smart guy and he hedges bets, but I'm telling you what, you better not bet against the House Republicans. Does any part of you think that the White House might be trying to figure out which Democrats they can work with if Democrats make, uh, win the House? And that is why they would send Jared Kushner to meet with Jeffries. I don't know what that's about. I know Jared has interests and lots of other things going on. He's not really directly involved in the admin, at least in the day-to-day in the White House. Maybe Donald Trump just uses Jared Kushner to talk to the really hard people, uh, to deal with the Supreme Leader of Iran or the Minority Leader of the House. I assume, assuming Hakeem can still be the Minority Leader. Here's the problem. The DSA is now in charge of the Democrat Party, the radical leftist, the insurgent left, the communist, the Marxist. You heard it there, Speaker Mike Johnson. DSA is now in charge of the Democratic Party. It's great news for you. Step aside, Hakeem. Step aside, Hakeem. Yeah, well, you can hear Peter Doocy is basically saying to Mike Johnson, seems like the whole White House isn't actually sharing your confidence. Right. I mean, the Republicans don't underestimate House Republicans. Maybe they're trying to figure out what could happen come fall. Apparently, they talked about—Kushner and Jeffries talked about housing, immigration and the high cost of living as potential areas of common ground. That's according to The Times report. Kushner suggested that Hakeem Jeffries should meet with Suzy Wiles. Ryan, to your point, and actually Tommy Veeder's point as well, it does seem like there might be an effort on Kushner's behalf to soften the ground a little bit for—or make it a little—just all that much more difficult for Hakeem Jeffries to turn the screws on Kushner and that entire Witkoff-Kushner operation. If I were Kushner, I certainly wouldn't be worried. The Democrats had four years in between Trump 1 and Trump 2. Kushner's corruption was wide open for everybody to see. They did absolutely nothing about it. According to The Times, they talked about—you know, they had worked together on the First Step Act, which is this—the criminal justice reform that kind of Van Jones and Kushner came together to pass. And so they knew each other from that, so maybe they'll get the band back together, do a little bit of that. But— I mean, he should actually be worried, because the Johnson point about DSA members coming into Congress, they will make it much harder for Hakeem Jeffries to skate without—if he chooses to go easy on Jared Kushner, that genuinely will make his life a living hell, I would imagine. We'll see. I'm not optimistic. I don't know. Well, strike the numbers. I mean, it's kind of what happened with— Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of what happened with Freedom Caucus as they grew, and then they grew out of control, obviously. Well, they're kind of always out of control, but— Yeah. And those kinds of investigations could be the kind of aggressive but non-controversial thing you give the left, because everyone in the party is supportive of investigating corruption. It's like what— Why they didn't do it last time? I don't know. They just patted HFC in the head and said, "You guys go after Benghazi. You guys have fun. You guys do your thing." Right. Have fun with that. Yeah. So we'll see. I mean, Hakeem Jeffries, this is a pretty—if he's trying to keep his job, this is the exact kind of headlines he does not want to be generating. Yeah. It seems to me like that could be a legitimate threat to his job when people are inaugurated in the winter. Yeah. He's going to have a—he's going to have a tough time. Yeah. I mean, I think so far the path is clear for him to take the title, because there's no opposition to him, but opposition could rise up if he doesn't govern effectively. Or doesn't kind of run things effectively. Yeah. Well, let's turn now to this flock convention in Atlanta. When I was 14 years old, I was kidnapped and held captive for nine months. I survived, and I've spent my life exploring how other people survive what should have destroyed them. I just remember this low, taunting voice next to my ear saying, "I'm Elizabeth Smart." Shut up. Don't say anything. Every week, I'm with survivors who lived through the unthinkable. I knew if he woke up, without a doubt, he was going to hurt me. But these aren't stories about what's taken from them, they're stories about what it takes to make it out alive. I'm Eli Rallo, and every week, we're connecting the dots. We're talking about the best of both worlds. the most shocking thing to me was that this is the CEO. After that, we'll discuss what he actually says. I value my privacy. My family values their privacy. My employees value their privacy. But what we're talking about is safety as well. And so I think when people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they're prioritizing the wrong thing. What we have to prioritize as a country is compromise. How do we have our safety and how do we balance privacy? And so when I think about legislation that calls for an outright ban, that's like banning vehicles. That would never have made sense. Instead, what we did is we introduced laws against drunk driving. We introduced laws around seatbelts. Reminds me of Sean Duffy's son-in-law. Sean Duffy sat next to his son-in-law who was running for Congress. And the guy talked about the job he had when he was 14. It's like a fast food restaurant or something. Okay, no comment on this. He's a friend. The rare person I know who's actually running for Congress. But yeah, that was a pretty funny video. It was a pretty funny video. You know, it's a district where my family's from. I think he probably will win. He won the primary. All right, Congressman Sean Duffy's son-in-law. Congressman Sean Duffy's son-in-law. Yeah, no, that video was definitely not ideal. But you're right. It's giving a little bit of that. This guy is 38, by the way. I looked it up. There's no chance that guy's 38. He's barely 38. He's doing the, what's his name, Brian Armstrong. He's found the fountain of youth in any event. Oh, Brian Johnson. Brian Johnson. Yes. In any event, it would be like banning cars. I don't know, man. Like, we actually did ban a bunch of unsafe cars. Yeah. He should talk to Ralph Nader. Yeah, we did that. And then the cars that were deemed to be safe then went through a regulatory process. And those were allowed to be sold. And as a result, the number of people dying in car accidents went down. Substantially. I was thinking the other day, actually, that we need to get Stoller on the Flock case because what they're doing right now, seemingly, is trying to create a monopoly of one system. It's actually kind of similar to what I think Palantir has done in certain cases where you have one system that you become totally dependent on. And it sweeps up so much data that it's hard to change products because they make it impossible to switch to a different massive surveillance system. And so, as soon as Flock monopolizes this market, all of the data, they say that it's, I don't think anybody believes that, but it's all in the hands of one company. And that company has no competition, so they can choose to behave as awfully as they want to. Yeah. And there's the, you can manipulate the video now. We're in an utterly dystopian environment at this point. It feels like the pushback against it is moving as quickly as it did kind of against data centers. And I think there's some overlap between the two kind of public, the backlashes. Are you seeing this on the right? Are you seeing politicians start to develop some hostility or at least some skepticism to this? You know, the first time I actually started to see pushback to Flock, it was on the right, and it was from Tim Burchett. And I forget who, like Eli Crane, I think. So it was on, the other day, I was on the other side of the room, and I was like, oh, my God, I'm going to be on the other side of the room. And I was like, oh, my God, I'm going to be on the other side of the room. Guaranteed human.