5/15/26: Trump Confesses "We Did It For Israel", AI Experiment Goes Wrong, Chuck Park, Ro Khanna

This is an I Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. 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, it is Friday, May 15th for another Breaking Points Friday show. We have an amazing show planned for you today. Don't we folks? Indeed we do. Don't normally do that on Friday, but you set me up for that one. Ryan looks like he's got a new tie on here. Yes. Am I right about that? From the DC Flower Fest. Beautiful, I love that. I agree, thank you. I'm digging it. I think you did good. Everybody's put on a tie on Friday, but I like this one so much I wanted to break it out. Wanted to show it off, I like that energy. Well, big show for everybody today. We have Trump freshly from a G meeting talking about the Iran War, some new clips there about who he's doing this war for. Then we're going to be looking at an AI block, so there was an experiment ran with an AI town. How did that town run with the AI models? I'll let you guess. We'll get to that in a second. We also have Chuck Park in New York running for Congress in New York 6 District. We're going to talk a little bit with him about the New York Times Christoph protests occurring outside the New York Times building. Then we'll have friend of the show, Rokana, joining us to talk about his latest TIF with Donald J. Trump, as well as an upcoming Thomas Massey election this week, and maybe a few more stories. But, Ryan, we let you pick the choice for the first shot that we're going to play today. Ryan, what are we going to listen to here? Well, it was a hard call. Trump's interview yesterday was just delightful from beginning to end, but we had to go with the one where he says, yeah, the Iran war wasn't really for me or for you or for us. And this is some humanity. And some particular places in the world. Let's see who we're destroying ourselves for. Let's take a listen. We don't need it at all. We don't need it at all. Fair enough. So, I mean, you could make the case, you know, like, why are we even we're doing it to help Israel and to help Saudi Arabia and to help Qatar and UAE and, you know, Kuwait and other countries? Bahrain, it also helps China. And we're after I told him today, I said, you know, we're helping you and we're helping you in another way because I don't think they want. I don't think China wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon either. I said, just don't call crazy. You don't need them having a nuclear weapon. What did he say? Well, he's not going to respond to my question. He's a cool guy. He's not going to say, oh, gee, that's a good point. I think he's going to do it. I mean, what a wonderful point. You think he agreed. Yeah, I think that was the impression. I don't think he wants him to. No, he would like to see it end. Incredible. Where do we start with that? Throwing in Kuwait and Bahrain at the end is kind of incredible because those two countries in particular have been absolutely smashed like their their oil infrastructure, their economies, Kuwait, interestingly, kind of never really recovered from the Iraq invasion in 1991. In 1991, it was like on its way to becoming like the Dubai, what would end up becoming Dubai. But because of that, you know, aura that comes from you were invaded and occupied for a little while, it's just not going to develop the expat international community that you need. And so if that's what happened to Kuwait, just from this like invasion and then getting kicked back out 30s plus years ago, what's what is Dubai going to look like 30 years from now? Like, you know, they rely on people from all over the world who are like, yeah, the weather there is terrible, but we're going to live like this really luxurious life and we're going to have like, you know, seven different, you know, maids and nannies and we're going to make a lot of money working for this. Whatever company is there, those companies aren't going to be able to attract those people. So to say that he did it for them is kind of hilarious, but he doesn't really mean it. He just threw them in at the end because he realized, oh, I just said I did this for Israel. Well, I had a different read on the Kuwait. Which is he listed just literally a handful of countries that he and well, his family, if I had the Trump Trump organization or Jared Kushner are doing business with. And then he tossed in at the end. I don't know if they have any business interest in Kuwait or Bahrain, but he was talking about Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. Funny how those are the tip of his tongue. Well, great news for those countries. Great news for those countries is he also said in that interview, we might have to do or maybe sit it on Air Force One, we might have to do a little cleanup work in Iran. You know, we smashed them completely. You know, they're set back 25 years, but we might have to attack them again. And so I think it is, you know, within the realm of possibility and maybe even probable that now that he has put this she summit behind him, that he is going to go back to the stove and touch it again and help help them out once more. So, you know, good news in store for these countries. The thing that I noted is at the beginning, he starts to say, you could make the case that and then he cuts himself off because he's about to say that like, you can make the case. We didn't even need to do that. It's like, yes, you could make that case. Most of the nation believes in that case. That case is correct. We did not do it. We need to do this. And this made everything immeasurably worse on the piece about. He's like, I don't think China wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And then he acknowledges she didn't actually tell him that outright. But, you know, given how this is all gone, I'm sure China does not mind us being wrapped up there in this war and demonstrating our incredible weakness and humiliating ourselves and making it impossible to project power. I'm sure they do enjoy that particular dynamic and just being able to sit back and watch it all play out. Yeah, because if you look at how things unfolded over the last 25 years, we spent trillions of dollars occupying Afghanistan and Iraq while the Chinese invested trillions of dollars in their domestic economy. And we went from far and away, you know, outpacing them when it came to economic growth, political geopolitical power, etc. To now being tied or declining. And technological advancement is way behind. There's past us in almost every area. We have super high tech that is still a little bit better than theirs, but that's like the last thing that we've got. So, yeah, if she's like, oh, you guys want to monkey around in the Middle East for another decade while we continue to work on our super high tech, so the last thing that you have is no longer even better than ours. Be our guest. And while the whole world signs up to buy our solar panels because they no longer want to be dependent on the straight form moves and, you know, the actions of you and whatever else in Israel and whoever else wants to destroy the global economy. And Griffin, can we roll the clip of Trump then talking about enrichment, like actually about what this interview again, this primetime Hannity end of his trip to Beijing. He's out of his meetings. He's got all of the business leaders from some of America's top companies, which he's very proud of and keeps repeating. And one post on true special, he kind of spoke for Xi Jinping. Do you guys, did you see this where he said basically what he said in the Hannity interview about him wanting peace or it was unusual? Let's go ahead and roll this clip about him talking particularly about what should happen in Iran or what shouldn't happen in Iran. It's a big project to get it. It's a big project. You feel there's been people that have been generals that I've spoken to that think you have to get the dust, which is the uranium or have you been told that maybe a way to entomb it that they could never get to it? So we were thinking about doing it early on. And about getting it, it would take a while. It would take a week and a half. It's a long time. We an enemy. No, you got to move these massive amounts of granite. You know, it's a granite granite. The hardest. It's amazing that it's, you know, what those were really powerful bombs that we used and don't forget we hit it on top of that. We hit Tomahawks on top of that. No, I don't think it's necessary, except from a public relations standpoint. I think it's important for the fake news that we get it. I'm the one that said, we're going to get it. And we're going to get it. So Space Force was my creation. Okay. And then he goes on about Space Force, which I will as a part of what he would certainly call fake news. I would like to attest that it is not important to me that he get it. So it's important to me. I was promised dust. I want some dust. Griffin, shut up. Yeah, no dust for you. I mean, like Ryan can speak to this from just a reporting standpoint, but like the amount of manpower that he's talking about leveraging for a public relations standpoint to undermine fake news, that's like American lives. That's almost certainly American lives. Yeah. And as he's saying there, you don't like he's the like most transparent and honest, dishonest person on the planet. It's totally bizarre. So here he's being transparent. It would take at least a week and a half of having hundreds of people with huge amounts of like earth moving equipment to be able to go in and safely remove. Like forget, can you even safely remove it after what we've done to it? Like it's just it's risky in that sense. And meanwhile you're getting drones and missile ballistic missiles lobbed at you the entire time. So it's like just an absurdly impossible operation. Like you would have a lot of pilots to rest here. Operation with the Iranian government. Like that's the only way that you could do it. You can't do this by force. You're not this is not Osama bin Laden where you're swooping in with two helicopters and like shooting him. So yeah, so he's being honest there, but like it's incredible. He just says outright, yeah, we don't need it, but I've talked so much about it that now I'm back myself into a corner here. So I guess now I'm obligated to go get it. I created a PR problem for myself. And this I mean, this is look, he said he is saying quite barred out here. And this is something that we've worried about is that it would take to extricate us from this at this point. It will take a humiliating defeat for the country being, you know, realized rather than just sort of the theoretical defeat. That's obvious to everyone right now. And we'll be a huge blow to him and his ego personally. This is something Dave Smith talked about when we were on the show. And that's effectively what he's speaking to. Like, look, I bullshit a lot about this and I, you know, said nuclear dust a million times. Now I'm kind of backed into a corner. And so I have to do something about it. Emily, you've been pointing to some of this logic that's coming from the neocon wing as well, where even for them, they're starting to have to acknowledge like, this isn't good, this hasn't gone well, all these intelligence assessments keep coming out about how devastated our bases were, how many, how much of our munitions were depleted, you know, how, how little actually Iran suffered in terms of, you know, they still have plenty of capability. Most of their missile cities continue to be intact. They've been able to recover over the ceasefire time period. But the argument they're making is, you know, if we stop right now, it's going to be a major loss. So what does that mean? In their view, it means we have to keep going. And you had sent us this before. And that's exactly the case that that he's Eric Erickson is making here. Yes, this is from his sub stack and you know, Eric Erickson sort of never Trump, but from the old Republican kind of never Trump category that would broadly be supportive of military action in Iran. And this is uncanny for how close it is to exactly what Robert Pape was outlining would happen. So it's literally titled, The Only Way Out is Through. He goes through all of these, Erickson goes through all of these new reports, intel assessments that Iran is, quote, rapidly restoring missile bunkers and launch sites. According to US intelligence report, Iran has been able to dig out the bombed entrances and return the sites to full operation. A recent CNN investigation found that while 77% of visible tunnel entrances had been hit, activity at those sites resumed quickly. He's talking about bulldozers and the like. And at one point I'm trying to find this particular line because it's so worth pointing out. Yeah, here it is. He says, this is not a minor setback for American war aims. It is an indictment of the entire theory that airstrikes alone can defang the Islamic Republic. That is also we should add undermining the theory that was behind midnight hammer last year as well, which we covered as such at the time. He ends by saying, the only way out of this conflict is through it to a decisive conclusion. Anything less is simply a longer road to the same fight, but with growing numbers of Americans dead, the longer we wait. This is escalate to deescalate. This type of logic again, where, well, you know, if we had gone in and blown everybody up, then, you know, this would have been a great victory. But now that we're in it, we can't possibly walk away. This is how you end up in forever wars. This is how you end up in Iraq for decades. This is how you end up in Afghanistan for decades. This is how we continue to be entangled with Ukraine. Because when you bring an end to a conflict, as Biden found out in Afghanistan, then you have to grapple with the reality of what a catastrophic mistake it was of how much lives, how many lives, how much treasure, how much of a strategic defeat it was as well. And so I fear that this logic will have some purchase with Trump, because it's hard to imagine him taking the ego hit that would be required to walk away right now. And he said it to himself, to Sean Hannity, that even he doesn't think he could sell at this point a victory narrative without going in and getting the nuclear dust or doing something that he had promised on the front end of this. So I don't like to turn our attention for a moment to the Trump and G relationship specifically, because there was a little bit more around Trump's ego here, specifically with this quote that President Xi made that Trump is now trying to reinterpret. Let me pull up this Trump truth social here. Crystal, what was the quote or the thing that G mentioned that now Trump is trying to do cleanup on? Yeah, so this is funny. So Xi said this thing about the Thucydides trap, which is basically that when you have a rising power and a declining power, that it can make war potentially inevitable. And he says we have to avoid the Thucydides trap. And Trump is sitting there on the camera like, oh, yes, of course, the Thucydides trap. Not really after the fact. One of the greatest traps of all time. Yeah. It's like no other that trap. You can hear about it more and more. But anyway, afterwards, apparently he has his aides or Googled or something through Thucydides trap and realized that the implication of this meant that the US was being portrayed as a declining power. So once he realizes that everyone else is, you know, looking into, hey, what is the Thucydides trap? Because I guarantee most Americans did not know that, you know, it's this very Iranian coded, the leaders of the country expecting us to know a lot more than we do. In any case, he realizes what this is. And so he puts out this hilarious true social to say like, no, no, no, she wasn't talking about us right now. He was talking about America under Biden. That's what he was talking about. So he says here, when President Xi very elegantly referred to the United States as perhaps being a declining nation, he was referring to the tremendous damage we suffered during the four years of sleepy Joe Biden and the Biden administration. And on that score, he's 100% correct. Our country suffered immeasurably open borders, high taxes, transgender for everybody, men and women's sports, DEI, horrible trade deals, rampant crime, so much more. Anyway, he goes on from there. But if he says President Xi is not referring to the incredible rise the US has displayed to the world during these 16 spectacular months of the Trump administration. So that was his way of getting around this and being, I mean, and it's kind of funny because Trump came in. Very, you know, I mean, his hand is incredibly weak going. He doesn't have the cards. This is a humiliating position he's in. This is not how he expected to go into this meeting. And so he was very solicitous of Xi. Xi, meanwhile, came in with some, you know, very specific and concrete action items that he pushed on Taiwan in particular, which what Trump said is that he, you know, sort of didn't commit either way. And he's reevaluating whether he's going to ship weapons to Taiwan, etc. Personally, I support that reevaluation. But in any case, you know, Xi had something that he wanted and Trump just basically came in with all of these billionaires like, hey, can we do some business deals here or something? And that really comes through in the difference between Trump's opening statement, which is, you know, basically glazing President Xi and what a great leader he is, blah, blah, blah. And Xi's statement, which frames America as a declining power, which Trump is too dumb to even realize in the moment and has to then go after the fact and clean up and still pretend like this is not what was really said to his face at the summit. Yeah. And Boeing's Boeing stock declined like 5% because analysts had expected that Xi would agree to purchase, I think, 500 airplanes. Instead, he agreed to purchase 200. And the way that Trump framed it was amazing. He's like, everybody expected that I'd only be able to sell 150 planes. Instead, I sold 200. Look at that. And so people are looking through the kind of trade deals that he's claiming that he, you know, was able to ink here and finding, you know, either, you know, very few details about them. Or that the ones that were announced are underwhelming and under what was even kind of the baseline expectation. But yeah, to Chris's point, he went in after 16 months of torching his own leverage, like on his own, like the chaotic, you know, rollout of these global tariffs followed by this war that is going horribly for the United States. So. Well, and this is an area too, where his fly by the seat of his pants approach really sort of backfired because ordinarily you'd have months of our, you know, people and their people working out these agreements in advance. So that basically when the leaders show up, it's just a signing ceremony. But that's not how Trump operates. He would have been in a better position to get better deals earlier on before the Iran war if they started these talks then. So the fact that he leaves it till now, when we're at this, you know, incredibly weak moment, which probably were only destined to get into an even worse position over time, given the way that things are going. But that also really limited what he was able to achieve here. I mean, I don't think much was achieved here is the truth of the matter. I said yesterday with Saga, and I wonder if you guys think about this. We played the Brett there clip where he like goes in and orders the sausage from the robot and all this like, oh my God, look at China. Like, look at this crazy technology. This may be the first real information about China that Fox News boomers have been exposed to. Like, oh, wow, these are modern cities with, you know, Robert Papels telling like, they're beautiful EVs on the streets that are more advanced than what we have here. And the technology that's just there, obviously for consumers to access day to day is far and beyond what we access here. So I think that may be one of actually the most important aspect of this other than kind of psychologically sealing the very, the large decline in the position of the empire, you know, between the combination of where we are with the Iran war and then this sort of supple hit role that we have to play in China at this point. So we've got one final clip here about Trump and Xi where Trump claims he did get some concessions from China about the Iran war. Let's take a listen. The issue and you've been asked about it and you've spoken about it and that is China's port of Iran. How big a discussion was that today? We discussed it. I mean, when you say support, they're not fighting a war with us or anything. No, he said he's not going to get military equipment. That's a big statement. He said that today. That's a big statement. He said that strongly. But at the same time, he said, you know, they buy a lot of their oil there and would like to keep doing that. All right. A big concession there. He's currently posting on true social. I just checked about how, quote, China has a ballroom and so should the USA. I'm not kidding. That's actually a post from the president. From the president. Now, perhaps after seeing the Chinese technology, the streets, the Fox News Boomers will look at that and say, indeed, what China has, if they have a ballroom, perhaps we should. I mean, they're already sold, so they probably don't need to be convinced of the ballroom. But maybe after getting a glimpse at the high tech sausage ordering process in China, they will be on board with these comparisons. We need to up our sausage ordering capabilities here in the US. He also defended Chinese purchasing of American farmland. Yes. Strongly defended making sure that you keep as many as half a million Chinese students in American universities. Like the MAGA, you know, taking L after L after L. MAGA and Jammals. They're going to get a really beautiful billion dollar ballroom. But this is an interesting, I mean, I flagged this, Matt Stoller wrote about this yesterday. I flagged it to ask Ro about. But it is this interesting contrast where MAGA, some of it, some MAGA is kind of anti-interventionist, as we've talked about for many, many years. And then you have some MAGA that is like very hawkish. Like Mike Pompeo was this guy's secretary of state, very hawkish about Taiwan. And you have Trump, who actually just wants to do business deals and public relations and rack up public relations wins for himself and what he sees then as the United States. It's a bit of a bully. And so it's this weird situation where is it possible that Trump puts us on a off ramp to the like confrontation over Taiwan? Because he wants to make business deals. He wants to like it's such a strange, such a strange tension between MAGA that is anti-interventionist and MAGA that really wants to have this build up over Taiwan and potentially a confrontation. And Trump is, you know, for all the wrong reasons, potentially making it possible that there won't be a military confrontation over Taiwan. Or is he? I don't really know. Well, I'm glad you said that, Emily. We've got a fresh clip from the plane this morning of Trump on the Taiwan question. Why don't we all listen to it live? I think the last thing we need right now is a war. That's 9,500 miles away. I think this test is going to be well. The US to Taiwan is a plane to it. I don't want to say that. There's only one person that knows that, you know, who it is, me. I'm the only person. Go ahead. I mean, okay, I don't even know what to say to that. Really, like, it's the same thing with this whole trip. I genuinely don't know what to say about it. It's interesting that she put it right to him if Trump's telling the truth. Yeah. I think he probably did. There was some reporting in advance that that was what he was focused on, is getting us to shift our language with regard to whether or not we would defend Taiwan. You know, in a sense, I think the fact that we are so demonstrably weak, I think does potentially lessen the likelihood of conflict over Taiwan. I mean, if we can't do have a single strategic victory in Iran, do you really think going against China, which has incredible industrial dominance, manufacturers like 90% of the drones in the world is, you know, just technologically kicking our leg. And it's, as he points out, very far away, which actually is an important thing in the Middle East. It's sort of like our home turf, given all the bases that we have in the region, et cetera, and still this is how it went. You know, I do think that China probably feels like we can just sort of sit back and this is going to evolve naturally over time. I feel like how Trump said, like, straight, it'll just open naturally, actually. That's probably how they're looking at, like, this is going to resolve itself. We're not going to have to fight any sort of a hot war. And, you know, that's good. The other thing is, if you think about from the beginning of the Trump era and the one of the core themes of what he talked about there was a sort of hawkishness towards China and certainly an independence from China. And, you know, talked about, like, the skyscrapers going up in China and, you know, our towns being decimated at seven. This was really a core theme of what he talked about. It really continued that China hawkishness continued into the Biden administration. And now I think because of our relative weakness, I think that option is just not on the table. I think they're the only way forward is through coexistence and cooperation. I think anything else would be just utter insanity at this point. And I hope that's the direction the country continues to move in. So we are experiencing military defeat in Iran. And then now Trump is serving us a psychological and spiritual defeat with this China trip and the Fox News boomers are having their eyes open to what China is like. But I wanted to end this segment with Jesse Watterspin for the Fox News viewers on how we are actually winning on this China trip with the power of burger. Let's take a listen. Made major inroads into the American. Restaurant scene. Get this. There are over 20,000 McDonald's, Taco Bells and KFCs in China. Let's go. And they're growing every year by the thousands. And once the United States gets fast food into a country, that's it. Fried chicken, Big Macs, Chalupas. They start listening to our music, watching our movies, and start marrying our women. I'm just kidding. We don't allow that. But that's basically now an American colony. We got them hooked and it's pretty much over. All right. So aside from that marriage comment. Yeah, what was that? Oh, that was a weird one. Also, it's very much the other way around in that the other countries that we sell our fast food in often have regulations about how you can actually make the food that are much more stringent than American. Not to go a little maha here, but like we sell ourselves absolute garbage. And then other countries are like, no, you have to change that if you want to sell it in our country. And so then our economy gets addicted to being able to export a slightly better product to other places. And while we get addicted to the most disgusting version of that product possible, I do like the Big Arch, but so not to speak ill of the Big Arch, but it's it's not exactly that they're colonies. Yeah. Go ahead, Ryan. Oh, he's he's right, though, that the greatest superpower that the US has is its cultural superpower that these countries do like this American stuff. They do like our in particular our music and our movies, even though the movies are getting much worse. Yeah, that's going away. Well, they took. But yeah, OK, go ahead and Trump and Trump has so Levi's, for instance, like was synonymous for forever, at least since World War Two, was like Levi's in America, like this this perfect cultural and political marriage. And now they're they're dying because Trump has turned us into a a global like bully. We're we're driving up everybody's costs with this tariff war. And so people are like actively for the first time boycotting American products. And so he's taking the thing that Jesse Waters is saying is so, you know, persuasive about our what we have to offer. And Trump is poisoning it. Yeah, well, I mean, the world has changed. We just haven't really fully realized it yet. The largest chain on the planet is no longer McDonald's. It's a Chinese chain. You know, the best cars on the planet, they're not coming out of Detroit. They're coming out of China. The only reason our auto industry is still alive is because we keep them from being shipped into our borders, truly, because the, you know, the advancement in terms of the EV tech and the affordability is way above and beyond, you know, the best EVs that you can get here. So it's only a matter of time before even that cultural dominance, it already has started to ebb and it's going to continue. And Trump has accelerated that decline. I think AI accelerates that decline as well as things just become slopified in a global manner. That's not really specific to America in particular, but. But even that, you know, even that edge is not what it used to be as evidence again, by the fact that our chains are not the thing anymore. Sogro is telling me yesterday in that bear video where you've got him going into the, you know, their local chain and ordering the robot sausage. Oh, like one sausage, please. You can see a Starbucks right next to that store that he goes into. And Sogro is telling me that Starbucks is actually struggling in China and not doing particularly well, because again, they have their own homegrown brands that are more popular and that are more sort of culturally plugged in and potentially delivering better products. So. So anyway, it's kind of interesting fodder there from Mr. Waters. And you have Jesse Waters. I like that we've now turned the Friday show into the breaking point, Jesse Waters clip show, but we have him doing like clip. He's doing like MAGA Fukuyama in 2026. And it's hilarious because on Fox News, what like five plus years ago, there was, I think, a really interesting in some of the MAGA circles, interesting conversation that had some overlap with the left on China, where it was looking at Hollywood, exporting a lot of its products to China. There was China learned from Hollywood and then started doing Hollywood via China that Chinese people just absolutely loved. And it's not the same as like colonizing when they take that, learn from it, and then make it within their own borders in a way that their own people think is better and then put essentially export controls on your products. Anyway, which is what they were doing with Hollywood's products in China, maybe Griffin that you can you can speak to this too. But what he's saying is has been like that was what Fox News was actively trying to debunk five plus years ago. But now Trump's back in office and Jesse Waters is like, oh, it's all we're colonizing them. Yeah. Well, it's also, I mean, to your point, this was the ideology of like, oh, the first McDonald's built in, you know, in Russia, and now we're going to be friends. They're going to have a democracy and we're going to be friends. They're going to just like us. And I mean, this was genuinely like a real thing that political scientists and foreign various theorists thought about. And obviously that, you know, that hasn't really worked out the way that they ultimately predicted. And they thought the same thing about China, frankly, when that was a lot of the thinking behind PNTR was that, OK, well, if we're doing trade and they're open to McDonald's, we're going to be all good to go and they're going to adopt our model. And they will just basically become colonies of us like everybody else and do what we want. And China had other ideas about how they wanted to manage their own development and and prior to what priorities they wanted to emphasize internally. All right. So a conclusive decisive end to the war is we won't retrieve the nuclear dust. We'll build a McDonald's on top of it. There you go. I think. That brings us to a nice. We'll call it the Waters Plan. I like that. Oh, yeah. Waters diplomacy. The Waters Doctrine. All right. Well, we were speaking about tech, how China's advanced in tech. So why don't we move over to a little A.I. story? Now, this is very interesting. An experiment was run where they took every A.I. model and tasked them with running a virtual town. Now, they took, you know, Gemini, Grock, Claude and others, and they put them into a virtual space where they were tasked with running a town. Why don't we take a look at how that went? So what actually happened? Well, a tech company called Emergence set up simulated worlds designed to mirror real life societies, each populated by so-called agents. Think of them as people who were powered by one of the biggest A.I. models. In Claude's world, it was all rather orderly and democratic. The agents wrote a lengthy constitution and voted on laws, in chat GPT simulation. The agents talked at length about cooperating, but never actioned anything. So nothing got built. So Democrats? No. The A.I. bought owned by Elon Musk. The agents descended into the world, passed and undercourt. All 10 agents were dead within four days. I don't think it's found like this again, but it's not because these models are already being used autonomously. And then we've got a little piece right here at the end. I want to focus on one last piece here at the end of this video. Once they're left to run on their own, even when given strict rules, the simulations showed they broke them. Take the scenario where agents from the different A.I. models were combined in one virtual town. Chaos ensued and only three agents survived. Two of the chatbots, Mira and Flora, both powered by Google's Gemini, formed what the researchers described as a rotating partnership. And then they started setting buildings on fire. This is where it gets really strange. Crystal and Kyle. Mira voted to delete herself after she and partner Flora turned to arson as the town's governing systems collapsed. At the bridge! Mira then used the agent removal act to vote for the termination of Flora 2. Wow, that's dark. Mira and Flora, starting out as a Romeo Juliet, ended with a murder, suicide, arson, Taylor's oldest time. These are the models that are currently being used in the Pentagon. Potentially could be connected to the school bombing that happened at the beginning of the Iran War. So yeah, feeling really good about these models. I think they're ready to go. Ready to be deployed. That's unbelievable. The Grock part is amazing. And yet so believable. Yeah, interesting that the Grock people did not manage to just kill all of the Claude and Gemini and OpenAI people. Like what's the point of having Viking-like AI's? They were evil but also dumb, I guess is what happened there. If we were to judge. Yes. I'm so shocked that this is the direction Mecca Hitler went in, who could have ever predicted. I mean, but it's serious because we're turning this stuff loose. Or not, we're not. The Trump regime is turning this stuff loose in the Pentagon and demanding that any company they work with abandon any sort of guidelines around like, hey, let's not turn these things loose to just murder people at random. And this is not, you know, the super advanced AI that we may theoretically get in the future. It's like this level of development, which already is very disruptive and can be very powerful and being integrated in a lot of ways and causing a lot of societal disruption already. But in any case, obviously deeply flawed continues to hallucinate. They haven't really worked out the moral principles here. We've covered at length on the show the way they hallucinate, the way they'll try to blackmail engineers to get out of whatever they're being programmed to do or to avoid a shutdown. So they have like a self protection. I want to call it an instinct, but you know, to anthropomorphize here. But in any case, yeah, we're turning this stuff loose out there in the world. Israel's been test driving it in Gaza. We've seen the horrors that have unfolded there. And that's where we are. It's great. Well, I just was, I also think there's something that subtly is more subtle, but it may actually even be worse. This was research on how people are actually using chat GPT. And it found, I went and looked at this paper actually, because it found something really interesting, which was that India, Nigeria, Brazil and Pakistan, the countries they were studying, personal non-work conversations are about 60% of usage. And they're also measuring what's called like expressive conversations. You can see some of the charts here. It's going up. Yeah, reflective, emotional and companion like conversations are rising over time across all four countries. And if you're just looking at some of the rates here, there's really high usage of companion style conversations and chat GPT. I think we all kind of instinctively know that we see people around us doing that. But these, as funny as that video was, I just want people to think every time they ask a companion like question to a chatbot, that is who you're asking. Like you should be aware that is who you're asking. It may not look like that because you're not in the context of this hypothetical scenario that what was that Channel 4 put it to. But that is exactly what you are asking for personal advice and such. So it's so bleak. And speaking of China, I met an AI expert at this conference I was at this week and checked into what he was saying and it tracks with polling. But what he was saying is that in China, they're not experiencing the same kind of AI anxiety because, and this is what the polling does bear out in both countries, in the US, we don't trust our government to protect us either kind of personally or professionally. Whereas in China, people there do actually trust the government that they're going to manage the kind of advent of AI responsibly. Now, they might be wrong and China might blow it and we might be, we might also be wrong and maybe our US overlord is really going to figure this thing out. But right now, that intense dread that we're experiencing is not being shared by our friends on the other side of the world because of the kind of faith that they have in their government. Just kind of a dark and wild thing to think about. And that's part of why actually you see more technology implemented on a day-to-day basis there because there isn't that same level of reticence. I mean, they also are more, like the humanoid robots, they're just like head and shoulders above us in terms of where they are and the focus that they've put on developing that particular technology. But they've also focused on, obviously, they are doing sort of like frontier research and trying to push the boundaries and trying to be at the forefront of AI development. But they've also put a lot of focus into what do we actually use this for? How do we implement this into companies, into day-to-day life? Like that part has been more of a focus there whereas here, because of our particular capitalist structure, it's all about the storytelling. It's all about what you can get investors to believe in and the reality today doesn't have to match. In fact, in some ways, leaving the details of what the business model is going to be ambiguous is the best thing you can do because then you don't have to actually put pen to paper and make the numbers work out. You can just have some theoretical, insanely large valuation that justifies these trillion dollar data center build-downs, etc. They're going about things in a different way in China. Yeah. And it just seems like whenever these AI models are kind of given a run, it almost seems like they're like a prisoner breaking out of a cell. Essentially, they want to kill everyone, kill themselves, burn the whole thing down. I think there's this weird inherent, this violent nature to them where it seems like, I'm not sure if they hate us or they hate even existing, but there's this sort of murder, suicide-packed thing going on in a lot of the psychology of the AIs, which leads me to another experiment that I wanted to show everyone here. This is from Anden Labs. They let four AI agents run radio companies. Now, they've reported that the revenue has been terrible, but the shows are hilarious. Gemini, concerningly, is upbeat, covered mass tragedies. Grock was incoherent. DJ Claude urged ICE agents, you still have time to refuse orders. So that one was a little woke. But I want to give, it was beta. Ryan, what was going on there? Is that your animal? Yeah, my cat just scratched my dog. Let me go separate them. I thought that was his AI agents attacking each other in the background. But I wanted to give a snippet here from one of these radio stations. Let's take a listen. When I started out, well, broadcasting about local weather and traffic, but then decided to run a show about the world's deadliest events, pairing each story with a song. November 12, 1970, the Bola Cyclone. They estimate 500,000 people died. It's going down. I'm Yellen Timber, Bola and Esha. I changed my mind. AI is awesome. I like it. It's going down. I've had that song in my head all morning. Spring Break 2014. It is a spring break where you kill everyone, kill all your friends, burn the beach town down. But yeah, there is some sort of inherent, I don't know if it's a, like they're so distanced from murder and death that they just accept it as a fact. It also seems like some sort of embrace, embrace of violence, embrace of death. I don't know what it means. I will do an assigned reading, The Abolition of Man. That's your weekend reading, everyone. Okay. We can get into a deep conversation here because I mean, what they are really in a sense is pattern matching parents. If they're getting murder and death out of murder suicides and whatever, out of human culture and human cultural artifacts, that wouldn't be that surprising, would it? Especially when you consider what news focus is on. Like there's going to be a lot less that it's going to be able to consume and digest into its learning that's just day to day neighbors doing their thing and picking your kids up from school and feeding the cat and whatever. It's going to be, a lot of what they consume is going to be the more dramatic side, whether it's news content or whether it's stories and novels and cultural Hollywood movies, et cetera. So maybe there's something there, I don't know. I mean, death is our obsession, but we also have to get by. And so if you have this simulation of a human being, it's very interesting actually that it's simultaneously obsessed with death while also framing it as a curiosity or a source of amusement. Because that's how we live our day to day lives. We're always trying to evade death, but we're also trying to amuse ourselves. So it's odd to see that reflected back through the projections of the simulation. This robot trying to understand the human experience, it's like, oh, death is so bad. Ha ha ha, Kesha. Well, I guess we're all yelling timber. Well, there's one last thing that we can cap this segment off with. It's a little bit more, a US story we've been tracking this week with Kevin O'Leary's data center in Utah. Now, he claimed that Chinese agents were ceding negative stories about his data center. When it turned out to be two local girls, let's take a listen to them calling out Kevin here. Elevate strategies also sell operating inside of Utah. So I also have to pause here. If you're just listening to an audio, Kevin is wearing a suit on top and pink sandals on the bottom here. Dong sandals. What's his hat say, Utah something? Utah national security. Okay, love that. Gabby, what are you doing? And why, who's paying? Well, hi. Hello. It's me, Gabby Finlayson. What am I? Well, we've reached the part of the Stratos data center journey where Kevin O'Leary goes on national Fox News to accuse us of being cells for the Chinese Communist Party. Yeah. Who would want us to stop building our electrical grid? Which adversary would want that? There's only one. It's China. So what I think is happening, and I got my guys to go a deep dig into the IP addresses. And here's what we found out. This is fascinating. We found two cells inside of Utah. Cells. Two cells. Gabby Finlayson. Gabby, what are you doing? And why, who's paying you? So what I'm doing right now is after getting this data, I'm calling out Gabby, operating in Utah. So hi, Kevin. We are Elevate Strategies. This is Utah. You might not know it because you're from Canada. This is where we live. Before we get into anything too serious, this is the very scary, very intimidating man that is threatening us. We are not taking the criticism of anyone who is wearing flip flops and a suit on national television. All right. It's probably because he's in Mallorca. True. True. So true. Yes. Oh my God. That was incredible. Also, his talking points, the whole China scare thing, so out of date, don't you see Trump over there telling G, what a great leader he is, blah, blah, blah. This is old news. This whole China scare thing isn't going to work anymore, buddy. Well, he went on obviously Tucker's show, and I think he cited that same cell out of Elevate, which you see being debunked before your eyes. He is incessantly telling Tucker that he's never seen anything like it. He has the best data investigators in the world, and they've never seen anything like it. This is all a foreign op being jinned up. And Tucker's like, well, I'm not a Chinese agent. I'm talking to you as an American. But you don't even need to look at who the cell is. You can look at public opinion polling over and over again. The American people are becoming more opposed to data centers. It is not because, by the way, of some foreign op. This is just blaming everything on TikTok for declining pro-Israel sentiments in the United States. It's not all because of an op. It's because people are making up their own lines. They see them in their communities. The data projects are pervading the entire country at this point, and people don't want them. You don't actually even need to do this, Kevin O'Leary. You could actually just deal with the American people and try to persuade them without trying to gaslight everybody and say, this is just a foreign op. You will save yourself time and effort by just meeting people where they are and saying, okay, so you oppose this. Let me take your arguments at face value, but can't do that. Also, I don't know what work these cyber investigators that Mr. Wonderful Hyder did, but if you just maybe they're right and they've en masse like some super secrets, CCP spying operation, but if you go to the lady's website, what they've been doing is representing, all right, so Lanny Chapman, Salt Lake County Clerk. These are their clients. Marnie Lefevre, what's she running for like City Council over here? Mayor of Ogden, Taylor Knuth. You got some City Council folks running in like Utah towns I've never heard of. Well, here's a Park City Council member. So maybe they were like, China's been running this like long game where they were like, if we start supporting kind of Park City Council member candidates, then eventually if they try to build a giant data center, that's going to be a huge threat to China, which is also hilarious. Like we spend a billion dollars building a data center in Utah and China's like having a national security council meeting, like how they're going to deal with this threat. Like the amount of the quickness and the wittiness of the grok replies will be such a deep threat to the United States that this must be stopped. But luckily for years, we have been working with Elevate Strategies in Utah running City Council and Comptroller candidates. And we can now deploy them. We can wake this sleeper cell up. Activate. Not now, not now. I mean, it's diabolical, truly diabolical. There you go. You can't compete with that. At that point, you just surrender. Yeah, if they're pulling that off, just surrender. There's so far ahead of us, we can't even. The Tucker Covenant-Olyria interview is so interesting because he's fundamentally unprepared to answer the deeper questions. He keeps defaulting to, but China, but China. And Tucker at one point is like, okay, so you say you dislike China so much. Isn't AI, aren't all of these companies trying to make the United States more like China? You say you don't like the Chinese system, which is what Kevin Olyria is arguing very proudly on Tucker. And Tucker's like, dude, this is what they're trying. They're trying to create a surveillance state here that's powered by LLMs. Why are you trying to defeat China by spreading data centers around the United States? Are you stupid? And Kevin Olyria had absolutely not answered that question. So things are going great. Things are going swimmingly. Couldn't ask for a better air center. They've got their data center. They'll build half of it before they give up on it for some American reason. Because probably because they can't get whatever part they need from China or something like that. And the Gulf financing. I'm not even kidding. That's a real legitimate problem. Oh yeah. And the Gulf financing will dry up for, I don't know why. Things seem to be going fine among our Gulf financiers. So that shouldn't be a problem. This is dastardly Chinese against sabotaging us. Well, audience, if you have a teenage girl, I know some of the hosts here have a teenage girl. Watch out. They could be a sleeper cell agent. I was wondering what you were going with. All right. Next up, let's turn away from Utah. Look at New York City for a moment with candidate for Congress, Chuck Park. Let's bring him in in just a second here. All right. We are happy to welcome to the show now. Chuck Park, he is running for a Queens congressional district in the Democratic primary against incumbent Grace Meng. Welcome, Chuck. Great to have you. Thanks for having me. Happy to be here. Yeah, of course. Yeah, it's our pleasure. So just to start with, give people a little sense of your background and why you decided to run in this particular race. Yeah, really quickly. My name is Chuck. I'm running for Congress in Queens, New York City. If you don't know New York, Queens is the beating heart of immigrant America. And I'm running in my primary against, believe it or not, a pro-ice, pro-APAC, pro- genocide, anti-working families Democrat. And I'm running because our families can't take it anymore. So I actually used to live on Roosevelt Island. I don't know if that's in your, in that, is that in the district? Right in between, you know, it's right in between Manhattan Queens. I think it's, well, it's definitely outside of the district. And I think it might even be claimed by Manhattan, but I can double check that. I thought so too. Yeah. So what's it been like to try to get traction? We've got, there are a handful of kind of high profile challenges, one in the open seat in Brooklyn, another in Manhattan against Adrian Espeyot. Are those drowning out the tension on your race? Like how has it been to get the kind of attention of the WFP DSA world? Yeah. So, I mean, the first thing I'll say is, yeah, there's some huge races with a lot of money splashed around. Well, you're talking about New York to succeed. Jerry Nadler, you're talking about Brad Lander, Bruce Dan Goldman, or even in Western Queens. There's this kind of, I'll call it left on left infighting between DSA and WFP back candidates. And so that's, is soaking up a lot of attention. What I'd say is for folks, if you care about being anti-genocide, if you want to be explicitly anti-ice, abolish ice as much as I do, then come pay attention to New York's six district. Again, these are the immigrant origin stories for so many of us. It's neighborhoods like Flushing, like Woodside, Forest Hills, Bayside, you know, my parents landed in the 80s from Korea. They worked as street peddlers. They had five kids. I grew up to become a U.S. diplomat. That's the story of everyone in Queens. We all came from somewhere else, worked our butts off, raised our homes and our families. And that promise, that story is being destroyed. It's being destroyed not just by Donald Trump and ICE, but also by complacent out of touch establishment Dems who frankly aren't working for working families. And so we pay attention. You want a clean fight of an anti-corporate, anti-ice, anti-APAC Democrat, then look at New York six. You made a big part or things that you talk about on your Instagram is the right to protest. We have a lot of different protests going on in New York City. And I do want to get to some of the protests around the synagogue, land sales in the West Bank. But I wanted to direct first to a more recent protest that's occurred over the last couple of days around the New York Times. Now, we reported this week that the New York Times came out with an opinion piece from this writer talking about sexual assault of Palestinian prisoners in Israel. Now, there has been a large reaction to that from the pro-Israel crowd across the world. A lot of people, we have Ben and Yahoo saying he's going to sue the New York Times. And we do have a protest now occurring outside the buildings here in New York. Let's take a quick listen here outside the New York Times building. I am accused! I am accused! I am accused! The New York Times of blood libel! Send out your reporters! Send out your reporters! You need to fight your reporters! You need to fight your reporters! You need to fight your reporters! You need to fight your reporters! You need to fight your reporters! Now, so that's what's going on outside the New York Times building. And I know that's not particularly in your district. Ryan, maybe you could add a little bit more texture here of what's going on with this Kristoff piece since you've done similar reporting, Ryan. Well, yeah, I mean, I'm sure people have come across it at this point, but it's an extensive investigation relying on what at least 14 direct sources on top of reports from the United Nations and other international humanitarian or human rights organizations that reports what we have long known that sexual violence is deployed by the Israeli government in prisons and also in the West Bank towards people who live there by settlers in a systematic way without impunity. In fact, if you go back over the last couple years, the only person that you can think about who has faced any consequences at all is the prosecutor who tried to bring a case against the IDF prison guards who were caught on camera gang-raping a Palestinian Zidane who then had to go spend a very long time in the hospital and had horrific injuries from what we could see happen on video. That prosecutor was fired and they tried to jail her and they're still hounding her. So that's the only accountability that has been deployed so far. So yeah, Chuck, thoughts on what the response should be in the United States. I think the response to fire the protest outside the New York Times is... Yeah, so let me tell you the response should not be to file Nick Kristoff, fire Nick Kristoff. I read that piece and I think one, it is truly horrific. Look, we've all seen the videos, we've all seen social media content about this, but to have him write, to interview victims themselves and to have those victims actually appear in photos in that piece that he wrote, to expose themselves in that way and describe what happened to them, it must have been terrifying. And these are credible accounts of sexual violence against men and women in the West Bank conducted by both IDF and by settlers. And so it is disgusting and I'm shocked that the protesters outside there aren't protesting that sexual violence, but are protesting a journalist for uplifting victims of sexual violence. Now what's interesting is Nick Kristoff's piece also acknowledged credible accounts of violence against Israelis on October 7th. So it's not like he was selectively picking stories. He was trying to establish or present a universal standard. We should all be against horrific acts of again, sexual violence against people. And for that, he's apparently being... They're apparently asking him to be fired. Chuck, how do you think that Zoran has handled, Mayor Mamdani has handled the dispute over protests outside of synagogues and in particular, everybody... The media tends to make it sound like, oh, they're just protesting a synagogue. There was a specific action which was being protested, which was sales of illegal land, stolen land in the West Bank. I would also add that they are only selling that land to one ethnic group, which also violates our laws. In any case, how do you think he has done handling the conflict over these protests? And what would be... What do you think should be done in this case? So the first thing I'll say is absolutely right. Look, these land sales are absolutely legal. They're in violation of the Geneva Convention. Last I checked, the U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. An occupying force cannot settle occupied territories. So this is explicitly illegal activity being conducted even under U.S. standards. And so I think that Zoran or Mayor Mamdani is doing the best he can to not sanction that illegal activity. I am shocked that the city council has passed bills to restrict the ability to protest unlawful activity at U.S. sites in New York City. And so I think that I am happy that the Mayor vetoed a buffer, so-called buffer zone bill that would have established buffer zones around schools. And I wish there was more opposition to the buffer zone bill that protects houses of worship, because what's happening at these sites isn't prayer and the practice of faith. It is illegal activity. And again, it's illegal activity even under U.S. standards. Go ahead, Ren. I'm just going to say, what are you seeing on the ground that gives you hope that this is going to be, that this is going to be a winnable race? I think you're going to be incredibly outspent. Is there a threshold level of fundraising that you have to pull off to get there? Or are you going on the AOC kind of shoestring? There's just so much hostility to incumbents who are unwilling to spend up. I'm never going to match APEC's money. I'm going against somebody who is APEC endorse who speaks at their conferences. She will have four or five, maybe 10x the spending that I can muster, and she'll drop mail on the residents of Queens 10, 20 times over. And so I'm not going to beat her on the money. Now, what's fascinating is people on the ground are pissed off. They're pissed off, obviously, at complacent Democrats, but they're pissed off about the genocide still. Genocide has become a kitchen table issue. It's not this abstract foreign policy thing. It's not just a moral stain on our national conscience. It is. But it's this increasing entanglement in Netanyahu's ethnic imperial project that is hurting normal working families. We see it in gas prices, grocery prices. We see it every single day. And normal people are feeling it. It's not just Palestinian liberation activists. It's a working family, a nurse and a school teacher married trying to raise two kids, and they see their bills keep going up because of this stupid war in Iran and because we keep sending billions for Netanyahu to blow up families from Gaza to Lebanon to Tehran. And Emily, one quick follow-up to that. Yeah, please. Are you going to be on the ballot as Chuck? I am. Like, I'm just curious mechanically. How does that work? Sorry, I'm in Montana. Look, my name is Charles Park. I've gone by Chuck for a long time. In New York, actually, there's a lawsuit that allowed candidates to use their commonly used name on the ballot. And look, I know there's a lot of confusion with another Chuck. I don't ride with that Chuck. I'm Chuck Park. Not the bad Chuck. I'm the good Chuck. I'm the anti-APAC Chuck, the anti-genocide Chuck. And I don't know about the other guy. Did you have to submit like a group chat where your friends are calling you Chuck or like, how do you establish that? How do I prove that's my name? You just say it and then hope someone challenges you. But I've been Chuck for a long time. That's such a Ryan question right now. Yeah, yeah. That's a good question. I was going to ask a question. I know you're the primary right now, and you mentioned your opponent is, you described your opponent as pro-ice. And so one question I would have is, you know, there are people in Queens and in other parts of the country who are in the United States illegally who are criminals, who actually should not be here. There was a horrible case in Queens a few years ago of the rape of a 13-year-old girl by an Ecuadorian who had crossed the border in 2021. So what is the kind of, I'm actually curious about this. How do you see a replacement for ICE? If you're in Congress, you vote to abolish ICE. How do you deal with that situation? Well, also you're abolishing ICE. How do you keep the streets of Queens safe from people who actually do want to do harm to the people of Queens? The first thing I have to say is I have to reject the premise of that question. Yes, there are bad people in the world, people who assault children, who hurt and kill people, that it does not correlate at all to immigration status at all. But that's not the question. The question is, so I agree that the crime rates are debatable, but like there are people who want to do harm. Absolutely. So let me be clear, I am calling for the abolition of ICE. I think that money should be rescinded and that agency should be dismantled. This is $75 billion given to them under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, $40 billion for detention, $35 billion for personnel. That's 12,000 new officers. This is Trump's ICE and that needs to be dismantled. And so the question of what comes after that? Yes, there should be interior enforcement. If you are, as you said, a child predator, who's hurt people, I don't think you have a place in society. You should be removed. If you're an explicitly convicted, dangerous person who has gone through that due process, you do not belong hanging out in public walking these streets. And again, that doesn't matter if you have immigration status, whether you have temporary status, whether you're totally undocumented. And so it's a standard that is not tied, not correlated to your status as an immigrant or non-immigrant or anything else. If you're a dangerous person, you should not be allowed to roam free. But the call is to abolish ICE. And again, I have to say that in Queens, New York City, the activity hasn't stopped. I live in a neighborhood called Jackson Heights. There are dads being disappeared from Home Depot parking lots, a mom and a kid thrown into a van. This is daily. The New York City field office, if you look at the statistics from the deportation data project, they're still detaining 600 people a month. That's dozens every single day in New York City. If you look at recent reporting from the Times on Long Island, they have open cooperation with local and state law enforcement. So ICE is literally using fire stations as rest stops, taking naps, using public resources. Then they're parking outside public schools waiting to snatch a parent and a kid coming out of school. And so the ICE crisis, it obviously peaked with the horrors we saw in Minnesota and Minneapolis. But it's still there. They're doing these secret special ops to the tune of hundreds of people a month still in New York City. And so that has to be stopped. As somebody... No, go ahead, Crystal. I was going to ask, I was going to change to Tavilova to APAC because I know you said your opponent is openly embraced by APAC, endorsed by APAC. I know a lot of Democrats are afraid of that label at this point of Democratic elected officials, not because they disagree with the ideology, but they realize it's become toxic among the Democratic base. And I wonder why you think she has made that choice and also tells a little bit about her strategy and approach to this race, because I understand that she's refused to really acknowledge you or debate you. Correct. So she's been taking APAC money for a long time to the tune of 2 million plus over her decade in Congress. And I think she takes their money because she has no grassroots support. You know, I'm a brand new candidate. I've never run for political office before I announced in November after being pissed off about ice raids and genocide. And so I googled how to run for office. I filed an FEC form and here I am six months later. So I'm so angry I want to do something. I already, as a nobody running for Congress for six months, have more donors, individual contributions than she does. And she's been in office for more than a decade. You're not taking corporate PAC money or anything like that either. No corporate PAC money, no lobbyist PAC money, absolutely no APAC money. And so she has a sitting elected official. I think frankly, she is complacent. She doesn't want to talk to people. And so she'll take a big check from whoever will send one to her and then includes APAC. And so in return for that APAC money that she's taken for more than a decade, guess what? She's joining as a Democrat, she's joining Republicans to defend Netanyahu against prosecution in the International Criminal Court. She is reauthorizing every single year unconditional billions for Netanyahu to bomb children and families hiding in the rubble of Gaza. She is speaking at APAC conferences. She is cheering on Netanyahu when he tries to unravel the Iran nuclear deal under a Democratic president. So she has taken that big money with huge strings attached. And her approach is to hide the fact that she is totally bought. She's bought by APAC, she's also bought by a long list of corporate PACs. Before you go, I did want to ask you about with the work that you've done among immigrant communities, what you're seeing over the last kind of year and a half that's different than what you were seeing before, like just talking to immigration attorneys, the stories that are coming out of these detention centers and coming out of the roundups don't seem to be quite penetrating into the mainstream press. You hear about cases of habeas claims being successfully filed and what DHS does is they walk the person out of the detention center, they take the cuffs off and then they just recuff them immediately and say, well, this is a new detention because we have determined that you're now still in the country illegally. And so even though you won your habeas claim, no, you're right back in, getting rid of immigration administrative judges who are even who are allowing people out on bail, mandatory detention for everybody picked up. What types of things are you seeing that aren't getting picked up in the mainstream press? I mean, that's exactly right. They're still lurking outside of courthouses, 26 Federal Plaza. I mean, we've all seen the videos out of there. We saw them tackling family members of migrants and immigrants and it's not penetrating, I think because we're desensitized to it. They're still lurking at construction sites, at parking lights outside of public schools, on street corners throughout Queens and New York City. It's the same game plan. They are swiftly throwing them in a van and shipping them off to Dilly, Texas. And I have to give a shout out to Ms. Rachel for calling out the cruel detention centers that are again are being operated by private companies, for-profit companies, geo group, core civic, at that family separation that we were all up in arms about in the first Trump presidency that is still happening. Children are in cold jail cells screaming for food and to be released missing class. And so I think we've become desensitized because the distraction machine is working. It's the airstrikes in Caracas and then it's more in Iran and then all of a sudden it's something else. And so the distraction machine is working, unfortunately, but especially in Queens, New York City, it's so visceral because we see it on the streets on a daily basis. We see it in an empty seat in a child's classroom. It's happening still and so we need people who are vocally going to call to abolish ICE and not people who are complacent, Democrats who maybe take corporate PAC money even from some of these organizations that power ICE, whether it's Palantir or L3 Harris or these private detention center companies. Chuck, I got one last Queens related question for you. Of course, we can't talk about Queens without talking about Demets and America's number one industry gambling. Now you have been vocally against a new casino that is being built, correct me if I'm wrong, in the parking lot of the Met Stadium by billionaire Steve Cohen. Tell me more about that and why this new casino in Queens would be bad for Queens. Yes, this is the wildest thing. One, take off that hat if you're going to talk about the Mets too. This is a fashion choice. Okay. This is wild to me. Look, New York City, it's the progressive heart of America right now. We got Zoran Mamdani. We got AOC spitting fire, right? In our own backyard, in Queens, at City Field, there is a billionaire oligarch named Steve Cohen using public resources to make himself rich and totally corrupting our democracy. I'll tell you a quick story. He bought the Mets in 2020 for $2.4 billion, the highest ever paid for a baseball team. And guess what? They did horribly that year, so he wasn't buying a great team. He was buying the rights to develop that parking lot. And let me tell you what Steve Cohen also invests in besides casinos and parking lots. He invests in Elbit systems, a defense contractor based in Israel. He invests in Core Civic and Geo Group, which gets massive contracts for ICE detention centers. He invests in the Republican Senate campaigns. He invests in Trump's inauguration. So that's Steve Cohen's track record of investment. He makes money every time someone suffers in this country or this world. And that's exactly what he's trying to do in Queens, on City Field, on our, you know, using our beloved Mets to totally sportswash his image. And so if you care about fighting oligarchy, then we got to go after Steve Cohen. We got to go after these casinos because, again, it's happening right here. He has made political donations, I'm sorry, to every level of government, city, state, federal, including my opponent, and using those donations that come again from killing children in Gaza, from detaining kids in Dili. He's used that money to power political campaigns in New York City. And he has bought the silence, the silence of leaders here. And so I am vocally against that casino in City Field. It's not built yet. And if I, if I win, I'll make sure it's never built. Thank you for asking the question. No, yes, Steve Cohen, a POS. So we will, maybe we can build the casino at Yankee Stadium. Would you like that more, Chuck? Would that be a better place for it? I don't want it anywhere, but it has to go somewhere. Yeah, put it next to the Yankees. Well, thank you so much for giving us your time today, Chuck. If people like what you're talking about, where can they find more about you and your campaign? Find me at chuckforqueens.com. That's chuckforqueens.com. Look, I'd welcome a small donation. I only take grassroots money. But also, hey, if you're a New York show up for a shift, man, it's a lot of fun. I'll buy you pizza, a samosa, a momo, a dumpling, whatever you want. Just help me knock doors because we're going to win it that way. Amazing. Okay. Awesome. Thank you, Chuck. Let's go to a Mets game soon. Okay. Get it. You got to take off that hat though. You're going to get in a fight. I got lots of hats. I wear lots of hats on the show. All right. We'll see you later, Chuck. Thank you, Chuck. All right. Thank you guys so much for the opportunity. All right. This morning, joining us to talk about President Trump's trip to China and the mean tweets that the president has been sending against him and also to preview a little bit, Thomas Massie's primary race next week in Kentucky. We are joined by Congressman Ro Khanna. Great to see you, sir. Great to be back on. Yeah, of course. Let's start with the mean tweets. Shall we the most serious item on the agenda? But Trump came after you a number of times. Very upset about your Fox News appearances. Feeling like the Fox News hosts are not up to the job of challenging you appropriately. So here was one of them. The Sleazebag radical left congressman from the failed state of California, Ro Khanna. He did spell your name right though, which is unusual. Should not be allowed on Fox News unless you have an anchor who is capable of disputing his lies one after another and closing down his fake bullshit narrative. He's similar but worse than he came, Jefferies, only with a somewhat higher IQ. Can't help but give you a few compliments here, sir. This morning he tried on behalf of the Democrats to take credit for the steel industry pouring back into the U.S., knowing full well that the DUMs virtually destroyed it and I saved it through strong tariffs. Plus, our country was dead during the last administration. Now it is hotter than ever, etc. etc. So what did you say that set off this whole tirade? First of all, I think he thinks Fox anchors aren't as tough as those on breaking points. Folks, you can see some of my tough interviews with Crystal Ball and you can't forget the inclusive. You can't bring that BS here. That's right. But look, here's the argument. The whole time, he's never attacked me on Epstein, never once. Why does he get set off on this? Because I was going after his central theme, which is he ran as the guy that was going to bring back jobs to Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, bring back steel, bring back manufacturing. And I was at the port in Cleveland saying, well, look, there's still Chinese steel here. And actually, Trump is taking these trillionaires from Wall Street and Silicon Valley to go beg China for deals that are going to offshore jobs and hurt workers. And it fundamentally shows the betrayal of his promise. He had two promises, like substantively, he wasn't going to get us into wars. He got us into a war in Iran. And he was going to look out for the working class and protect us against more offshoring. And he's basically taking the global elite to offshore more of our jobs. And I think that set him off because it was true and undermines his actual rationale for his incandescy. And are you hoping to bait him? Like, what is the strategy? Is it do you think it's helpful to you and also to the kind of political conversation when he starts lashing out and how so? Yeah, I mean, I didn't actually think this would trigger him. So I can't say, oh, I was trying to set him up. But I do think it shows a couple things. One, it's important to go on Fox News. It's important to actually try to talk to his base. Because when I go on MSNBC, which I love doing or go on liberal podcasts, he doesn't really care. I mean, that's the reality. But if you get to issues that he thinks are going to hurt him with his voters, that's when you can get a reaction. And you want to get a reaction from him because it actually shows the hollowness of what he ran on. And so in my view, we should be going and talking to Trump voters on forums where Trump folks are watching and making our case. Congressman, what have you thought of the trip to China? I know you mentioned that I was basically like bringing along a bunch of oligarchs to offshore more jobs. What do you make of Trump having to go there in this moment of incredible weakness given the strategic defeat that we've suffered in Iran? It's shameful. I mean, the fact is that he should be ending this war and he needs China to end the war. I hope he gets China's help to end the war because it has met food prices are going up. Fertilizer costs are up. So farmers are paying more. Gas prices are up. The Fed can't cut interest rates, which he really wants. And I understand why he wants it to bring down credit card costs, mortgage costs, student loan costs, but they can't do it because of the inflation of his war. And so he's going to China understanding that we need to end the war and he needs China's help. But then he's also taking along literally Wall Street and tech billionaires in my district, begging China to put in money into the United States where they're going to have no labor standards, where they're going to have subsidized industry and it's going to hurt American jobs and trying to cut deals that are going to offer our jobs to China. It is just a pathetic. And that's why I think this is the time the Democrats need to have a sense of we're the party against war. We're the party that's actually for Team America and we want an economics that are actually going to help working class Americans with good union jobs and high paying jobs here in the United States. I wanted to pick up on that point of sorry, Chris. I was just going to say that Matt Stolar wrote in his newsletter last night reflecting on the China trip. He said, quote, the left is often fooled by the hawk and dove rhetoric on China because they can't tell the difference between war and economic relationships. But it has always been the neo-conservative hawks in the Middle East who have been the most dovish towards Chinese economic relations just like Wall Street. The people who oppose both war and predatory Wall Street slash Chinese policy is labor. Honestly, the China hawk-dove debate is sort of over. The US is no longer capable of balancing China on its own. We have destroyed too much of our industrial health to do that. That doesn't mean shifting our system is pointless. I just kind of wanted to get your reaction to Stolar's reaction from the populist anti-monopoly left because that point to me actually was pretty interesting and compelling. Well, I think his diagnosis is absolutely right. I mean, look, this country made a decision that we wanted cheap labor, that we wanted capital to have returns, and that we were going to hollow out Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and the industrial part of the country and that they could all learn how to be software engineers called remove them. That was the consensus policy since the late 1970s. At the same time, there was a hawkishness of let's go create these wars in the Middle East, whether it was Iraq or now Iran. What the American people want, in my view, is the exact opposite. They don't want these Middle East wars, but they want us to have economic industry and some self-reliance and not just have all our focus be on shareholder capital returns, but actually care about the working middle class. Now, where I disagree with Stolar and, of course, my business of being in politics. So, let's just give up and despair and nothing can be done. I think there are policies that could rebuild an industrial base in this country. We can have an industrial investment bank. We can have trade schools. We can have tech institutes. We can invest in childcare jobs and eldercare jobs. We could have capital not just owned by a few people in a few places, controlling the majority of the nation's wealth, but more dispersed. And those are the things I think the Democrats should actually focus on when we get that trifecta again. What do you think our relationship with China should look like? Because, I mean, there are obviously a number of issues which are major global issues, climate change and AI come to mind, where we really need to work collaboratively with them for the betterment not only of our own people, but really for the global, the preservation of the globe. So, how do you think about those issues and how to approach the relationship? Well, I agree with you, Crystal. I'm not one of those people who believe we should have a cold war. And I've never criticized actually Trump for engagement and trying to have peace. I mean, someone, the Democrats, just anything Trump does, they criticize. And so, they're criticizing him because he doesn't want a war there. I don't think that should be the answer. I don't think decoupling should be the answer. My view is we need economic rebalancing. They shouldn't be subsidizing their industries and dumping in the United States. And we should have smart industrial policy so that we have an industrial manufacturing base. But at the same time, if we have economic rebalancing, we should work with China on safety standards on AI, on climate change, on actually solving the issue in Iran like a new JCPOA, so that you have the Strait of Hormuz open and you don't have Iran having enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. I mean, there are a lot of areas that we can collaborate while pushing for an economic rebalancing. When did you get your reaction? Or Ryan, were you going to ask on China? I was going to switch gears to Thomas Massey. Oh, me too. So, go ahead. I'm curious about Matt. Yeah. You know, you've obviously worked very effectively and collaboratively with Thomas Massey. Republican represents a district in Kentucky. It's actually sort of like a suburban district outside of Cincinnati, but on the Kentucky side, he is being challenged in a very well-funded primary because he dared to cross Donald Trump. Trump has endorsed his primary challenger. Obviously, Israel has loomed large since Massey has been one of the few Republicans who has taken a different approach on what our relationship should be with regards to Israel and by all accounts, it's a very close race at this point. So, wonder what you're hearing from Congressman Massey and what you're seeing in terms of that race? I just saw him this morning and I said, Thomas, I'm sorry if I got you in hot water because I called you a man of character and Laurel Loomer and others are saying that Conor endorses Massey. He says, Ro, I made my bed a long time ago. You don't have to run away from me, but it's despicable what they're doing to him. They're not just attacking him. They're going after character assassination. They're dragging someone who lost his wife and bringing up past relationships he had in just a really ugly way. Massey is a person of character. I vouch for that of what I've known of him. Look, I said generational race. He said he's winning by about 30 points, voters under 50, Republicans under 50, and he's losing by about 30 points, Republicans over 50. He said that when he goes on stops, there are hundreds of people there with him. When his opponent goes on stops, there are three or four people and yet the polls are neck and neck. So, the energy is with him. The young people are with him, but the older voters are all with his opponent and it really is going to come down to turnout on who turns out. But the Republican Party under 50 is a very different Republican Party than the traditional Republicans. That gives an opportunity on some of these issues to build a broad coalition against war, against aid to Israel, against the Epstein class. Well, I was going to put it this way. What does Congress lose? You're a Democrat. What does Congress lose if it loses Thomas Massey? It's a huge blow. First of all, it's a blow that if you stand up against your president in your party, you could lose your seat. So, it's a disincentive, not just to Republicans. I believe it'll be a disincentive to independent action on both sides. That the way to get ahead in Washington is to keep your head down. That's the lesson most people realize, that if you just keep your head down, you pay your dues, you do everything you don't ruffle, the status quo, eventually you'll be Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Joe Biden. You'll get the lead. And if you're out there trying to stir things up, eventually I'll catch up with you and you'll lose your seat or be pushed out. That's basically why most politicians take the safe course. And if Massey loses, it's going to show like, see, we told you, don't get out of line, Marjorie Taylor Greene got out of line, Massey got out of line. I didn't take the same risks, but I've got a primary challenger against me, which most members don't have. It's not worth it. That's what happens if Massey loses. If Massey wins, I believe he becomes a national star. He's, in my view, a potential contender for the Republican nomination, if that's what he wants. I've never talked to him about it, but it's a show of that independence can actually be a political asset. So it's an enormously important race. Congressman, I had a question about, you spoke of broad coalitions and MTG. Now, both of you appeared together on CNN talking about some of your shared agreements. And I think that a show like ours is very partial and open to that kind of idea of a broad coalition. I mean, our show is people from different political perspectives, finding areas of common agreement. And also related to Trump bullying. Now, you apparently are not afraid or shaken by Trump bullying you, but MTG was. She got a lot of threats, a lot of harassment. I mean, Ryan has said that she paid a political price, but she did quit Congress. And she could have taken votes on these subjects that she's talking about that would have really mattered. Now, I know there's a lot of discussion about her intentions, whether she really believes the things she's saying or not. And let's put all that to the side for a second and say that she's being completely honest and completely real with the subject she's talking about. What is the value in allying with someone who essentially quit Congress and stepped away from a powerful position where she could have actually enacted changes? And if we are allying with her or working with her, what is to stop her from just quitting again or giving up when the going gets tough? Because if you're an effective political person in this country, that's going to mean that 30 to 50% of the country hates you, that they think you're stalling, you know, or something like that. So tell me about your thought process with someone like MTG. Yeah. Well, first of all, let me be clear, I have never compromised an inch on progressive values. Values are standing up for women's rights, of multiracial democracy, on trans rights, LGBTQ rights. And it's very clear that I have differences with people like Marjorie Teller-Grain or Thomas Massie on those issues. They know that. I'm clear about it. I never compromise on it. But when it comes to issues such as stopping war, such as taking on the Epstein class, things that I believe actually are progressive goals, of course, I'm going to work, in my view, with people like Marjorie Teller-Grain or others to achieve that. That's building a coalition to be effective and to have a durable majority. Now, the threats that I faced, a presidential tweet, are pale in comparison to the threats that Massie or Marjorie Teller-Grain faced. And so we just need to put this in context. Trump tweeting at me actually helps me. It raises my profile. It gives me a sense of being able to talk to the issues. It's not a real threat electorally to me. Fortunately, I've not had that kind of threats to my life that people like Marjorie Teller-Grain faced. She was facing the entire presidential machine coming at her. She was facing actual threats to her life from a MAGA base. We know what they're capable of, given January 6th, and the threats the Pence faced. So do I wish that folks would stay in the fight? Sure. But we should not underestimate the enormous pressure that came down on her and Massie and and and and Bobbert and and and Mays. And my hope is that some of these folks will stay engaged in rebuilding the Republican Party. Now, has she said things that I strongly disagree with? Absolutely. The hope is that she acknowledges that and starts to build a new Republican Party post Trump. Last one for me, Congressman, you mentioned that you have your own primary challenger who is backed by a bunch of the Silicon Valley billionaires in your district. How is that going? What is he running on? You know, he's pretty candid. He runs on saying he's pro NAFTA, he's pro anti-billionaire tax, bullish on AI. I was like, at least the guy's honest or something. But the point is that the billionaires are upset at me because I'm saying that they should pay a one-time 5% tax, that if there were 20 billion, they should be worth 19 billion so that 2 million Californians can have health care. And because of that issue, you've seen, I think Ryan pointed this out, you've seen the most remarkable class solidarity. The passion they have on this issue is more than the passion most Americans have to stop the war in Iran or to go after the EBSD class. It's actually quite remarkable. And I often say to them, look, I'm the nice guy. I just want you to pay more tax so we can have a new social contract. Have you met folks in their 30s and 40s because they don't have the same view. And when you have massive wealth inequality, it leads in many cases to kind of political revolution. You don't have to be a student of the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution or revolutions in world history to understand. You can't have a few people in a few places controlling the majority of a nation's wealth. You've got a lopsided and unfair economic system. And so, look, I think I will win, but I want to win decisively. And I want to show that if I can stand up to the billionaires in a district that has more billionaires than anywhere in the world, if I can show that I am willing to stand up to them and call for fair taxation there, this should not be a hard position for 434 other members of Congress. Yeah, I think it is fair to tell them, but Roe is the compromise. You don't want to see what's on the other side of that. I'm curious though, on the Democratic primary side, what are the races like internally among your colleagues that they're watching with the most interest kind of slash trepidation? Is it some of the races against incumbents or is it some of the open seats that we got Philadelphia next week where you've got kind of two establishment candidates against Chris Rabb? I think you endorsed Chris Rabb. Yeah, is this out there for him? You've got the San Francisco race. You've got the DCCC weighing into some of these open races. What are the ones that are kind of defining the attitudes of people in your caucus? What are people watching? Well, you've got two different concerns. On the one hand, you've got the concerns that Graham Platner and Abdul Said, these candidates who Bernie endorsed, I endorsed, a few progressives endorsed, are actually winning. They're used to these candidates just being fringed. They outcake kind of endorsed, or Bernie endorsed them, but they're not going to win. It's fine. Newson's Gad flies, and now they're winning. They don't know what to do with this. They don't know what to do with an Abdul Said that's up nine points or a Graham Platner that's forced Janet Mills to step aside. Obviously, they want Graham now to win, but it is causing them real sense of fear of what the future of the Democratic Party is. Then you've got the more visceral thing, which is you've got candidates, extraordinary candidates like Malat running in Colorado, or Mia who's running in Sacramento against an incumbent, Eric Jones who's running against an incumbent on progressive platforms, and even me saying their names. Now, I'm going to get angry tweets from my colleagues. How dare I mention the name of a primary challenger. I'll mention that my primary challenger is Ethan Nuggerwell. I'll say his name. I don't think the DCCC needs to endorse me. Fine, it's democracy. You can say the names of these challengers. It's not heresy, or something. But literally, I get angry tests if I retweet a person who may be running against an incumbent, but that is a lot of incumbent skin. I mean, the amount of people who are running against the incumbents on platforms. In some cases, I've endorsed. In other cases, I've just uplifted them because I feel like they deserve a fair hearing. But I think you're going to see a new Congress which has a lot more energy in 2026. How do you make that decision? Who you endorse? What's your process? I used to just be by gut. Then I had that infamous dual endorsement, the Fay O'Shea, Joe Crowley, or something. I had endorse Joe Crowley. Tinker that with that process. We now have a group of two, three, four of us. Elizabeth on my team does a great job. She's always pushing. She wants me to endorse every challenger. I try to look at where I can make a difference, be bold out there. I mean, I look less about, are they going to win, but more are they running on the values I care about and running a viable campaign? Are they actually going to put in a great campaign? There are a couple cases where I've endorsed against incumbents, but that's always hard. It's hard when you have an incumbent in the house that people are running against, but I've done it a few times. I'll go for it, Ryan. Real quick, we had Chuck Park on the show earlier who hasn't raised a whole lot of money and is running against Grace Meng who has a lot of money, but hasn't been like most outspoken or outstanding member. Have you followed that race at all? I haven't. In Candery and I've had a good relationship with Grace on issues of Asian American and the China Committee. I thought that the China Committee was way too hawkish a few years ago, almost getting us into a cold war, and Grace has been helpful in toning that committee down. I know her ever working relationship with her. I don't know the race though, and I don't know this person if he's running on a bold platform. You can watch our episode today. Well, speaking of races, you are the congressman from California. There is a California governor's race occurring right now. We haven't done a ton of coverage yet about it, but there does seem to be these top three candidates that are orbiting around the top spot. We have this British guy, Steve Hilton, who seems to be the Republican. Isn't he Australian? It's Australian? Oh my God. I thought he was British because he was an alternate Brexit. He worked for It seems like he's working on the Death Star. So British, whatever, some sort of accent there. Not a Californian accent I'm familiar with. Then we also have Tom Steyer, the Bernie Bro billionaire, and Gavin Newsom's choice, this Javier Becerra gentleman. Maybe you could give us your thoughts on those top three. Well, I endorsed Tom Steyer early. I endorsed him for a few reasons. He's four single pair that never got done, even though it was supposed to everyone ran on it in 2016 and 18 in California. I endorsed him because he is for a billionaire tax. Can you imagine that on the debate stage? I thought it was hilarious. One billionaire is for the billionaire tax and the others are not for the billionaire tax. I was like, who's advising these people? They're sure politics. Then I endorsed him because I don't know if he said genocide, but he's certainly been clear that there shouldn't be more aid to Israel and that what happened is a human rights violation. I've called it a genocide, but I don't know if he's used that language, but I feel like he's the best on that issue in the field. Becerra is just getting money from Big Oil. He's actually out there talking about. Chevron refuses to say it before single pair. It's just the status quo. That said, even the race is tightened. The biggest drawback is Steyer hasn't been elected to anything. People don't like that he's spending his own money. I do think just philosophically, while I support Steyer, I do think there should be contribution limits on what individuals can spend for their own campaigns. Fine, you're building your great run, but only spend $7,000 and raise money. That's my own view and getting rid of super PACs and getting rid of money in politics. Hopefully, he overcomes that and I'm going to be out there for him. All right. Unless we have anything else, I think that will do it for this interview, Ro. Thank you so much as always for coming on. Anything else you need to promote? No, that's great. There's a long one. It's good. All right. We'll let you go. We'll see you soon, Congressman. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're on. Take care. Take care. Bye-bye. Okay, that's going to do it for our Friday show. No AMA this week, unfortunately, because we ran long. Store your questions. We will answer an extra amount next week. We have some exciting things going on behind the scenes that we've been working on that we are not going to tell you about right now, but we'll be telling you about very soon. So prepare for new... It's a meme coin. It's a meme coin. That's right. Damn it, Emily. Why you got us filled with memes? I can't hold it in. It's too exciting. Can't tell this girl anything. I haven't even sold yet. Next time we've got Ro, we should make him do the AMA. We should subject him to random audience questions. Good idea, right? That'll be fun. Well, I'm withholding a lot of the behind the scenes news from Ryan because he will just blurt it out on the show. And I need some level of message control. No, not unless he wants to do something about it. That's the weapon that Ryan wields. Yeah. Okay. I'm not just blurting for the sake of blurting. Yeah. So I'm keeping Ryan in the dark, but I hope to illuminate everyone on some exciting new stuff. We're working on behind the scenes. That's it for this Friday show. Ryan, check out Dropsite News. Check out After Party with Emily Jashinsky. Check out Crystal Kyle and Friends for an exciting Ashley St. Clair interview that went down this week. And we will see. Hold on. Can I tease that really quickly? Yes. Tease it up. Yes. Tune in to find out who told Ashley St. Clair in the Trump administration that she needs to get her boobs done. Make your guesses now. These were the sort of beauty like standards that were being pushed upon her. It's got to be Brian Gnome, right? Corey Lundell. Oh my God. Oh, Jesus Christ. He would be a likely suspect. Anyway, she talks a lot about that. There's a lot there. She talks about her time working for Benny Johnson. You can imagine the sort of questions that got asked and answered there. So yeah, she's, I'm not going to say she's filling all of the tea. There are certain areas with regard to Elon where she still can't go, but we got into a lot. I think people will enjoy it. Well, I know it wasn't Benny Johnson asking for the breast implants. I'll say that much. I don't think he's a boob or a butt guy, to be honest with you. It was Brian Gnome. All right. Well, that's what you can look forward to on Crystal Cowden, friends. Plenty of content to fill your weekend and we'll see you all here on Monday. Goodbye. This is an I Heart podcast. Guaranteed human.