5/1/24: Cops Crackdown On Student Protests, Bibi Freaks Over ICC Warrants, Judge Threatens To Arrest Trump, DEA To Reschedule Weed, Dems Save Mike Johnson From Ouster, Decline Of Christianity In America

Published May 1, 2024, 3:30 PM

Ryan and Emily discuss police and pro-Israel supporters cracking down on campuses, Bibi freaks over ICC warrants, judge threatens Trump with arrest over gag order, DEA moves to reschedule marijuana, Dems say they will save Mike Johnson from ouster, and the decline of Christianity in America.

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/

 

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here, and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.

We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.

Coverage that is possible.

If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show.

All right, Good morning, and welcome to Counterpoints.

There was a massive crackdown on pro Palestime protesters on campuses across.

The country, by pro Israel demonstrators.

Out at UCLA and by pro Israel proxies NYPD over at Columbia University. We're going to unpack all of that, Emily. What else we've got today? Oh, we've got mugs.

We have mugs. We have mugs. We can actually put this up on the screen. We are now a mug company with a news show. That's the that's I think the new mission. Yes, to sell mugs. That's what we're here to do. Counterpoints. Mugs made in the USA, Union decorated, even dishwasher safe available now awfully expensive.

But if it makes you feel better. All of the money will be taken by middlemen, and very little we'll.

Get to us. Well, it'll go to unions and US workers.

That's true. So good middlemen, well organized middlemen. Good for them.

We're going to talk about the Trump interview at Time Magazine. He has just an incredible ability to continue to make himself look bad in these interviews, put out positions that are just contrary to what the general public once.

We're going to unpack a bunch of that. Is that an accurate reading.

He's also really good at making journalists look bad, so like while he's making himself look bad. Yeah, it's ever one.

Also, Joe Biden is moving to reschedule marijuana from Schedule one to Schedule three. We'll talk about when that's going to happen and what the implications of it are. Democrats are teaming up with Mike Johnson to make sure that there's no more drama around the speaker's race. They've announced that they will support him if Marjorie Taylor Green goes forward with her motion to vacate the chair so it would be tabled in a massive down vote for MTG. Weird development, interesting kind of uniparty in Congress Proud and then a friend of yours, author of Pagan America.

Hagan America, which is what Ryan always says. Serious, this pagan.

America, cribbing my America.

Yes, right, it's America. But yeah, it'll be interested to hear some from the right. And John's got a super interesting new book out that we can talk about.

Ryan.

Some days we say we have a really big show, but we're just kind of saying that for the hell of it to have something to say. Today, we have a big never love, we would never lie. But you know it every shows a big show, of course, but this is really a big show. Because footage continues to roll in, like by the minute from these campuses. They were wild overnight. UCLA in particular, erupted into violent clashes last night with NYPD cleared out the Columbia encampment and the barricades. Let's start there.

Yeah, so Columbia University.

After the university attempted to clear out the encampment, there what protesters called an autonomous group of mostly students and some faculty occupied Hamilton Hall, which was the site of an ocy. We can roll some of this footage here, which is the site of the famous occupation in nineteen sixty eight by anti Vietnam War protesters. They renamed it hind Hall for the six year old Hindri Yab, who was the girl that many of you probably remember. She made the desperate, harrowing phone call to rescue workers saying that her entire family had been killed by the IDF and she was begging them to.

Rescue her before it got dark. To rescue.

Rescue workers were sent out to her as the world was kind of captivated by this intense situation. They'd learned only days later that the IDF had actually attacked the car again and attacked the rest workers and she had died. So the protesters renamed Hamilton Hall, named for Alexander Hamilton, hind Hall. Last night, a called a bear Mars mobile accessibility ramp system or something like that.

You just saw this on your screen. In fact, it was that big truck.

Like rolled up to the huge equipment from like a medieval or.

From a highly industrial era where they have like an actual from what you saw on your screen, speaking of captivating, was NYPD walking up this sort of how would you even describe it? Like a ramp that's on top of the truck into the window of the building, and the other thing you saw on your screen there was a violent clash outside the hall as the protesters sort of tried to form human barricades to prevent the police from going in and clearing out the encampment that was sort of set up inside of the hall that you mentioned Ryan, that had been you know, everyone was seen by now the videos of the chairs being stacked in front of the doors and the students and other protesters formed the human chain. So you had NYPD going into the window several stories up, and then you had them also trying to clear people from that sort of human chain system at the bottom of the building. And that's what was unfolding at Columbia last night.

And then so if people were following along on the Guardians live blog, for instance, they shut.

It down for the night.

They said, all right, everybody's been arrested, and the Columbia University is asking the NYPD to stay on campus effectively through the middle of May so that they can have their graduation. About an hour later, live blogs around the world popped back up because we can roll this here. Pro Israel rioters at UCLA began attacking the encampment at the University of California, Los Angeles.

We have footage of that here if we want to roll some of that.

Approaching plan beyond that, there's nobody else.

In some of that footage. You may or may not have been able to hear it.

The pro Israel mob was shouting at the one at the one guy outside the barricades there, you're by yourself. Right after they shouted your you're by yourself, several of them grab him, drag him out and start beating him rather rather mercilessly. Are also emerged footage of pro Israel protesters yelling at a woman. They yelled, you stand no chance, old lady. Let's roll that clip and you also heard f you old lady.

Yeah, And there's photos actually also the fireworks there. Take note, I mean people just saw people launching fireworks into the encampment was a really dangerous thing to do. There's an image that someone, a photographer for the AFP, took of one of the counter protesters actually throwing a barricade or looking to throw a barricade in the direction of some people. You can see how completely dangerous this is. Now you may be wondering who these people are. We're wondering actually the exact same question. The protest group, the Ante Israel protest group on campus says, these are quote Zionist aggressors I'm reading from the NBC News lifelog here, who are not UCLA students that have been quote incessantly verbally and physically harassing us, violently trying to storm the camp and threatening us with weapons. Another update just this morning, the University of Arizona late yesterday that they responded to a quote unlawful assembly on campus by deploying a quote chemical irtant munitions or chemical irritant munitions. So there are forty Yes, that's probably a tear gresser of pepper ball type situation, but there are forty of these encampments more than that spread out around the country. And so this question about UCLA. If you now have you know, as they describe them as quote Zionist aggressors, if you now have counter protesters starting to come into these demonstrations, you have LAPD, you have NYPD in some of the schools in the bigger cities. This is a recipe for serious danger right now. That's I shouldn't say flourishing, but really it is flourishing, starting to spread, proliferate around campuses.

Yeah, and whether their students are not Zionist digressors probably is objectively true, like they're Zionists and.

They're being aggressive. Yes, they might not even take issue with that description.

It's just flatly true.

But we don't know who they are, we don't know whether they're students. And this was similar actually to just last week when we were talking to Sofia Selfia, a student in the Colombia encampment who joined uslide from the broadcast. Even they are having a hard time determining who the sort of pro Palestine demonstrators are in some cases, whether they're students or when you're in a big city, it's just very easy for members of the community and hangers on to sow chaos.

Yeah, it's worth talking about the rhetoric that helped lead to this. We can put up this next element, the statement from President Biden that was put out just yesterday morning, Echoing some of his other statements. He said, President Biden has stood against repugnant anti Semitic smears and violent rhetoric his entire life. He condemns the use of the term antifada, as he has the other tragic and dangerous hate speech displayed in recent days. President Biden respects the right to free expression, but protests must be peaceful and lawful. Forcibly, taking over buildings is not peaceful, it is wrong, and hate speech and hate symbols have no place in America. Anti Fada, by the way, is an Arabic term for the uprising uh and it can It can mean violent or non violent, just just as uprising can be an up and uprising in English can be either violent or non violent. Somebody pointed out that the Holocaust Museum, in its Arabic translation, refers to the warsaw antifada.

It's an uprising.

So there's nothing, you know, there's nothing inherently violent about the word antifada. There's definitely nothing inherently anti Semitic about it. There are many people who receive that connotation, you know, when when they hear it.

But this is because it's used in.

Because the second Antifada did include you know, suicide bombings and and and serious violence, and that's the one that that most people are familiar with, rather than the kind of the term itself.

But this is not the first time.

Biden in the White House, you know, have have condemned these these protests in a blanket way as anti semitic. And so you can read this to me as a green light both to the NYP to do what they did at Colombia and also to the pro Israel mob and UCLA to do what they did. He has just just like the US in the kind of Israel Palestine conflict.

We we claim that we're.

Playing a role as a mediator, but we are one hundred percent on one side of the conflict. Here again, President Biden clearly signing one hundred percent kind of with the pro Israel protesters.

And there has been virtually no violence.

Whatsoever from campus protesters throughout throughout the several weeks of these encampments. There have been moments where you could say, you've seen some signs that have been anti semitic. Yeah, there have been some, you know, some like old protesters who have like you know, wandered nearby with like vile anti semitic signs, But there haven't been any accusations of any violence.

Except any of them they did to get into the building, they smashed.

They smashed their way into the building, no doubt.

About that, And that was a I don't believe that the woman who did that was a student. I believe that this has been reported it was like a sixty three year old outside organizer who I mean, maybe that was the strategy to have someone else smash into with a hammer. I think it was into the building that.

Was in sixty eight too, Like you had.

Tom Hayden, for instance, was the lead organizer of the ninety sixty eight occupation, and he proudly called himself an outside agitator, like they would keep you know, these they would go from campus to campus, you know, helping the students organize.

Yeah, and your point about Biden is a really interesting one because it's also Chuck Schumer who's come out and like condemned what was happening is quote unquote lawlessness. And again I mean, like it's correct that some of this absolutely is lawlessness. But to the Biden point, it speaks to the sort of political difficulties of Democrats in the United States who are trying desperately not to lose votes in dearborn right because they need Michigan, and so they put out statements like that one.

But meanwhile, like the value of a news program like ours, I think is emphasized by moments like this, because are when they are covering this, just clashes erupted, no clue what happened one way or the other. New York Times writes after UCLA declared a pro Palestinian encampment illegal on Tuesday night, clashes broke out and administrators called in the police for help. The LAPD said that it was responded because of quote, multiple acts of violence within the large encampment. Those are words, those are sentences, but they convey no information. What's ironic is over at the intercept. A week or so ago, my colleague Jeremy Skhiale and I published their internal private style guide, which urged reporters not to use words like slaughter or massacre because they were imprecise, they said, and don't use the word occupied territory.

That's imprecise. Say Gaza West Bank. Don't say occupied.

They're charged, right, yeah, but they don't say they're charged. What they said in the memo is that they're imprecise. They say we for precision. They aim for precision. When they're trying to euphemize is rarely violence. When they're talking about when they're talking about the violence from last night, all of a sudden, the goal of precision just completely out the window.

Just clashes broke out. Where's the precision?

All of a sudden, the hunt for precision becomes a hunt for making the sentences as vague as possible so that people are just like ah, in that shame. All of these encampments broke out across the country, and now there's violence. It must must be the pro pousetating protesters getting violent.

I think that's a really interesting contrast. Let's also roll this thing that we have from MSNBC. Lawrence O'Donnell was reacting live on MSNBC last night while they were doing a toss off. Let's roll this MSNBC last night.

What we have seen on the videos so far is actually the most organized and calmest and most professional police intervention we've ever seen on a college campus.

You know, that's a weird way to describe what happened last night. Ryan and I say that as somebody who comes to this from I think we probably disagree on this. I am sick of a being told that it's you know, anti Semitic to disagree with everything that Israel says like that, I'm so sick of it, and the same time, I'm sick of saying being told that it's like anti or that it's just a blanketly pro Israel thing to question any of these protests and people smashing into a hall, kids are trying to take finals, stacking up chairs, barricading themselves, forming human chains, and just like I'm sick of it, I think those people actually should be like, face consequences. That's what civil disobedience is. So I'm just sick of this like stupid binary And even then, looking at what was happening in New York last night and chextaposing it with Laurence O'Donnell is a hell of a contrast.

Maybe it shows our sliding scale, because I guess if you compare the NYPD's aultarized response to what the intense police violence at VCU, for instance, or down at UT Austin, I guess it was less violent.

But it also the kind of just.

The optics of it, the gigantic siege equipment rolling through the street, the riot police, the counter terrorism units being brought in for students. They didn't wield batons like it was nineteen sixty eight. At the Chicago Convention or ut Austin like this week. But it still gives off the appearance of an extraordinarily authoritarian situation for college students and to just who are Yes, they smashed the windows, but they're not violent, they're not they're not they're not dangerous to other people.

Yeah, and that's why, By the way, it's also extremely unhelpful. And this is where I thought our interview last week with Sofia was really helpful, because it's very, very important to the point of precision to not just use these sort of blankets smears against the students. Actually wrote along piece in the Federalists about this a couple of days ago, because you end up completely misunderstanding what they're doing and misunderstanding what they say they're there to do. Crystal Sen's a great tweet this morning about how at Brown University handled their protests completely different. They actually just like held a vote on divestment and dealt.

With schedule one.

Yeah, right, they agreed to schedule vote, but like actually dealt with the demand that the protesters were making, which was very specifically divestment. That isn't to say they haven't broadened it, but the point of the encampment was to force a vote on divestment. And I get that if you give in to those protests, like you can create a bigger situation. But I think everyone on Columbia's university Columbia University's campus right now says this has been wildly mismanaged by the school. Whether you're on one side or the other, everyone agrees, like Colombia completely completely botched this.

Yeah, and so Brown will hold a divestment vote in October of next year on whether to continue investing in general and Israeli companies or was it was is it specifically connected, Oh, it's I think it's fund specifically connected to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. As The New York Times reports, University of Chicago has also handled this in a much more kind of reasonable and civil way. They said, look that these this encampment is breaking our rules, but we also as a principal, support free expression. And as long as they're not disrupting people's ability to do their own expression, people's ability to get the class, as long as they're not endangering public safety.

We're going to give some leeway here. We're going to.

Encourage people to express themselves other ways, but we're not going to bring in a militarized response here.

UCLA in some ways did the same thing.

It was, but it was the kind of pro Israel demonstrators that that that escalated things last night, but only after you know, not only Biden's comments, but also UCLA itself saying okay, this is an illegal encampment that that seems to have given the counter protest there's the green light to go ahead and do what they did.

Yeah, no, I mean it's it's been like the University of Chicago response was I actually think kind of pitch perfect, and they've been doing pitch perfect responses to these type of things. They're like actually consistent in the free speech, free speech space. There's the University of Chicago letter that was some people may be familiar with actually like a really big deal when it started circulating almost ten years ago now, pushing back on some of the schools that were giving into crazy speech demands of the left. Actually, and so to see the consistency on this from places like universities, I have to see consistency heartening. Yeah, absolutely absolutely is.

Last point I would make is to the protesters, particularly ones at UCLA and elsewhere who feel like their strategy of nonviolence is no longer effective, that it can't be effective in the face of this violent response. I would say, you know, effect of non violence is always met with violence. Yeah, but that is part of it's virtue. Like that is that is part of its value. It exposes the cruel face of the system that you're opposing.

That is the fundamental premise of civil disobedience is the civility of it. And that's why those images are are so poignant from the American civil rights era of just abject stoicism on the faces of people who are, you know, confronting consequences for violating certain laws, but are doing it just stoically. And that's baked into the American narrative about how that changed hearts and minds that people believe so deeply in this that rather than giving in to the forces of inscibility, rather than you know, joining the people who as you know, we talked to Savia about this and talked to other students of Columbia about this. The hangers on who come with or even some of the students who say things that are legitimately calls for violence or are not civil instead of giving into that or returning it with violence. There's so much power to your point, Ryan, and remaining civil in the face of aggress Yes.

So I would say stay true, stay true to your non violent values, not in spite of the violence, but you know, because of and in the face of the violence from counter protesters. Let's move on to the violence. Prime Minister Benjamin Nenyaho publicly addressing the rumors that he kind of got going that the International Criminal Court may launch charges against him and senior leaders of Israel for war crimes.

Let's roll Nenyahu here.

The International Criminal Court in the League is contemplating issuing arrest wants against senior Israeli government and military officials as war criminals. This would be an outrage of historic proportions. International bodies like the icy c arose in the wake of the Holocaust committed against the Jewish people. They were set up to prevent such ores, to prevent future genocides. Yet now the International Court is trying to put Israel in the dock. It's trying to put us in the dock as we defend ourselves against genocidal terrorists and regimes Iran. Of course that openly works to destroy the one and only Jewish state. Branding Israel's leaders and soldiers as war criminals, will pour jet fuel on the fires of anti Semitism, those fires that are already raging on the campuses of America and across capitals around the world. It will also be the first time that a democratic country fighting for its life according to the rules of war is it self accused of war crimes. The Israeli army, the idea, is one of the most moral militaries in the world.

It takes endless measures to practivilians. We've heard that before. So the NENYAHUO pressured the US to come out publicly and defend Israel against the rumors that Israel peers to have started itself, that the ICC was coming at them, and the White House did. The White House said, we do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction over Israel. Their argument they're making is that Israel has not signed on to the ICC itself. However, Palestinians have, and when the ICC launched charges against Vladimir Putin, the US applauded those charges. Russia is not a signatory to the ICC, but Ukraine is, and that is why the ICC has jurisdiction. If you are committing a crime against a member, a signatory of the ICC, then the ICC has jurisdiction whether you're a signatory or not. That was the principle that the White House believed when the ICC charged putin all of a sudden, that doesn't apply anymore in this case. Not long after the US gave that Yahoo the assurance that he wanted, that Yahoo came out and said that even if he cuts a hostage deal with Hamas, he is still going to launch an invasion into Rafa.

It's very interesting to hear Net and Yahoo alluding to these sort of international rules that were largely agreed upon in the wake of the Holocaust, and he referenced that directly, and to see the way that they are used selectively and as blunt forced objects. I mean, it is exactly true that we all we've talked about this many times. We came together after World War Two, after the Holocaust, the level of industrial slaughter the world had never seen and stead this is and that's you know, includes things like Dresden and nuclear weapons. We came together and said there this is not sustainable for humanity, and these are the new sort of ethical again. Yeah, right, And these are the ethical guidelines that we'll look to going forward, and we agree with them when we want to agree with them, when it's blunt forth first object that we can use against enemies for the sake of our in foreign policy goals. And then we say, well, those are non binding or nobody signed on to that or whatever. It's just the sanctimony that goes behind the United States AND's allies in the West wielding them. Not just like the Putin thing is such a good example. I mean, it was just the level of credibility we assigned to it when we wanted to use it there. I mean, that's as good an example as you can get.

Yeah, so much for the rules based international order.

Meanwhile, there's there's reporting where you can put up this next element that the US is contemplating accepting significant numbers of Palestinian refugees who were trying to flee Gaza. And what's fascinating about this news is that, you know, for the most part, we have accepted very few dozens of Palestinian refugees over the years, and when we have it is refugees who are claiming political asylum from Hamas, and HAMAS is a vindictive organization toward its critics absolutely, and so people who are kind of dissidence again and critics of Hamas like have some have been legitimately granted refugee status here in the United States.

Not many, not many, like dozens.

Yeah, no, I pulled the numbers last night. It's actually kind of shocking.

Sixty something, what is it?

Last ten years, US has resettled more than four hundred thousand refugees from CBS CBS fleeing violence, and in twenty twenty three fifty six Palestinian refugees, So that was points. There are nine percent of sixty thousand refugees in that twelve month period.

Right, and so in order to in order to boost that number up to the number of people who need actual safe havens at this point, what the US would have to do is grant them asylum basically from themselves, because they would have to grant them asylum from Israel, from the idea, from the military campaign.

They need Egypt's cooperation.

But the legal rationale for accepting this many refugees from Gaza would be that they are persecuted by Israel and we are supplying the weapons and the political support and the global the global support for that very persecution which we are then going to give asylum against. So we'll be giving them asilum in our country against ourselves.

Basically.

Yeah, we talk about this when we talk about the border. So asylum is actually much more narrow category than it's often used. And then it's been used in our southern border in particular. So you have to prove that you're being targeted based on your nationality, religion, or your political views. And so you can see pretty easily how that argument can be made, and you can pull a million quotes from Israeli government on this point and talk about what's happened, you know, in your community in Gaza when you're applying for asylum. Now, they absolutely could still use hamas and you know they could, that could be the rationale that a lot of them give, but they could also you can see start making an argument in the other direction. And it reminds me, actually, Ryan of how the US sanctioned that unit of the idea recently. Is like it's the same sort of strange circular logic and listen, if people as refugees are coming to the United States and they want to be citizens of the United States. That's great. I think that's awesome. There's public polling out of Palestine that suggests a big chunk of the population there in Polling is tough there. But this is when the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in December, seventy two percent of Palestinians quote believe that Hamasa's decision to launch the October seventh attack was correct. Now, again, we can debate what that means, but it definitely means this fundamental disagreement with US foreign policy, and you can understand why people in Palestine would have a very hostile approach towards United sert perspective towards the United States foreign policy. So does this so discord and communities. I don't know that enough people will be accepted that it'll so discord around communities. To be honest with fifty six and twenty twenty three, that was one of the most violent recent years on record in Palestine. And so that's what a lot of people on the right are worried about. You know, we're going to import a bunch of people who hate America. I don't know that they're going to be able to get enough people out that that becomes a problem, to be honest.

Yeah, and the Israeli governments, you know, put out a lot of white papers and other and trial balloons showing that the plan was to depopulate you know, Gaza going in and so yeah, on the one hand, this this plays into the effort to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip of Palestinians and then and rebuild it as Israeli's on as Jared Kushner said, you know, waterfront, waterfront property.

Maybe they'll use Kushner's quote the never silent abligations.

At the same time, the area is going to be uninhabitable for many years. It's the nor Northern Gaza for instance. You know, so a normal bomb an ordinance getting dropped from a plane in a battlefield or fired elsewhere, it has something like a ten percent failure rate. Israel does not use these weapons normally. You know, they're dropping them in areas where they're going to have a much higher failure rate. And so maybe you're pushing twenty percent failure rate and you're talking of you know, thousands and thousands of bombs being dropped on Gaza. Those are fairly stable unexploded ordinance until they are disrupted by a bulldozer or some type of construction during a rebuilding process. It's impossible to overstate how time consuming it is to extract these weapons in northwest Washington, d C. Where they did where they did basically chemical weapons testing during World War One. They are still to this day finding unexploded like mustard gas ordinances in Washington, d C. Near American University where that research which was carried out more than one hundred years later.

And so.

It's just going to be borderline impossible for hundreds of thousands of people to return to their homes anytime soon, which means they're going to have to live somewhere.

And just before we wrap, let's put this poll up on the screen. This is reporting in the Jerusalem Post about a new poll published by end twelve. Over half of the Israeli public beliefs that Prime Minister Benjamin Ninyaho should resign immediately, including twenty eight percent of those who voted for the block that supports nt Yahoo. Forty eight percent of Israeli's believe Defense Minister Galant should resign immediately.

Wow.

I mean, like if you keep going down the line, here there's fifty percent believe the idea of chief of staff should resign, fifty six percent believe that the head of Shinbet should resign right now. I mean fifty four percent of respondent said that the elections should be held earlier. So that's not just opposition in net Yahoo. That's immediate, urgent opposition to Net Yahoo. And obviously in Israel there's opposition from uh like, both sides. So people who are you know, more hardcore that want, you know, Net Yahoo to go even harder than he has gone. And then there are people who disagree that he was, thinking he's already gone too far, and then he's been you know, mismanaging the situations and incompetent. But all that is to say, this is a pretty untenable situation for net Yahoo and his coalition at the moment.

In Israel, it's been a strategic failure in every sense of the word world word up and down from net Yahoo and his managing of the conflict before and after October seventh.

Yeah, and the Israeli public is picking up on that, no doubt about it. Donald Trump just yesterday he was back in court and as day nine, day nine on the hush money trial. Donald Trump was held in violation of his gag order once again. It's the second time that he's actually been sanctioned for violating the gag order. And this is there's kind of some interesting new one in this particular ruling because the judge one Merchant find Donald Trump, but he said because he was criticizing expected trial witnesses, So that would be Michael Cohen in particular. That's a big one, Stormy Daniels, that's a big one. He's criticized the makeup of the jury pool. But what Merchant said is that it's specifically related, like you can talk about the trial, but it's specifically you cannot keep talking about these expected witnesses. And that's obviously a pretty huge distinction because it addresses the central issue of Donald Trump's argument, which is I have to be able, like this is the middle of a campaign. I have to be able to make my case to the public, So you have to let me talk about this trial. I'm running for president of the United States. So Merchant narrowed it and said, this is specifically about you know, talking about so specifically about the key witnesses here, not just about the case in General. And then Donald Trump sat for an interview with Time that was released yesterday that was just of incredible quotes. Yeah, just a lot happening.

When he when he said he was barred from commenting on the makeup of the jury because it's Trump.

I thought he was talking about makeup, because he would do that. He would do that.

He's got every year, he's got opinions on fashion Week. But no, apparently he's talking about the jury itself, and you're not supposed to do.

You know, that violates the gag order.

And so he got a thousand dollars fine for each kind of truth Social tweet.

He put up, yeah, one.

Thousand dollars for nine posts, and he was made to delete the posts and the judge said, you know you you could get incarceratory penalties next time.

And he removed the posts. By the way he did, he took them down. So he removed seven from truth Social and two from his campaign website, and he owes nine thousand dollars. He could, you know, end up with as you said, Ryan, the consequences could only increase. But the fact that he actually took down all of the posts, it looks like he's throwing in the towel in most particular on this particular point. And actually, I think it's kind of a fair decision that you can't be going after the key witnesses. You can still talk about the trial, though. I guess that gives him a little roadmap to making his case in the public.

Just be careful there, mister president. I'd love to get your take on his Time interview, though. Let's highlight a couple of them.

I mean, so if you go on Time's website and we can put this element up on the screen, they do the thing where they give you the amount of time it'll take to read the article eighty three minutes. The eighty three minute read he had this. Really it must have been a two hour interview, would be my guess, after you account for the editing, for clarity and everything that goes into publishing a transcript. And I love when they just published the transcript, the raw transcript. We pulled a couple of highlights from it. He basically the journalist basically got Trump to touch on everything under the sun. But we can move to this first poll quote because I want to start with the economy, because you know, honestly, we're talking a lot about foreign policy on this show and the discourse in general. For obvious reasons, a lot of American voters are going to be primarily voting on the economy when they go to the polls in November. So this is Trump saying he's getting asked by the journalist about his ten percent tariff funal imports and a sixty percent tariff on Chinese imports. Asked if that's still his plan, and Trump says, quote, it may be more than that. RN. I actually thought that was very interesting.

Yeah, yeah, And then he and then he's may be a derivative of that.

Derivative of that. I don't know what he means by derivative there, nobody knows, And you're right. And so the reporter press is like, really, it could could be more than ten percent. He's saying, yes, yes, it could be. And then he says it's not actually going to raise prices. It's just going to cost China money and it's going to put a bunch of money in Chinese coffers. That's you can that's nonsense, Like it's fine to support tariffs.

Yeah, and I think that tariffs.

You know, have a real serious role to play when it comes to building your domestic manufacturing base, like that's they're important, but in the immediate term, they're going to cause inflation, like they're going to prices are going to go up, Like that's how that's how tariffs operate.

Well, this created a huge point. This like created a huge debate on econ Twitter yesterday about the technical definition of inflation because a lot of people were saying Donald Trump is campaigning against inflation but also campaigning on a tariff. And then economists were like, actually, this important distinction. Inflation is not the same as like pricing creases and Ryan you just you just need to be precision here, right.

No, but they're right, But it's interesting they're true that.

That's right from a from an economic textbook perspective, there those are those are different things. And inflation refers to just when there's kind of more money in the economy, mean chasing like a smaller number of you know, or not enough goods, Like that's inflation. But from the perspective of somebody who's going to the store, yeah, it's the same. It's the same buying something. Yes, they see the price rise, and people aren't people don't kind of object to the concept of inflation, but they're okay with price increases. They don't like when things cost more and when their wages are not keeping up with the cost of things going up.

That's something.

And you know, in some ways they don't care whether it's greedflation from corporations, right oh, rising prices, whether it's supply shocks from the pandemic and the reopening of the economy and the port's being all cluttered, or whether it's fiscal policy monetary policy. Like, what people don't like is when they go to the grocery store and it used to cost fifty dollars for a bag and I was eighty.

Dollars for a bag or whatever. That's what they don't like.

And so Trump is going to learn that the hard way if he doesn't figure out a way to come at this in a way that gets prices down.

Yeah, and it's true that, for example, Joe Biden has no control over greedflation. I shouldn't say no control. He doesn't have a lot of control over greedflation, but you know, unless he sort of. But I mean, just even like policy wise, these are private businesses making terrible decisions as private businesses.

And good decisions for themselves.

Make good decisions for themselves. You know, you got to have some money for the buybacks, but.

Try to figure out a way to get corporations to you know.

So it's actually an interesting point.

John Kenneth Gallbraith included prices in his understanding of the government's role in the economy. Like we understand that the government and through the FED, plays a role in inflation, plays a role in unemployment and labor and wages, and we always have had understood that the government also played a role in prices. In the seventies, we moved away from that and we said, well, prices, what can you do, just like the weather. But actually it is a function of a government and private sector interacting. And so we could actually come in and mess with prices if we wanted to, and I think we should.

But anyway, that's a side point.

But it's interesting because right the voters are always going to blame, you know, in the same way that Joe Biden is getting a lot of blame for you know, even I think he deserves some of the blame. He spent a ton of money and that's always behind inflation. But there's also a component of this, even from the right. I agree that was gre inflation, and voters just don't want to hear you scapegoat They know prices are higher, they don't want you to downplay higher prices, and they don't want you to scapegoat whether it's China or greedy CEOs. I think Donald Trump is probably better at communicating why he you know, describes some of the blame to China in these cases, but he will learn that lesson. Nonetheless, he had a pretty good economy during his administration until COVID hit. And what's going to happen if you know you have a ten percent tariff, it's he's going to have to confront people who are upset about that. And we saw it kind of happen with farmers and all of that over the course of the administration, and he maintained some I think, pretty impressive levels of support from farmers. But in a way, yes, it's the Biden lesson can also be the Trump lesson that you know, when people are paying higher prices, they don't want to hear excuses from the president, even if the president himself is not waving his magic wand or couldn't wave a magic wand and tackle things one thing. Also Bran, my apologies to the control and I skipped this, but let's put B two up on the screen, because if I were interviewing Donald Trump right now, this is basically the question that I would want the answer to. You know, they if president, if a president doesn't get immunity. This is what Trump tells Time about the Supreme Court case that's pending right now. He said, quote, then Biden, I am sure will be prosecuted for all of his crimes. Trump said that if presidents do get immunity, He went on to say, basically, that's great that Joe Biden will not be prosecuted for his many crimes, but you know, and said that he wouldn't, you know, push for or implied basically argued that he wouldn't push for Joe Biden if presidents have immunity to then be responsible for all of these different allegations alleged crimes that Joe Biden has been involved with. But I think that's really one of the most important questions is what we see from Donald Trump in the next Trump administration potentially if he is elected president, voters should know exactly how he plans to wield the state wield the powers of the state against political opponents, because that's what he's campaigning against right now.

Yeah, how vindictive do you think he will be if he becomes president? Is he going to throw the Justice Department at a bunch of his enemies.

I think it's really hard to say, because he likes being liked, and he in the last administration was really torn in two different directions from sort of the hardcore right people and then the neo conservative moderates, And you know, he never really figured that out himself, like which balance you know worked best. He was intentionally having them fight each other over what his policy should be. So I just really have a hard time making a prediction on that. I don't know. What do you think?

Yeah, I think he probably will be.

I think he'll I think he's so angry about what he's going through now that he feels it's unjust and a witch hunt and election interference and persecution, that I think he would that. I think he will. I think he'll try. Whether or not the wheels can get rolled through the Justice Department is another question, but I think he'll definitely try.

So we'll put be five up on the screen here because time got him to respond to questions about the war as well in Israel. I want to know you said you want to get Israel to wind down the war. You said it needs to get over with. How are you going to make that happen? The reporter asked, would you consider withholding aid? Trump really wouldn't give a clear answer to that question about withholding aid. He said, I think that Israel has done one thing very badly public relations. No argument there, Ryan. I don't think that the Israel Defense Fund or any other group should be sending out pictures every night of buildings falling down and being bombed with possibly people in those buildings every single night, which is what they do. That's obviously not just a public relations argument, which is why I chuckle the lad but because he's framing in as a public relations argument and he's avoiding answering the question about whether he would withhold AID. But that's also when you're talking about buildings that might have people in them. That's also him criticizing the policy. I don't know what he would do if he was in office. Obviously he was cozy with Netanyahu, even though he's not been cozy with him, at least rhetorically in the press. Now again, I think it's it's very hard to predict what you see come out of a second Trump administration, but at least interesting that the father in law of Jared Kushner is talking that way.

It's an interesting way to smuggle in criticism because it's completely acceptable on the pro Israel side to say that ITUAL hasn't been good at it's PR right like that. That's always a fine thing for any kind of ally to criticize their their.

Own organization or group of PR.

PR bad PR. You're great, You're doing great. Everything you're doing is great. People just don't understand how great you are. That's basically what that's saying. But your point is exactly right. He doesn't talk about PR. Then he talks about war crimes, talks about about bombing civilians and flattening buildings, and then he does talk about the PR reaction to that. They then broadcast that, so he you know, he's seeing the fact that Israel's broadcasting a lot of its crimes, and whether he's seeing a lot of the kind of the IDF soldiers and they're and their tiktoks and they're and their reels where they're wearing women's clothing, or whether they're blowing up moss or blowing up schools or like riding around on children's bikes.

Yeah, like all of this stuff is being broadcast.

So it is a combination of war crimes that is that are a fundamental problem of substance, but then also the lack of shame about them and the broadcasting of them to the world. So yeah, he's see and and I think one thing that bothers him is that it causes problems for him now, it causes bigger problems for Biden. So he's happy with that at the moment. But I think he's like, in his mind, he's like, guys, like he said, just just in the same way he said, you've got to wrap this up. You've got to get this over with. He's like, what are you doing, you know, bombing a building full of civilians and then broadcasting that, Like that's not going to play well. It's not a moral argument like you shouldn't do that. It's an argument that this is not going to be effective in your mission, of which I'm aligned with, which I'm aliged.

And again that's why I think it's interesting that like again this is the father in law of Jared Kushner, Jared Kushner's, and people Trump gives him credit actually in fact for heading up Middle East Israel policy basically under Trump's watch. And what they did by moving the embassy and uh just completely allying the United States with you know, the goals of the net Yahoo administration essentially, not that you know that's new for the United States foreign policy, but it was the sort of there was a an enthusiasm for that alliance that I think was very specific to the Trump administration. So that's why I find you know, potentially Donald Trump coming into office again likely likely based on reporting, bringing Jared Kushner back into the administration. That's I think genuinely an interesting contrast.

And even casual observers at the time warned that Kushner's approach to the Abraham Accords of pretending that the Palestine question didn't exist and just trying to reach normalization with Saudi and the UAE and Israel and others was not going to work because Palestinians do exist, and it was going to lead to some type of an explosion.

That was the warning.

But you can't completely blame the Trump administration for that, because the Biden administration came in January twenty twenty one and had every opportunity to say, whoever let this kid run Middle East policy for the United States was an idiot, and we're not going to continue following that course. Instead, they basically followed the Kushner policy going forward. They did not re enter the deal, They discarded the Obama approach to the region and adopted the Trump approach, and we wound up with this let's do his two states. Yeah, so he was asked about potential solutions. I thought this This was also kind of a bit insightful from Trump in an interesting way. Do you think an outcome of that war between Israel and Hamas should be a two state solution between Israelis and Palestinians? Trump says, most people thought it was going to be a two state solution. I'm not sure a two state solution anymore is going to work. Everybody was talking about two states. Even when I was there, I was saying, what do you like here? Do you like two states?

Now?

People are going back to it depends where you are every day. It changes now if Israel's making and here's the insightful part and if Israel's making progress, yes, they don't want two states, they want everything right, And if Israel's not making progresses he goes on, sometimes they talk about two state solution. Two state solutions seem to be the idea that people liked most, the policy or the idea that people liked above this.

Is like really the benefit of Donald Trump. In some cases he comes in with no like rhetorical allegiance to either side of the debate, and it's just like perceptive in the sneakiest ways sometimes because he has this like weird business mindset and he hasn't been reading scripts from full of talking points from like the RNC for twenty years, so he just is like free wheeling, and sometimes it has disastrous consequences. Other times it's weirdly perceptive.

Yeah, when things are going well for Israel, as Trump observes, they just want everything. Why would they agree to two states.

It's only when they're on their heels that they say, okay, maybe we'll maybe we'll agree to that.

And the cushions of the world. Again, this is interesting because I'm saying this as somebody broadly on the right. It's frustrating any criticism of Israel. You are lumped into this category as like pro hamas pro anti Semitism or enabling anti Semitism. This is Donald Trump openly criticizing Israel when nobody forced him to. This interview was not particularly tough on him on that question, like it pushed him. It was fair, but it wasn't like hostile. It wasn't saying like, you need to criticize Israel right now, or you will, you know, sacrifice all of your credibility. It wasn't doing that. He just went there, and I actually think that's really.

Interesting and real quickly, and then we can move on to to Weed.

I did want to ask you about maybe you have some insight into this the myth of pristone questions. So he gets asked, do you think women should be able to get the abortion pill myf of pristone? And he says, well, I have an opinion on that, but I'm not going to explain. I'm not going to say it yet, but I have pretty strong views on that, and I'll be releasing it probably over the next week. So this is the abortion pill, which the Supreme Court has said is legal. Do you have any insight what is he actually going to put something out in a week.

Is he just making that up?

Where is there any speculation about where he lands on this, because this is a huge issue because if you're in a red state that has banned abortion, but you can still get access to this, it's a game changer.

It's why abortions have increased post obs. There's this mass movement towards Smith of Perstone, and it now accounts for a massive.

Proportion learning about it now do yeah.

Yeah, yeah, exactly. So I haven't heard any rumblings that he's planning to make an announcement on this, which could That doesn't mean he's not planning to make an announcement on it. Frankly, if I had to guess where he stands on this personally, I actually still think that could diverge from whatever his policy is because this interview is similarly like he wouldn't give an answer on what he would definitively do about military aid, conditioning military aid to Israel. He also would not give an answer about what he would do with abortion, and he kept saying it's up to the states, it's up to the states. You're hypothetical. I won't answer because it's so impossible. You're never gonna have sixty votes in the Senate, So I can't answer your question about whether I would sign a fifteen week ban, et cetera, et cetera. On this. I think it's possible he announces a policy really similar to what he announced with abortion in general, that he's just supportive of leaving it up to the states. Basically that upset a lot of people in the anti abortion movement. But I don't know whether that reflects what he's saying when he says he has a very strong opinion on it, because his very strong opinion could potentially not be reflected by whatever policy he announces. I think he's, you know, privately, you hear that he's kind of icked out by anti abortion people, that he feels like they're weird religious extremists, and you know, is personally not hardcore anti abortion. So I would if I had a guess, I would say he's probably prof for pristone personally, But whether that is whatever policy he announces is a completely different question.

Well, the DEA is making big moves on marijuana. So back in the election year twenty twenty two, if you remember, the Biden administration did two things during the mid terms. At once they pardoned every non violent weed defender. But the more significant thing they did at that time was they asked the confederal bureaucracy to study whether or not marijuana belonged.

In Schedule one.

Now, Schedule one is the most restrictive category for an illegal drug. It means it has zero medical benefit and a high potential for abuse. You could say that the stronger weed lately has a significant potential for abuse, but the zero medical benefit has always been completely absurd. But it was clear at that moment that he was teeing up a twenty twenty four move. Now, HHS and the FDA both signed off on reclassifying marijuana, moving it out of Schedule one. The DEA has been dragging its feet, as you can as you can imagine the DEA does. But yesterday the Associated Press reported, and we can put this up, that the DA finally is getting in line and recommending back to the White House that they do what everybody else said they ought to do, which is reschedule marijuana from Schedule one to Schedule three.

Now, Schedule three says it has some medical value, So there's been some reporting that this would help with.

Tax liabilities for marijuana firms, cannabis company. You know, it's because so basically one of the but that's not necessarily the case.

Because Schedule three is still quite restrictive.

Because right now, if you are marijuana business, you basically have it's basically impossible to write off a lot of your costs, which means you have exorbitant tax bill at the end because you don't pay taxes on your profits like a normal business. You pay taxes on all of your revenue because you can't write off your costs because your costs are illegal under federal law. At the same time, you don't have access to banking, which puts people at serious risks because they're moving cash around, you know, gigantic you know, trucks going back and forth filled with cash from homes to businesses. And so this is much less than what a lot of advocates would want, you know, have have wanted, but it will it will help on sentencing, you know, you know, with mandatory minimums. It also helps importantly with research. Right now, if you want to research marijuana, which so many people in the medical field want to do because there are significant medical benefits like getting access.

It's it's hilarious.

Like if you want to get gummies or weed, you walk down the street and you buy them. If you want to do research on cannabis at the university setting, it's impossible, right right, Like there are like a handful of studies that have gone through like ten years of like fighting with the DA.

So the research just like getting dime bags on the corner.

They just research something else because they can't then get they can't get the university to approve the studies, and so they just go study something else. So now at least this will lead to an explosion of actual you know research, you know into in the US because around the world people are able to study it.

So so so that'll help.

This is still months away though, Yeah, it's got to go to the Office of Managing Budget. There's a comment period, and you know, this could drag out till after the after the election. Sager is not here to complain, but to you know, Sager, can you know, take pride in the fact that not much it's going to.

Change it in the near term.

I was going to say, and you know, sccer's arguments are serious, and I think a lot of our viewers, probably as much as we make fun of him. I think a lot of our viewers probably know this, but right if you duck to what you're right, you can see this Ryan Grimm book, This is Your Country Drugs, The Secret History of Getting High in America. If ever there were an expert on the history of getting high in America by This is Your Country on Drugs by Ryan Grimm, for the expert take it is.

Are you amazing like that? That book came out in two thousand and nine and you could sort of if you squinted, see the direction that things were going in the final chapter.

But to get to this place in my lifetime is kind of interesting.

That's what I was actually going to ask you about, because I think that's when we were talking about this a little bit yesterday. This is a really big deal.

I used to work. I was actually a weed lobbyist, right, that's right, two thousand and four.

I worked for the Marijuana Policy Project on state level lobbying.

High powered, very funny. This is funny is the weed lobbyists now actually are high powered. It's like John Bayner, yes, value of John Bayner, right, but back then, and that's what's interesting about the schedule classifications that right now while this O and B process goes on, it's still classified Schedule one alongside like heroin LSD, And yet you have people like John Bayner advocating for what was he doing, Like was it cannabis? Yeah, So the other thing I was interested in here is if it's a Schedule three drug, you're still still a significant DEA regulations. But that means that fifteen thousand cannabis dispensaries in the US that exist right now would have to register with the DEA. I'm reading from the Associated Press report report here. That means they have to go along with these like fairly strict reporting requirements, and.

I think what they're not going to do well.

It sounds like the DEA is not even in a position to handle those reporting requirements. So, in a sense, if this plays out, even in the direction that's good for some of these dispensaries, is up in the air financially because now they have this massive burden of reporting the DEA in ways that they weren't before.

It'll at least, you know, reduce the incentive for the DEA I think, to break down the doors of cannabis dispensaries. But you know, they've largely moved away from that and left it. They've basically started leaving it up to localities. In the beginning days, like in the Bush administration, when medical cannabis facilities first started opening, you'd have the DEA in standoff with like local police who were supportive of the dispensaries. They've they've somewhat moved away from that. We have not yet gotten to a rational system, but it would, you know. But it now gives Congress, you know, more ability to rationalize I think the system because the DA is sort of given a little bit of permission. Chuck Schumer is trying to put something related to cannabis into the FAA's trying to put He's trying to put weed banking into.

The FAA reauthorization.

He keeps trying to do it because you know that by you know, Schumer in particular sees you know, weed and student debt as you know, key ways to try to uh, you know, win the support of young people in particular.

So, uh yeah, And this is complete un evenness culturally in terms of policy. That's really fascinating here. And for the other side of this argument, because I'm so kind of ambivalent, I do commend people to go watch some of Sager's model on this topic, because I don't think Grant you mentioned this earlier. There is a level of potency that increased rapidly just in the last several decades. That's totally relevant to what's happening on underdeveloped brains when they're smoking weed like that. This is some serious research in that space that's paying attention to.

If you're a parent, Yeah, and substance abuse is a problem no matter what the substance. The question for me has always been should it be criminalized?

You know? Is the answer to lock people up?

Yeah?

And I don't. I don't think so. But it doesn't mean we're ever going to get to a rational place either.

Breaking news from Capitol Hill, Mike Johnson continues to be a real person. Ryan and I have followed these developments for weeks now. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House sounds completely made up, and yet he continues to be the Republican Speaker of the House does exist.

He's real.

But the real takeaway from what's happening on Capitol Hill right now is that Democrats made a decision yesterday to ally themselves formally with Mike Johnson in his battle against House Republicans. So Marjorie Taylor Green's motion to vacate and we can put this first element up on the screen. This is a tweet from Jake Sherman over at punch Bowl that House Democratic leadership has said they will vote to table that Marjorie Taylor Green motion to vacate if she forces a vote on it, which is called privileging the motions. So she filed the motion weeks ago. Thomas Massey signed onto it after the Ukraine Party vote for an AID vote that we talked about last week, and Thomas, speaking of Thomas Massey, we can put the next element up on the screen. He tweeted yesterday at Representative Jeffreys and Speaker Johnson. Not sure who's in charge, so asking both of you, are you still working together to eliminate the motion of vakate so you can share power forever. This was in response to a Mike Johnson sweet on April eighteenth talking about how many people to borrow a phrase from Trump. Many people have been encouraging him to endorse a new rule to raise the threshold on the motion to vacate. Super quick primer on the motion to vacate. It sounds like a technical parliamentary procedure term. What it actually means is that it existed in Congress until Nancy Pelosi took it away after watching what happened to John Bayner. We somehow managed not to talk about John Bayner twice in this show in twenty twenty four. But John Bayner was He had a motion of vakate filed against him by Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan back in the day. They never ended up privileging it. They forced Bayner to resign. Nancy Pelosi saw that and changed the rule that had existed for all of Congress's history basically and said, this is not happening to me. I'm not going to have challenges to my power just because one of my members wants to file and privilege this motion to vacate. So what Hakim Jeffries, Nancy Pelosi's successor, is doing right now is saying, we're saving Mike Johnson's ass because if Marjor Taylor Green forces this motion to vacate, it privileges it and gets a vote and I'm out of here, or that Johnson is out of here, we'd rather have Mike Johnson in power, and that's saving Republicans from a cycle of chaos in the middle of an election year. Because I'm curious for your perspective on this. Democrats realize that they can get a lot of their priorities over the hurdle of Republican House leadership, Republican majority in the House, because they have the Senate and the presidency. They feel like they can get probably a lot of earmarking porks that type stuff out of funding bills FAA is coming up, farm bills coming up in the future by aligning themselves with Mike Johnson.

Now, and I think you have to presume that there was some type of an arrangement. It came to a passage of you they avoided a government shutdown, they funded the wars and Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and Democrats provided a lot of muscle for that, but you know, Speaker Johnson had to go along and put it on the floor. And so you can imagine that this, uh, this commitment from Hakeem Jeffers is not coming out of nowhere, that it comes out of those those talks, and that that collaboration, that cooperation from before. You know, it's I think that Democrats think, Okay, yeah, chaos is fun, Like it's nice when you know Republicans are shooting at each other and if you could have them, you know, voting for Speaker again for a week or two, it makes them, it makes them look like losers. But yeah, I think to your point, their priority was getting the getting the wars funded. So they'd rather have that than a than a marginal and a political advantage. And you know they still get plenty of infighting, Like there's lots of Republican finger pointing speak.

They can have the best of all worlds.

Speaking of books written by Ryan Grimm. You can all see the squad behind you.

And we're backing them up back there.

The thing that I wanted to ask you was, actually, if this is demoralizing to the squad and to members of sort of justice Dems when they see this happening, because I bet to a lot of their voters you see this happening, it is demoralizing and it's infuriating.

I mean, it might be demoralizing to their to their base, but probably not to them personally.

Because they've been because they've been locked up.

With Jeffries, Like they voted for Jeffries every every step of the way. They didn't mount anybody to challenge Jeffreys and they they you know, they did not like that is funding for the war in Israel moved through, but they all were supportive of the money for the war in Ukraine for the most part. So uh, I don't see a whole lot of daylight between them and Jeffreys on on these on these questions. You know, it deprives you know, now the question would be, would Republicans bail out a Jeffries speakership in the future, No, you don't think so, No, let them let them.

Go down, because I can just imagine Republican voters after that happened in town halls be like Tea Party all over again. And Republicans are just I think, kind of keyed into getting the different parliamentary machinations probably post Tea Party because this was such a big deal with Bayer, and I just see like, actually less of that on the left that they pay really close attention to the different maneuvers that leadership uses to kind of screw over populists. But on the right that's a pretty mainstream, like hobby horse of people in the conservative movement is following what's happening in the sort of like meat grinder on Capitol Hills. So I think people would be pretty furious about that, you know, the Mike Johns is just I don't think there would be some people who would you know, you could maybe get fifteen to twenty. So it kind of depends on how big the majority is. There's maybe a way to make the math work, but I don't know. I think that's it would be unlikely.

What it means is today is made first Happy may Day, and you're not going to have any kind of House speaker drama between now and November until after the election, right.

Which, again, if I'm a Democratic voter, I'm watching this and say saying, what the hell are you doing? Like let them do this, like let them fight. It's a middle of an election year. Why are you going out of your way to save Mike Johnson who just said, for example, we have a biblical mandate Johnson to step in with Israel.

Tell me if I'm still correct on this. Johnson was known as a terrible fundraiser. Is he still a bad fundraiser? Has he stepped his game up? Because if not, like one of the unspoken reasons or unspoken publicly reasons that Democrats were so happy to see Kevin McCarthy go is that he was a voracious fundraiser tends to hundreds of millions of dollars for Republican candidates, and taking that chess piece off the board meant that that was tens of millions of dollars that might not get raised and then spent against Democratic candidates. You know, the week after he was ousted, they had to cancel some gigantic fundraiser in Texas. And you would think that material interests alone would get these donors to write these checks to the political party that is benefiting their material interests.

But they also need to be sweet talked. They want that rubber chicken.

They want the speeches, they want the glad handing, they want they want the photo. They want their kid to get the internship and the chance to like whisper in the ear of the speaker. And without that, you know they're going to give less money. So if it's still the case that Johnson is a lousy fundraiser, Keem Jefferies is probably thinking let him continue as speaker.

He's not Kevin McCarthy. That's basically what I've heard in those circles. He may have he could step his game up, that's still not going to make him Kevin McCarthy. And you know, there's mixed donor opinions on some of these uniparty priorities, especially in the right now, Ukraine, et cetera.

I think the donors don't are a little Some of these rich Republicans are probably put off by his true believer.

Well he's also a true believer.

And I mean religious, yeah, right.

Whereas some of the rich problems. Yeah, they go to church and they talk about it, but they're like, oh, this guy he really means this stuff.

We Donald Trump himself was a Republican donor, and he's not going to be like persuaded by the dispensationalist biblical mandate philosophy about supporting.

Theoretical arguments about how church the separation of church and state is a myth.

People are probably aicked up by Mike Johnson, yeah, in that respect, but who knows how. I mean, he can be selling himself in a number of different ways behind closed doors. But you know, there's still there's still gonna be plenty of money that lobbyists have to throw around in the defense industry and sector. So maybe that'll help him because he got the bill over the line that said with sort of a lot of Republican voters are sort of not voters donors, mainstream Republican donors. They're not going to be happy about the border being left out of that bill.

So too.

But speaking of religious that's right. The author of the new book Pagan America.

Yes, he means it in a different way than you do, right, Ryan, he's Pagan America, and he thinks we did it mentioned accomplish the banner up.

Yet America has fallen.

Yeah. We'll be joined right after this by my college get the Federalist, Daniel Davidson, whose new book Pagan America is out right now stick around all right. We're joined now by John Daniel Davidson. He's my colleague at The Federalist, where he's a senior editor, but for the purposes of this conversation, he's also the author of a new book, Pagan America. John, Welcome to the show.

Thanks for having me.

Of course, now, a lot of our viewers, and actually a lot of the country is frankly not Christian, not practicing Christian in the way that you write about in this book and definitely probably looks at this and says, what does pagan America mean? And I'm not even just talking about people on the left, What do you mean by pagan America? And what does that mean for people who aren't right now going to church every Sunday? And honestly, would hear your description of paganism that you're going to give and say, okay, so it means we've separated a church and state.

Good, yeah, right, Okay, So pagan America is an argument that there's really only one alternative to Christianity, and it's not secularism. Its pit's paganism, right, And I don't mean that in a post Christian era that we're in, as you say, you know, many people in this country, a growing number of people are not practicing Christians, and a growing number don't even identify as Christians. I think in about thirty twenty or thirty years, we'll have Christianity as a self identified group as a minority in this country for the first time ever.

Right, they might hear post Christian America thing, I think, and Ryan, you probably hear that and you think, okay, I.

Think, okay, post Christian America is fine. Part of the argument of the book is that America as we know it and understand it is only possible with a Christian people, in other words, a people who accept basic normative claims of Christian doctrine, chief among them the doctrine of imago day that each person is created in the image and likeness of God and therefore has inherent dignity. From whence we get rights, freedom of speech, religion, consent of the governed. All of the things that we associate with our American system of government and our American way of life are products of Christian civilization. They can't exist on their own outside of that context. Outside of that context, they eventually devolve into a form of post Christian neopaganism. And that's the era that we're emerging into today. As we shed our Christian civilization, we're also going to shed those things that we associate with our American way of life that I just enumerated, And the reason is because there's no basis for them outside of a Christian moral cosmology that posits what human beings are and what their relationship to God is, and what the relationship to one another should be.

So I pride myself in reading all the books.

Before we interview the author, and I just did not have time to that's fine, to get to this one, So I apologize. So I'm coming in totally kind of blank. But why is that the case? Why can't just appreciation for civic virtue and love of country and just general morality like be enough to stitch together of people.

Well, general morality has to be based on something a vision of the world or a vision of what human beings are.

Right.

So pagan morality, and this holds true across vast expanses of time in geography and cultures, is that if you are not part of my group, then it's my moral duty to take what you have or subjugate you for the benefit of me and my people.

Right.

And that's what we see over and over again throughout history, the history of pagan peoples and cultures.

Right.

So let me ask you about so in a Christian nation for a couple hundred years, we have launched more wars than any other nation maybe in history. Like in the two hundred plus years that we've been a country, We've done some subjugating, We've done some subjugating. There have been only a few years out of all of those years, even during our isolation quote unquote isolations period while we're enacting a genocide, that we were not at war with other people in subjugating them. So what Either it's not true that Christianity allows us in a meaningful way to see others as as equals and then and treat them as we would like to be treated, or we are just overriding that as an impulse, like when when is this Christianity going to kick in?

Well, I wouldn't miss I want to be careful.

We don't mistake an ideal for you know, the history is contingent and and and we're never going to attain the ideal of like human equality right or or a perfect realization of Christian moral ideals. The United States didn't do it, European civilization didn't do it. I don't think anyone's ever going to get it right. But that doesn't negate the fundamental sort of philosophical and moral claims of Christianity.

Right.

Christianity, as opposed to many other moral and religious systems, does claim in equality between people, and that's that's where we get things like human rights.

The basis for human rights and human dignity.

So why can't you take it out in a post Christian America? Why can't you say, we like the ideas that came from Gold rules Gold, we're taking the Christ out of it and like we just.

Yeah, christless Christianity in other words, or a or a a secular humanism. Right, this is the argument you know that the Stephen Pinker or Richard Dawkins would make.

Right. You know, they want the culture without the cults.

But you can't have the culture without the cults because the culture relies on the religion, and the religious claims as the source of its vitality, the source of its coherence. Right, Why should a people who are post Christian retain Christian moral virtues?

Right?

Why should I think that all men are created equal when clearly in many ways people are not equal. We see inequality all around us. And and why shouldn't we adopt a pagan morality that says, you know, any question? And this is you know, the ancient Aristotle said this. You know, the ancient pagans they understood inequality means that some people are naturally slaves and some people are naturally rulers.

And and if.

You're poor, that fate has decided that you should be poor, and that's your lot. Christianity, you know, brought a moral revolution to this this pagan morality and this pagan cosmology and positive a radically new way of understanding the world and our relations, and it launched a radical shift in human civilizations that had never before been seen. And so America is one expression of that, right, And I mean, we can have different interpretations of American history. European civilization is of course where we came from. But we're entering, and this is what the book argues, We're entering this new of unprecedented era, a post Christian era. And my argument is we should not expect the Christian cosmology, the Christian moral virtues that organized the West for all these centuries, to remain intact, cut off from the source of their vitality, right, and we should expect something new. And the new thing we should expect is a resurgence of this pagan mentality, the pagan ethos, which is one that's based on force and coercion.

But I guess I'm still trying to figure out, like I was saying earlier, when does the Christianity kick in If the country's founded on these Christian ideals, and the country had Christians supporting slavery, Christians supporting the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, Christians supporting the Spanish Marian War.

The film.

I think these are departures from from Christianity absolutely, Okay, let's I mean, these are departures from themes of Christianity.

It's sort of like true communism has never been tried. Well, people mock that idea when you when when actual communists will.

Say, looks the communism is going to kick in.

Yeah, when's it communy? Like you say, well, the Soviet Union wasn't Cuba wasn't great. Well, then that wasn't real communism. But christ what I'm saying, Communism only had like.

A two hundred year run. Christianity has had two thousand years.

Right, and and well, I mean, I don't know about you, but.

I think that Christianity has produced a great civilization the world's ever seen. Right, which one is that this is the one that we're sitting in right now, right, that's.

Certainly a fairer, indjuster world than we've seen before.

Well, that's what I'm saying.

I mean, consider something like you know, the Roman Empire. Right, we have a tendency, I guess, since the Enlightenment to sort of romanticize the pagan past and in the Roman world, in the Greek world, those are slave societies. Most people in the Roman Empire were slaves that they didn't have anything like rights. Right, if you were a Roman citizen or a Roman aristocrat, you could do whatever you wanted to.

People who were a lower in a lower station than you.

You could rape them, you could murder them, you could you could discard them. And there wasn't seen so far from not being any kind of moral censure. It was it was like a mark of your rank that you were able to do this. This is true all through pagan societies, as I said, across time and cultures.

Well, what about what about the Ottoman Empire? What about a lot of Chinese Empire, like throughout Chinese history, like you had, Yeah, people who had probably far more right slave societies too, I mean.

Abolished slavery later actually in most of the Ottoman areas than were in the West. And what's interesting about that, I think actually is a lot one of the grossest arguments, one of the grossest Christian arguments in favor of slavery the United States was these are not people. And what's interesting about that is because you know, as soon as you acknowledge these are human beings and you're a Christian, you have to treat them equally as human beings.

Is the abolitionist argument.

Right. Well, I was going to say, if you could talk, because that's in the book about how Christians get blamed for perpetrating slavery. I think rightfully, there was a Christian argument that was made in favor of slavery. Christian argument that's made in front of awful imperialism and to your point, ethnic cleansing. But if you go to if you talk about what happened when Columbus arrived, it was bartol Madeli's Cassas that was saying this is awful from Christian perspective.

Yeah, so the debates over you know, what should yeah, what should the proper disposition of Christian Europeans be toward the indigenous peoples of the Americas. That was a debate that was initiated by Catholic monks and scholars in Spain right who.

Had debates had a view on it too.

No, I'm saying from the European perspective of what should our disposition be towards these peoples in the New World.

Uh.

And there was a there was a debate about their humanity, about what responsibilities the Catholic Church and the crown had to these people.

It was the kind of debate, you know.

The fact that they were having a debate about this at all, I would say, is a product of Christian civilization. It's not the kind of thing that would have been debated in a pagan society at all.

It would have been absolutely just these people.

The debates in the Ottoman Empire, the debates in China, debates in Japan, like there's everybody debates.

Uh.

I'm talking about a debate about whether or not these people should be just enslaved like animals and treated as such, or should their inherent dignity and humanity be recognized as children of God and our goal should be.

To bring them breaks and the Romans all debated that.

Uh.

And on one side, I mean, Aristotle debated the He disagreed with the the practice how slavery was practiced, but he accepted at the very beginning of the politics he accepts the premise of natural slavery and natural rulers. His quibble is with the implementation of it, not not with the philosophical position that slavery is a natural state for some people. And this is this was common, but this was never accepted in Christianity in centuries and centuries of Catholic Europe. It was only in a modern context in the nineteenth century when the Antebellum South posited this very Unchristian, very pagan argument that slavery was natural, and it was that aberration was a departure from how Christianity had been approaching this issue for centuries and centuries, not.

Only in the New World in eleven hundred.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

I mean the idea of human rights or of peace, of you know, that that war should should be confined and noncombatants should be protected. These were things that medieval Catholic Europe came up with.

That's true. But one reason for that is that these Christians were doing more war than anybody else, and.

Who than Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan is the exception, more more war, uh than North American, South Americans, Chinese after more.

War than the Aztecs.

I don't know, more war than you know, I mean, yea more war than the Egyptians commanche.

Yeah, you know, look look around the world, like look at the biggest wars and the US and Europe.

You're talking about modern one like World War one, world War two.

But if you're talking about right, yeah, but if you look at how far they went.

Well, World War two was a pagan war, right, I mean Nazi Germany it was a post Christian society. Uh, Communist the Soviet Union was a post Christian society.

These were these.

Were Nietzsche's primary argument against Christianity.

It was that it was in some ways to Nazis were pagan.

I think Nazis, Yeah, Nazis were absolutely pagan.

So Nazis were honest enough, like the Marquis de Right to say, if we're going to reject Christianity, then we then the Christian morality has got to go. There's no basis to treat people as though they have inherent dignity and worth.

Let's just liquidate all these people.

They tried to keep the trappings, they liked some of the trappings of Christianity, but they took Christ quite literally, took Christ out of the Christianity.

And then they go after the Communists as godless.

The Nazis where their god was sort of the pagan vulk. Right, this very clearly hearkening back to a pre Christian even in their aesthetics.

Right.

You know, there's no sense in which the Nazis were a manifestation of Christian cosmology, right, this was this was very clearly post Christian. And so when I say post Christian, and the reason I say the Nazis were at least honest about it is that if you get rid of the Christian claims, you eventually have to get rid of the Christian morality too.

So I mentioned the Marquis de Sade. During the Enlightenment there was.

This rejection, overt rejection of Christianity and specifically attacks against the Catholic Church. Marquis de Sade said, well, not only should we attack Christianity, but we should sweep away Christian morality as well. There's no reason why the strong should you know, scrape and bow before the week. That that's against nature. Right, That's yeah, that's what and that's what Marquis de said, That's what Nia said, That's what you know the Nazis said, right, And that is what Pagan society's the principle in which Pagan societies had always been organized. And what I'm saying is that Christian civilization was organized on different principles, never fully realized right, ideals that we are always moving toward, never never quite going to achieve because this is this is the world, and we're falling. You know, people are what they are, but the ideal and the claim, the ontological claim about what people are was fundamentally different than what Pagan's positive.

No go ahead for this, But I don't know. I think if if the US is held up as the example as the most Christian nation, that doesn't bode well for.

Linking nationalism and Christianity. We'll just based on our behavior over the last two hundred years.

Somewhat interesting about this conversation is that all three of us share very similar foreign policy at the moment.

So I don't know what your guys foreign policy is.

He's a full but no, I mean, we pretty much agree on what's happening right now. All that is to say, I actually think it was this was very helpful to have a conversation from the right.

We do a lot on the left and we do.

He's great to have one from the right.

Well, I appreciate y'all having me on. You read the book and then we'll come back and talk about it.

A fist fight. It'll be a to see who can try and Christian, well, if you leave me out of it would be kind of Christian. Keep the women, the vulnerable out of the fist fight, all right, John Daniel Davidson.

Thanks for joining us, Thanks for having me.

Appreciate it, all right.

Ryan, And that does it for us on today's edition of Counterpoints. But it's worth reminding people that in addition to the mugs, a premium subscription will actually also cheers our mugs on. These mugs will also get you early access to the Friday show. So premium subscription, if you go to Breakingpoints dot com, the episode we're taping for Friday will hit your inbox on Thursday. You can also get the mugs at Breaking Points dot Breakingpoints dot com. And this is a hell of a Friday show, I'll say that much.

And I mean we can tell you who's going to be on because one of the guests has been talking about it all week on his streaming program. We're gonna have Omar Padar and we're going to have a streamer who is better known as I think mister Bonelli.

Jokes, I'm too out of that rabbit hole like Eve and Sager, been having fun with these.

These he goes, he goes, he goes by Destiny, Yes, and like why we had them on as an open question TBD.

Yeah, we'll see how.

But that's the point of the conversation.

I think the best argument that you could make for it is that he makes a lot of the arguments that you see very frequently from the pro Israel It's a crowd, and he makes them very effectively, and so I think it's useful to see people kind of push back against them and encounter them. I think if he just started learning about this issue in the last six months.

Which is true of a lot of people, and normally politics are worth talking about because that's again like by definition, they're probably representative of a broad swath of the country who doesn't for a living think constantly about these issues and here every update in the news. So I think it's a contrast that's well worth developing and it'll be a really interesting conversation. So we're doing these every Friday now. We started with dun Lemon.

Last another questionable decision.

But we have a lot of really interesting ideas lined up for the future. So Breakingpoints dot Com for subscription. There you'll get the episode in your inbox Thursday night. You can also get the wonderful mugs.

I took Don Lemon's advice. I broke out my lighter jacket.

I didn't even notice.

I mean, I used to wear this deep into the fall. My wife was like, you can't wear that in the fall.

In the winter, it's a good spring, but it's a spring now, so bringing it back.

So subscribe for more of Ryan's fashion tips and to see what color jacket he wears on any given Wednesday.

I see you guys Thursday evening if you subscribe, Friday morning if you don't.