SPEAKER_00: all right everybody welcome back it's hot swap summer here at the all in podcast episode 186

SPEAKER_01: of the world's number one podcast calling in from the home office in italy chamoff paulia patia how

SPEAKER_03: are you doing sir great how are you you look so relaxed look at you look at you look at you

SPEAKER_05: but it's only been two days that i'm working i mean i'm not that relaxed yet but this place

SPEAKER_07: does put you in the right mood i gotta say all right sax i'm sure that it's been an uneventful

SPEAKER_10: week for you how are you doing in the great state of california from our headquarters at the all-in tower in san francisco how's the all-in tower doing why are you doxing me what's going on here

SPEAKER_17: because you live in san francisco everybody knows that all you have to do is look for the protests

SPEAKER_07: follow the protesters you'll find sags also with us of course from the ohalo headquarters is that backdrop the house is on fire the house is on fire but house you're referring to which house

SPEAKER_21: which house america which one of your democrats or biden's house there's a political party i mean

SPEAKER_26: you can interpret it as you wish oh okay there you go but is your butt on fire did you have some bad indian food did you hit the taco truck what there's a heat wave from the west right now

SPEAKER_07: he stopped at the taco truck the west is on fire the west is on fire okay okay dr doom if you want to come to the all in summit now in year three we've got a ton of programming updates but the tickets

SPEAKER_31: are going to sell out we just released another hundred tickets i'm sorry you have a fly like

SPEAKER_33: attacking your head right now you look like mike pence jesus is it a mike pence moment that's a mike pence fly it's a mike pence fly yeah it is a pence moment yeah or it could be like a biden moment

SPEAKER_37: circling the dead oh god that's too hard that's pretty darn it's pretty darn okay three two

SPEAKER_00: for folks who are interested in meeting the other lunatics who listen to this pod if you have no money and no budget you can come to one of the 50 meetups that are currently happening around the world next week on thursday july 11th go to all in podcast.co slash meetups all in podcast.co slash meetups you can host or you can join them it's for 0.0 dollars now if you're doing well you got a little extra chatter and you want to get together at the all-in summit that's in september we held back 400 tickets according to freeberg who is running the summit now he's released 100 this week so get your applications in and if you are trying to score a ticket or a speaking gig gig just don't

SPEAKER_54: email me email friedberg freeberg any updates on the content people want to know what's on the on the docket

SPEAKER_56: we're definitely going to be talking about the changing landscape of american politics so we are going to have some representation there uh to have that conversation we're going to be talking about the the future of media we're going to be doing some really cool technology deep dives in areas like robotics age reversal evtols and uh talking a lot about ai meets enterprise software so we have a number of you know the leading enterprise software ceos joining us for conversations on that front so it's shaping up to be really amazing programming like jason said we're we held back 400 tickets from the initial batch and we're going to release 100 this week so put an application in we're trying to be selective and it's going to be amazing the parties are going to be awesome all right really excited

SPEAKER_60: how it's coming together you're doing some uh bird of a feather dinners i understand this year some new concept can you explain that to me the first night of the summit we're we've rented out a bunch of

SPEAKER_56: great restaurants around town in la and we're putting people together for dinner at all these different restaurants and then the parties are nights two and three which are going to be you know beautiful everybody's going to be great everybody comes to the parties but that first night everyone comes to the dinners everything yeah it's going to be great so so we're trying to create more space for people to meet each other i know that's been a big thing in the past in the meetups and at the summit is people love meeting other folks in the communities so yeah smaller groups so the

SPEAKER_66: dinners will be 200 people or something like that you can expect a couple hundred depending on the

SPEAKER_54: location yeah yeah and then the bigger parties will be everybody 1800 people so where do people

SPEAKER_68: apply for this it's at summit.allinpodcast.com okay there you go folks and uh you can come to the

SPEAKER_54: free events you can come there all right just uh usually we when we do the dock and i i pursue a

SPEAKER_00: mullet docket i do the business first and the party in the back but man we got to start with washington

SPEAKER_54: i've never supported the mullet strategy i know that i know that you've been anti-mullet from the beginning you want this to be a political show no no no no i never said that it'd be a political

SPEAKER_70: show exactly i always said we start with the biggest most topical issues first and it could be business or it could be politics correct you were discriminating against the politics you were

SPEAKER_73: insisting that it be a business issue even if the business issue wasn't relevant topical or interesting

SPEAKER_75: no i was not i think you're talking about friedberg friedberg was the one that's true it mostly came

SPEAKER_76: from freeberg who was right who brought the ratings this pod to a whole new level yeah freeberg who brought the maga lunatics that's this thing that's me from robin hood by the way i mean the the ratings this pod hit some sort of new stratospheric level not just with president trump interview but last week whatever i mean the point is last week was

SPEAKER_00: i think the most crazy week in the history of politics and it's only going to get crazier so let's start off with hot swap summary you heard it here first or maybe not hot swap summer continues you know previously historically if you wanted to understand who's winning an election you'd look at

SPEAKER_86: the polls not perfect obviously some of these polls still call landlines yada yada but then people built

SPEAKER_87: models obviously 538 all this kind of stuff but it seems that this year and this uh election cycle people are really focused on prediction markets aka betting markets and uh

SPEAKER_00: uh where we're looking at them in real time and obviously people have skin in the game so you can i'm interested in the panel's take on the sharps on these platforms and if you think that they're more accurate than say some of these polls or the aggregators of polls but kamala harris is now the favorite to be the democratic nominee according to one of them so just let that soak in

SPEAKER_87: uh in the last 24 hours vp harris's chances of being the democratic nominee have gone from 18 to 50 at the same time president biden has dropped from 66 to 28 there are a bunch of long shots moon

SPEAKER_00: shots in there newsom michelle obama gretchen whitmer all in the eight to 12 but they were low single

SPEAKER_10: digits prior to last week's debate as you can see in the chart biden harris were about even this morning uh the taping of this is wednesday july 3rd but the new york times reported that biden called an ally he's considering dropping out so we should note the white house a white house

SPEAKER_00: spokesman said this is absolutely false but this is the money chart from i think polly market and we keep updating this document in real time while we're taping chances of biting dropping out are now at

SPEAKER_87: 77 that's up from 60 this morning 40 after the debate after we record the show we have to do

SPEAKER_91: before we publish it's gonna be a whole well i don't i don't think he's gonna do that because he is scheduled to do a sit-down interview with uh george stefanopoulos i think they're recording it on friday right which is two days from there oh no no hold on hold on he's gonna do an interview with stefanopoulos on friday and then stefanopoulos is showing it in two parts on saturday and sunday so it's going to be edited so we don't know what they're going to edit in or edit out

SPEAKER_73: at this point though the media is in such a feeding frenzy that i don't think that abc is going to

SPEAKER_91: cover for biden so i suspect it'll probably be a pretty fair representation of the actual recorded interview in any event that's coming out this weekend i think the biden presidency basically hinges on this interview if biden can show that he's sharp and he's responsive and not senile and presumably he's going to sit down and do this at the best hours of the day right they can't make that excuse anymore so is that before nap time or after nap time right exactly so i'm sure he can do this at a time when he has the good stuff i think if he knocks out of the park maybe he can quell

SPEAKER_76: all of this speculation but if not if it goes poorly then i think he's done so this is the last

SPEAKER_104: chance again it's like this is like the third last chance yeah because think about it i mean

SPEAKER_91: the accusation is that he's senile that's not a hard thing to disprove if you're not actually senile

SPEAKER_73: right you just need to go in there right it's a pretty low bar right not senile yeah so he just needs to go in there and has a pulse for whatever it is an hour and he's not gonna be fed a hard hard ball questions probably pretty softball questions he just has to prove that he's not senile if he can do

SPEAKER_00: that it'll calm things down stefanopoulos generally does a good job he's not a sycophant i think he he considers himself a legit journalist and will will actually well this is this is

SPEAKER_116: he'll throw some fastballs i think well this is his word in bernstein moment i mean like if if stefanopoulos wants to go into the hall of fame this is his opportunity if he absolutely if he throws the high heater to biden and basically is the one that delivers the coup de grace then his name will be in history alongside biden for that but think about it that's the correct

SPEAKER_56: analogy if you're the if you're the democratic party leaders and you are evaluating who to choose to replace biden the first thing you do is you have to double down on biden because if you were neutral to negative on biden or passive it's immediately interpreted as he's being swapped out and then you don't have time to pick the right candidate in order to have the time to pick the right candidate you have to first double down on biden be really declarative that he's our candidate put him on media put him on talk shows while you were figuring out who's going to replace him and what the strategy is to get that person to win so there's a there's a chance that what's actually going on is a little bit more of a structured strategy around find the right candidate set up the right program to get them elected figure out how we're going to move the 120 million dollars that we raise from biden over to

SPEAKER_123: whoever this new candidate is you can't you can only you can only move it to uh harris you cannot move it you cannot move the entire right entirety of that budget so you've got you've got to put

SPEAKER_124: together a real plan you can't just do the hot swap you've got to have a plan for the hot swap which

SPEAKER_56: means in the meantime you got to buy time and the best way to buy time is throw biden forward and be

SPEAKER_88: like hey look this guy's gonna go so yeah you're he's still our guy you're correct that they're buying time obviously while they try to figure this out and the powers that be which powers that be the

SPEAKER_00: biden camp which is not the political machine it's his literal family hunter gel etc um what they're actually doing and this will be the next nostracanis prediction that will come true is they're going to

SPEAKER_131: i didn't have time to get like a whole all i heard was lick my anus

SPEAKER_133: it's n-i-s not n-u-s uh so nostracanis prediction coming in here here's what will happen

SPEAKER_88: freeburg they are going to do all caps locks all caps locks alert must credit nostracanis they're

SPEAKER_07: going to do a democratic primary speed run here's what's going to happen they're going to do five debates in 10 weeks and then whoever wins wins kamala he's going to resign kamala becomes president

SPEAKER_138: kamala gets to um run she gets to speed run like everybody else dean phillips gets to come in everybody

SPEAKER_07: speed runs it the they take over the media the media will go crazy over the summer massive ratings boom and we have a winner come in and they demolish trump that's not gonna happen yeah you said he's

SPEAKER_140: not gonna get hop swapped as well no sarcasm off the rails you said he wouldn't get hot swaps so you

SPEAKER_145: have no well it hasn't happened yeah if you run a debate it shows it shows the party the party needs to select a leader and they need to say this is our candidate because if they if they do this it's too diffuse it no it's whoever ends up winning it's whoever ends up winning is it strengthens the

SPEAKER_00: party it strengthens the party because they say listen he decided to resign we wanted to do the most democratic thing possible what's the most democratic thing possible we put all our candidates out there and you the people choose chamab tell them i'm right i think this is one of the dumbest

SPEAKER_151: predictions you've made and you've made all right you made some real doozies in your day the hot

SPEAKER_109: swap's gonna happen so you didn't call it the problem with your hot swap theory has always been

SPEAKER_73: that not only would biden step down but that magically they would choose the best candidate we would get a jeff bezos we get a jamie diamond that somehow we would get someone who represented all of trump's policies without being trump but you would get some magical moderate to emerge the democratic party that's not gonna happen okay okay thanks to your incessant demands for the hot swap okay you and many others and this feeding frenzy i love it yeah you in part along with many others have caused this feeding frenzy we are going to get president kamala harris she's the only alternative you can see this in the prediction markets just a few days ago it was sort of evenly divided between there was her there was gavin newsom there's gretchen whitmer now it's just her why does that happen because they realize they can't sidestep kamala harris without offending a major constituency in the democratic party equally important maybe even more important they would lose roughly a billion dollars of contributions to the biden harris campaign if neither biden nor harris is running at the top of the ticket they'd have to refund all of that money back to the donors who contributed it there's no way they're going to start over from zero in terms of fundraising so they've realized that if joe steps aside there is only one feasible candidate for them which is

SPEAKER_56: kamala harris let me ask you a question if jamie diamond declared that he's gonna he would be happy to take on the candidacy for the democratic party he would call his friend warren buffett he would call his friend jeff bezos he would call up his own personal banker and say we've got half a billion let's go and let's have a run at this there are certain folks that are outside of the typical political

SPEAKER_145: spectrum that might actually have a shot at doing the extraordinary here and stepping up and doing exactly what trump and others that support trump don't want to see happen which is a candidate that can actually challenge trump on the merits of their experience on their values on their capabilities as leaders as executives and on their past performance and i think that someone like that

SPEAKER_56: might be the strategist's kind of move to say this is the one thing we can do that can defeat trump because we all know from the polling that harris doesn't stand a shot we tried that four years ago

SPEAKER_25: and you're missing the history which is mike bloomberg tried that exact same thing and there was one word that was said to mike bill and his candidates imploded and it was the word billionaire so the idea that you're going to get some other billionaire that all of a sudden is less hated i mean mike

Chamath Palihapitiya: bloomberg has done some so much good quite honestly and so if he can't kind of escape the scarlet letter

SPEAKER_145: of that of the b-word i don't know how anybody else but here's why bloomberg ran against other democrats

SPEAKER_56: this is a person that is running against another billionaire which is trump and so if you have two people who are now on equal footing and it is the trump number how does he get how does this person get a lot of people in this country i suspect let him cook that's go for it you're operating you're

SPEAKER_91: operating under the charming delusion that the democratic party cares about democracy this is

SPEAKER_73: basically a party that's run by political insiders that hates billionaires and people like this people like warren buffett and jamie diamond they pay the democrats protection money okay that's how democrats see them we're going to go shake them down to get money from them they're not going to hand over the

SPEAKER_171: reigns of the party i don't disagree to some outsider like that let me ask you a question

SPEAKER_142: yes but trump came in and he rewrote the rules of the party by running you're right no he shut no hold

SPEAKER_73: on he ran and shattered the party the established power structure remember it was it was the bush family's party when trump first ran jeb was supposed to be the nominee right he was supposed to right inherit the mantle from w the way that w inherited from his father and trump came in there and appealed directly to republican primary voters and called the forever wars a mistake and said he was going to build the wall and said he's going to reset things with china issues that were latent in the republican party and he took over the republican party the way you're supposed to through democracy through voting that opportunity has gone here because the democratic primaries happened last year and the biden team ensured that he would basically win the primaries handily so they control all the delegates remember that totally they control the delegates they're not

SPEAKER_171: going to release them to a jamie diamond or some other billionaire who wants to shake up the party

SPEAKER_145: let me let me ask you a question so if they if they end up facing the terminal nature of this which

SPEAKER_142: is if we don't put someone in that can win we lose we are not going to win yeah it is over why do you

SPEAKER_73: think that kamala can't win that's their thinking right now is that she stands a better shot than by

SPEAKER_145: let's assume let's assume that they take a read of the polls they take a read of the nation they actually do a real look at the circumstances on the ground which is that she is not going to win if they looked at that and they said you know what we need to win and some sense comes into the head of the leaders of the democratic party and they say who can win and a person like jamie diamond polls that he can win there is a chance i think that maybe they say this is how we're going to get

SPEAKER_76: back to the white house they're never going to hand the reins of the party to a total outsider

SPEAKER_73: the democratic party is the ultimate insider party and they are going to pick an insights insiders picking insiders and i think they've realized over the past week in particular that they cannot sidestep around kamala harris both because it would be a slap in the face to her constituency and the money issue so it's kamala or bust for them it's either kamala i think it's a really it's a really

SPEAKER_56: good point what we'll see is just how rational the democratic party leadership is are they going to continue to play based on insider first principles or will they actually take a first principles point of view on how do we win the election and i think it will be very revealing

SPEAKER_145: about how the leaders of the democratic party think based on the decision they make and their donors well i don't know if that's true because i actually think that there's a because the donors are fleeing the ship right yeah there's a rift between the donor class and the democratic party

SPEAKER_187: leadership correct and i think the donor class doesn't want to lose and by the way sacks

SPEAKER_56: what you're saying is probably right but i think it could actually end up being a signal that there might be a change and how the who the donors end up supporting the next go-around for uh to realize this a leadership change in the democratic party look what the prediction markets

SPEAKER_91: are showing is that it's not going to be a free-for-all it's either going to be harris

SPEAKER_73: or biden i mean that's what the prediction markets are showing and i think that's fundamentally right but look i i think there's real danger here to the to the country in this because what a lot of people are saying and i guess it makes sense is that if biden's not fit to run again how is he fit to serve out the rest of his term he's not fit to serve on his term he's got to resign okay so if he resigns and that's probably the thing that helps harris the most right because now she gets sworn in as commander-in-chief she's the president united states first female president yeah it's a major glow up for her and it imbues her with all of this gravitas and credibility that she's now the president united states they can send her to g7 meetings and deal with other world leaders they've got four months to basically take this candidate who everyone thought wasn't ready remember a year ago during the primaries when biden ran again one of the reasons why is because everyone said that comments is not ready you know every interview she does is basically a cackle or word salad in any event no one thought she was ready now they have like basically made her seem much more significant by giving her the presidency but my point is this we're in the middle of a war we're in the middle of a war with russia just a week or two ago we are russian that we're in the war or we're providing weapons both a week or two ago american cluster bombs were used to kill russian civilians sunbathing on the beach in crimea okay our weapons are targeting killing russian civilians the russians in response to that said we are no longer in a state of peace with the united states they did not say we're in a state of war but they said we're no longer in a state of peace and the russians have indicated that they may escalate horizontally by giving advanced weapons to our enemies for example they've talked about giving cruise missiles to the hoodies okay so all of this is happening right now in real time on the world stage and you're going to remove biden who look i don't like biden's policies and i don't think he's compass mentis for more than a few hours a day but i would still rather have biden as commander-in-chief for the next six months then take the risk of putting harris in there who's inexperienced who's a lightweight and who

SPEAKER_54: might want to prove how tough she is let's get chamath in for the final word here chamath your thoughts on what's going to happen make your prediction between now and september what do you think's the the mid game here before we get to the end game i honestly don't know but i think that

David Friedberg: we're in a precarious place where things are going to get worse biden actually approved

SPEAKER_116: private contractors now going into ukraine and starting to fight americans will be on the battlefield as of i think this was just a few days ago if you remember the movie wag the dog i think that it starts to create all these weird scenarios where people will want to create major distractions to try to keep the evidence and the attention away from this core issue that after the debate

David Friedberg: everybody is focused on i think the reality is that if you were accused if any of you were accused

SPEAKER_25: of being mentally incapacitated what you would probably do is go on every single talk show go on every single news show go on every single podcast press conference you would just do so much public facing work so as to completely dispel this idea so that you could firmly say it was a cold although

SPEAKER_206: now this week it's jet lag it was it was jet lag whatever the time of day whatever it was you'd be

SPEAKER_25: able to just completely take the wind out of the sails i think we're still getting only a controlled dribble of information and access to the president of the united states so he's going to be on stefanopoulos he's going to show up for a nato meeting and so you're only seeing dribs and drabs of somebody who now a lot of people think is not in a position not just to run but let alone run the

SPEAKER_210: country you said last week democratic party will have a meaningful reset still still thinking that

SPEAKER_25: shaman the issue that the democrats will have to face is the person that they probably want to run is someone different than kamala harris and the problem that they're going to have to confront is there's a part of it which is fundraising and i do think that david's right there was an article in the ft where one of the op-ed writers said they're in this sort of identity politics trap in sorts because they will have to run her no matter what and even if somebody did show up with the financial wherewithal and i think freebrook actually brings up a really interesting thought experiment if there was somebody that could take the democratic mantle who could completely self-fund their campaign but he happened to be just a white man what would the democrats do relative to kamala harris and i think that they would be in knots around what to do because of the identity politics issue i think they have made it an important issue this idea of inclusiveness as they've defined it got it so it sets up for i think a very complicated summer yeah the other thing you have to keep in mind is how the electoral college works and how the ballot system works is that you don't have infinite time you have to get all of this wrapped up and cinched up by the middle of august at the latest and so we're very much on like a four or six week shot clock and i don't think the democrats are doing what they need to do in order to completely take the wind out of the sails of this narrative that biden is not prepared or capable and the only way that you can do that is by having him appear 24 by 7 in real time in front of hundreds of millions of people as often as possible and they're just not

SPEAKER_217: so since they're not doing it they have ample time to do it he's yeah he's he's obviously and by the

SPEAKER_25: way the other problem that it creates is that you're starting to see some of these fissures inside of the team there was a really charged article from axios that dropped which basically said that there are three people that have cordoned off access to the president it named yeah that was jill biden

Chamath Palihapitiya: and thomasini and some other person and my initial thought when i read this was other than joe biden who's a recognizable person i had no idea who these other two people were and i thought that's really precise for somebody like that who has inside access to all of these sort of insiders

SPEAKER_25: to put that article up so i think you're starting to see the sort of leaks and the fissures yeah and then that's sort of this next phase that will make things a little bit ugly and contorted let me ask

SPEAKER_221: one question here because we got we got to move on to the supreme court stuff sacks two part question

SPEAKER_00: one is there a chance that he has had a diagnosis already and they're covering that up and two if they covered up something like that what is the ramification of it because it's clear to everybody he's in cognitive decline it's clear it's been a couple of years of cognitive decline no no that was

SPEAKER_25: asked of kjp in a press conference yesterday she was very explicit no and the reason no that she doesn't know she doesn't know no no no the the answer was much more explicit has he been diagnosed and she said no and the reason she said no is because that is very credible for her to say because he

SPEAKER_91: hasn't taken the tests okay so that's your theory look it was obvious now for months if not years that there's been a huge cover-up of his cognitive decline and the media has participated in this anyone

SPEAKER_73: who raised that question was treated as being a partisan or a liar and just for a good example of this i know you described george stephanopoulos as a straight shooter but when nikki haley was on his show a few months ago and i'm not a fan of nikki haley at all but she started making this point and stephanopoulos basically wouldn't let her finish i mean basically shouted her down so the media was actively suppressing the story you take morning joe of scarsborough he was saying that this version of biden is the best he's ever been and we've been hearing all that kind of stuff for months they were describing true videos showing biden being out of it they were describing those as being fakes clean fakes they invented this new term for perfectly real videos that basically would reflect his condition so the media has been engaged in a gigantic cover-up of this and as a result the country is in really bad shape because we have to go through the next six months either with a senile president who has limited cognition or we could end up with a new president who was untested inexperienced and based on every interview she's given in the last four years appears to be completely clueless at a moment in time where i think we have the most dangerous foreign policy situation since the cuban missile crisis okay so you think it's gonna be this is a really horrible situation and hold on it's it's the media bears a lot of responsibility and what should have happened okay what should have happened is we should have had a robust democratic primary a year ago sure based on concerns about biden's cognitive

SPEAKER_171: abilities reported by an honest media we never had that yeah so did you guys see this clip by the

SPEAKER_25: way there's a clip on twitter where somebody put together a clip on x six minutes of a hundred sort of spokespeople and proxies and they all had the same thing to say about president biden which is he is sharp as a tack sharp as a sharp as a tap which end of attack the round part what was so funny to me is i thought to myself if i asked a hundred people on the street what do you think of elon musk you'd have a hundred different statements there'd be a general theme but you would not have even 50 people repeat the exact same talking points obviously and so you have this funny situation where a hundred different people were basically saying the exact same talking point so it's not even a point of view it was just something that they were told to say by somebody else and that is your point both both sides is the real issue which is that you don't really have an honest media here and so there is no check and balance on power right now imagine if this feeding frenzy happened a year ago well the contrast and compare i want to make is everybody has a point of view about donald trump and i was thinking about this the reason why everybody has a point of view about donald trump is everything that has happened in his life is completely transparently documented there really is nothing hidden at this point and so you have a point of view because you've been given all of the stuff right and there's endless amounts of new stuff that come out about the old stuff and so you know and that's what's so interesting you have the ability to come to your own decision and it's not packaged through these filters yet with president biden i think it's so constrained and controlled and i think you have to understand and appreciate that cognitive decline let's assume that he isn't for the sake of the united states but if he is in it it only gets worse from here and it compounds and compounds and compounds that is what happens and so not only do you have to wonder what the next five months are like what does it look like in 18 and 24 and 36

David Sacks: months that is a really important issue here clearly biden can't serve a second term but the question is

SPEAKER_73: what what do we do now and i gotta say it's amazing to me that the democrats are not considering the one option that is kind of obvious which is you let the man run the most dignified campaign he can he's the candidate you chose and oh satire sax is back here he is no this is not satire this is not satire sax the real problem here is the democrats refuse to lose they want to cling to power however they can't they refuse to let democracy just work democracy working would be to do the speed run i

SPEAKER_25: have a question what would you do with the money would you just not spend it then and just save it

SPEAKER_73: well this is really interesting so there is an analog okay in 1996 bob dole was the republican candidate for president and quite frankly he was too old he was seen as a relic clinton was fairly popular and it was pretty obvious that he was just a loser and he was going to lose did the republicans engage in shenanigans to try and fix the situation no they just accepted the inevitable that dole was going to lose and what they did is they pulled financing from his campaign at least in the final month and they redistributed it to house and senate candidates and actually they did better in the house and senate they held on to the house and senate i think they lost a few seats but way less than they were expecting to and they kind of ran on a campaign that you know you can't trust slick willy so keep us on split the ticket and keep us on as a check against him and it actually worked fairly well it was the best republicans could do but frankly they let bob dole run a dignified campaign my advice to the democrats would be don't have biden resign doing a shake-up yeah the democrats listen to sacks there's your political counsel if you're if you're a democrat right now when you put an untested unexperienced clueless president in there who's going to want to show how tough she is and bring in her own team no no nobody wants kamala of this dangerous situation let biden run a dignified

SPEAKER_145: campaign and lose my advice to the democrats is to embrace an outsider give the people what they want

SPEAKER_56: freedom of choice freedom to elect a leader and bring someone in that falls outside of the traditional political spectrum that does not want to hold public office because it's not their career they can bring money to the table they can bring credibility to the table and they can win votes and compete effectively against trump if your goal is to retain the white house kamala or just two minutes give

SPEAKER_256: us two names jamie diamond jamie diamond bob give us a second bob iger yeah it's a great one

SPEAKER_70: another great one yeah it's called wish casting you're doing wish casting sex i'm not speaking about

SPEAKER_145: realism i'm speaking i'm speaking about what it would take to win yes they actually want to have a shot at winning someone that could win a popular vote someone that could actually win votes away from trump because you can't introduce someone like whitmer or moore this late in the season when no one in the united states knows who the heck this person is yeah when you have someone with credibility with economic and business success with executive authority with capital and connections into the democratic party but isn't part of the political machine that you and many others in the democratic party are now starting to hate let's go have an opportunity to actually win yes and if they were smart and they got their together they would say you know what it's time for a change

SPEAKER_245: just like the republicans had to do when bingo use the republican playbook brilliant freeberg

SPEAKER_76: brilliant okay well you guys better have a magic lamp with a genie in it because that's the only way

SPEAKER_262: this is going to happen well listen it's i'm just trying to keep the show fresh okay okay here we go

SPEAKER_87: next topic here we go freeberg gets the final word here we go i'm giving freeberg the final right he had the best take i'm giving freeberg the the final word oh you're pulling your mcneill era absolutely yeah okay here we go there were seven rulings in a bunch of scotus activity over the last week but these are really important consequential decisions we are going to talk about three of them and i'm going to try to get through these quickly obviously you could talk about these for hours and people will be you know doing case studies on them for a long time but let me try to do this

SPEAKER_66: quickly so we can get everybody's take on them the first one i want to talk about is net choice this is the content moderation cases that you may have heard of there were two very controversial laws

SPEAKER_88: passed in florida and texas in 2021 in the wake of january 6th the florida law if you weren't aware of it and i don't suspect most people are would cover platforms with over 100 million monthly active users

SPEAKER_66: or 100 million in annual revenue in other words they're targeting x youtube facebook meta those kind of

SPEAKER_88: sites and they would require those platforms to notify users if their posts are removed or altered

SPEAKER_66: and the platforms would have to make general disclosures about their operations and policies in the texas law it was very similar platforms over 50 million monthly active users and it would require them to notify users whose posts were removed and provide an explanation of why all that kind of stuff

SPEAKER_88: both of these laws were challenged in court in 2021 just to give you an idea like why i think the conservatives were upset about this obviously trump being suspended indefinitely on twitter facebook and other platforms or the labeling of content like we've seen on our own channel on youtube netchoice is a tech industry group includes facebook and youtube and the parent companies of those

SPEAKER_267: and they sued to block these two laws justice kagan a liberal wrote the unanimous decision obviously no dissensions here and the majority held the editorial judgment and the curation of other people's speech is a unique expressive product of its own which entitles it to first amendment protection so just to give an example if you wanted to create a social network where you can't be anonymous like linkedin you can do that if you want to do something like twitter x and have anonymous accounts you can do that as well if you want to create a social network with adult content you can do it or like zuck is doing on

SPEAKER_87: threads interestingly they are downplaying political content obviously other platforms amplify political content so let me um and so the end of all this in terms of how the court handled it is uh they offered some guidance and sent the cases back to the lower courts to clarify a bunch of stuff just to keep this brief chamath what are your thoughts on this obviously some of the ideas here like letting users know

SPEAKER_88: why they were banned or why content was taken down i think the overwhelming majority of users would like to have that but is this the government's role i'm not enough of a legal scholar to know the details

David Friedberg: of this case except to say that when the entire court goes in one direction it's probably because this never should have been brought to the court in the first place and they're giving a very clear message it wasn't even ideologically strained to figure out what the right answer should be

SPEAKER_87: so sex obviously your chosen party was the one who brought this you have concerns about the platforms doing this but do you have equal concerns about the government then i guess being the ones who have

SPEAKER_91: to enforce these is this a good ruling well i think that with respect to the texas and florida laws i think their heart was in the right place they were motivated by the right things which was to reduce censorship on these social media platforms specifically censorship of conservatives which is to say

SPEAKER_73: they're they're citizens but those laws probably were overly broad and they infringed on the free speech of corporations because i guess corporations get free speech too and basically what the ruling says is that content moderation receives the same first amendment protections as any other kind of speech so the decisions of what content you're going to keep up or take down on your own property is itself a speech decision and the government has to respect that so that's what the ruling here was saying i think it's not a bad decision i wish the supreme court however had coupled this with a better decision in the missouri versus biden case which they they basically said that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue so they didn't necessarily give a dispositive ruling in that case but they threw it they threw it out and and basically what that case was about was the biden administration was engaged in attempts to influence or pressure social media companies to take down speech as a practice known as jawboning and i wish they had coupled this decision with a better decision in in missouri versus biden saying the government's not allowed to coerce social networks to take down speech either and they refuse to do that so i wouldn't say these are like the greatest set of decisions with regard to free speech that the court's ever done i hope that they will come back in the future once they find a plaintiff with the right standing to address that issue yeah that's a key issue free

SPEAKER_56: burger thoughts yeah so i've said for a long time we've obviously had conversations about twitter and shadow banning and some of the other activities on what are typically called social media platforms at the end of the day these are all as i've shared in the past my belief is they're all content companies they have a choice as executives and its editors of those companies to decide how to editorialize the content on their platforms they can choose to create content with writers that they pay on staff like a newspaper might they can choose to create content with actors and directors that they pay to create novel video series for them like hbo might or they can choose to make content creation available to

SPEAKER_145: third parties that don't get paid like users and at the end of the day what they choose to do with that content and how they choose to display that content is up to them as an editorial platform that is ultimately creating content for other consumers i don't view that user generated content platforms are a right of the consumers to have access to share their thoughts they have the internet to do that and they have many other places that they can go to to create blogs to create websites to do whatever else they want to do to express themselves but to have a technological platform that lets them submit content that then the editors get to decide how and where they show that content i think they should understand because it's in the terms and conditions when you sign up so i don't believe in social media platforms as utilities and i don't think that the government should have any

SPEAKER_56: role in deciding what is or isn't on those platforms this goes both ways i think that the companies should decide what kind of platforms they want to have whether they want to have free speech that allows inappropriate content or content that might be offensive or whether they want to have a highly moderated platform to make it more broadly available or appealing to users it's entirely up to them and i really do appreciate the ruling because i think that the government should have less of a role in intervening and deciding how media companies create content and how they editorialize that content

SPEAKER_192: yeah so i think that's well said and i i was in the same sort of camp as you freeberg which is

SPEAKER_88: this is like a battle of snowflakes here like the liberals obviously were canceling people on these

SPEAKER_87: platforms and now like the macro folks want to come in and have the government regulate it if you want to compete here just create a new product or service in the market you're on the board of rumble sacks

SPEAKER_00: like they're doing really well and if you squeeze too tight and your platform doesn't work it's the marketplace should you know figure out who the winners are and you know it's it's not a situation where you want the government getting in there because then they're going to go to a newspaper and

SPEAKER_87: there's so much precedent here you know i actually read some of the of these rulings which is really interesting they're written phenomenally well i will put in the show notes the actual links to the pdfs of these decisions they're well worth reading and in this case they brought up a bunch of the previous law it's fascinating like people wanted to force a newspaper to allow you know one candidate to reply and give him space they're like no you can't do that it's their newspaper they decide what they publish another person wanted to have a corporate newsletter be forced to give information about the other

SPEAKER_56: sides you just don't get to do that i'll just say one more thing what else is striking is just how insular and protectionist texas and florida are being and it's not just with this law it's also with the lab-grown meat or cultivated meat laws that they've passed and other states are passing similar laws which is limiting innovation in the state and limiting freedom to operate in the state in order to protect interests of individuals and corporations that already exist within that state

SPEAKER_145: so it's really important to note this isn't a good or a bad thing but those states are operating in a way the lawmakers of those states are operating in a way that's trying to protect the interests of the individuals and businesses in the state over the freedoms that might and the liberties that might otherwise be available and i think we often talk about these states being more free but these laws and the cultivated meat ban laws in my opinion indicate that these states are actually on the contrary

SPEAKER_67: they're much more kind of protectionist where's your take on that sacks to freeberg's point i mean i think

SPEAKER_91: this this um ruling might have been necessary from a constitutional standpoint because corporations do have free speech rights but again i would say that i think that the laws of texas and florida were

SPEAKER_73: coming from a good place which is they were trying to protect the rights of their citizens to engage in free speech i think it's just unfortunate that in this case it's a zero-sum game and as a result those laws were were invalidated i think that makes sense but i still think we have a problem i agree with you

SPEAKER_88: the platforms have too much power what is your proposed solution you obviously don't want to have the government in there like running a newsroom or running twitter x because you yourself are saying hey the government's too involved in x and these platforms and doing this jaw boning

SPEAKER_144: so obviously having them more involved is bad right you're against them being involved yeah i think it's

SPEAKER_91: really tricky to figure out how to solve this got it i think for one thing you don't want the government jaw boning these sites to take down content that clearly should be a free speech violation i'm disappointed the court didn't get to that i think we're totally missing the bigger

SPEAKER_281: picture there's like a lot of fear-mongering that i think has happened with respect to the supreme

Chamath Palihapitiya: court and that it's all of a sudden become some super ideological super rigid super activist place

SPEAKER_25: and i think it's in fact much of the opposite and the data supports that and so i think it's important for people to know that what's actually happening is that many of these decisions are very much split along non-ideological lines and i think that that's an important thing so i just like i'm pulling this up and i just want to read some of these things to you us versus rahimi which is a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having a firearm that was an eight to one decision where all but thomas supported that makes a lot of sense you would think racial gerrymandering that was more ideological where was the conservative bloc versus sotomayor brown and kagan trump v anderson which is trump getting back on the colorado ballot 9-0 fda versus the alliance for hippocratic medicine which was access to the abortion pill 9-0 maintaining access moyle versus us which is whether idaho's strict abortion law conflicts with the federal law non-ideological where it was gorsuch alito thomas and katanji brown jackson who descended so it goes on and on and i think what's so interesting about all of this is that i had thought that this was not like what it was what i thought what had happened is trump struck the supreme court all of a sudden we are ripping all these laws apart this long-standing sort of doctrine of what has passed but yet i think what's actually happening is people are pretty thoughtfully pushing the responsibility to the states and i think that the court's decisions are relatively unpredictable in the sense that it's not just a conservative block versus a liberal block i think that's the real story and when you unpack a bunch of these decisions in that context that's what's so interesting to me is like these are pretty nuanced decisions that get at the heart of a lot of key important issues happening across non-ideological lines jan 6th one katanji brown jackson was the biden appointee that basically supported this thing that may throw out 200 plus convictions for jan 6th and amy coney bear was on the other side this is an unpredictable supreme court i think they think for themselves they seem to be independent and i think they are coming to their own conclusions that's the only thing to take away from the distribution of

SPEAKER_290: the votes that should make people feel a little bit better so i think this next ruling is the most

SPEAKER_88: important one and i think will be the most important one that we've seen with this new court that has three of the nine justices placed by trump to your point chamoc and this one is seismic the looper versus raymondo decision overturn chevron okay so this one takes a little explaining the

SPEAKER_267: court overruled a landmark 1984 decision in the chevron case from 40 years ago for context the original

SPEAKER_66: ruling created the chevron doctrine where the government and federal courts generally defer to the stances of federal agencies unless congress has written specific laws on an issue the 1984 ruling

SPEAKER_267: upheld the epa's interpretation of the clean air act it's very influential this has been cited by federal courts over 18 000 times in 40 years it was overruled in another six to three decision where the justices

SPEAKER_66: voted along party lines from up basically this shifts power back to federal judges and courts instead of

SPEAKER_88: administrative agencies staffed by experts academics all that kind of stuff in the majority opinion roberts conservative obviously said the chevron doctrine violates the administrative procedures

SPEAKER_66: act of federal law that directs the courts to review actions taken by federal agencies he also pointed out that the courts are regularly expected to deal with technical questions so this should not be considered beyond their ability to scope kagan a liberal wrote a critical dissent she said the agency staff with scientists and experts are more likely to have the expertise to make these

SPEAKER_88: decisions rather than the judges she also pointed out that the system had been functioning for 40 years and this ruling will create a massive quote jolt to the legal system chamath get in there do

Chamath Palihapitiya: you remember when president biden tried to pass the budget two years ago and he was one vote short and joe manchin ended up putting it over the top but he negotiated what was a redo of a bunch of regulation and he was promised that there would be this regulatory overhaul that happened and that was sort of why he had decided to vote for that budget bill it ended up not happening so the reason why i

SPEAKER_25: think he had saw that and he discussed this is that there are so many businesses that now suffer from the regulations of these agencies because when the agency enacted that regulation it was just a different time and place and there was no clean way to go back to an independent body and say i understand what your intention was in 1985 when you wrote that regulation but in 2024 things have changed can we reconsider and basically what the courts have done now will allow companies who believe that regulations are either overwrought or misguided for today's market landscape bring it to an independent judiciary and have them decide and i think that that's a very reasonable check and balance and i think that's that makes a lot of sense folks can pass laws and if folks believe that those laws do you undo harm now you have a mechanism to go and actually explain your case to somebody independent who can then

SPEAKER_290: make a judgment i think that that's a good check and balance frieberg i know this was the one you most wanted to talk about uh what's your take on this

SPEAKER_10: end of the age of experts and throwing things back to the court what will be the practical

SPEAKER_56: ramifications i don't know how much experience you guys have had dealing with federal regulators you have a lot more than i think all agencies yeah and i yeah i've worked in a lot across a number of federal agencies in in businesses i've been involved in and i can tell you it is as i'm sure you would expect there's a lot of bureaucratic morass in in these agencies and if you think about it

SPEAKER_145: it's because the agencies are effectively under the chevron doctrine vested unlimited authority to create rules and regulations that they then determine are meant to represent the laws that were passed by congress but more often than not those rules and regulations begin to bleed outside of the lines of the intention of the laws when they were passed and this is because those agencies by creating new rules and regulations this isn't this isn't some like you know i have a subversive reason for doing this but these agencies have an incentive for creating more rules and regulations because they then get to go back to congress and ask for more budget and hire more people and grow the importance and the scale of their agency this is the natural kind of organic growth that arises in any living system and any organization of individuals is also a living system and has the same incentive it wants to have more resources it wants to get bigger it wants to do more stuff it wants to be more important and the chevron doctrine has allowed agencies to operate independent and outside of the lines that were defined in the laws that were passed that that then vested them this authority that then they can go and say i want more budget i want to get bigger and i'm optimistic that this ruling will limit the agency's authorities and limit their ability to create more bureaucratic overhead more head count more individuals that need to now go and administer the rules and regulations that they themselves create and so i'm actually very optimistic and hopeful about this uh this change now the downside the negative to this is that there are a number of really important regulatory roles that agencies have come to play that never got passed as bills like environmental protection rules and there's a negative consequence that will arise to some degree with respect to health of the environment health of people etc but i think net net congress needs to do its job it needs to go back to session and it needs to sit down and needs to pass laws

SPEAKER_56: that really clearly define what is and what isn't going to be legal going forward and then the agencies operate strictly within those bounds so to recap it could get a little messy but it's a better

SPEAKER_87: healthier system because this system has become super bloated over 40 years that was my take on it

SPEAKER_267: as well sax what's your take on this this feels like a huge win to me what do you think oh i agree

David Sacks: with that and i agree with what freeberg said look when when this decision the chevron decision came down

SPEAKER_73: in 1984 at the height of the reagan revolution conservatives actually liked it they they praised it because we were coming off a period of an activist court you know the warren court and they thought that shifting power from the courts the agencies would actually be a good move well it turns out it completely backfired um whichever one when it came out was not a widely noticed decision since then it's been cited 18 000 times by federal courts it's turned out to be enormously important and influential and the reason for all those citations is it's the courts deferring to the rulemaking of an agency you know what chevron basically says is as long as the agency's interpretation is reasonable or you could say not unreasonable then the agency can basically promulgate the rule and what this has led to is an orgy of rulemaking by all these federal agencies and so most of our laws now effectively are being made by unelected bureaucrats who are part of this three letter alphabet soup of government agencies it's not the congress it's not the court it's not the president it's this fourth branch of government that's not in the constitution which is the administrative state and so the ministry administrative state has become incredibly powerful as a result of chevron doctrine and now i think by reversing it you actually give a chance for the restoration of democracy basically the agencies are not empowered to essentially make whatever rules they want as long as they superficially appear reasonable they actually have to show that their rules are within a statute that they that they were directed by congress to effectively engage in the rulemaking so this is a step in the right direction for sure but again the real problem here is reigning in this unelected administrative state

SPEAKER_192: yeah chamath any final thoughts here as we move on to the next one it seems like the supreme court is

David Friedberg: doing a great job i agree all nine of them i mean they really they really seem to be doing a tremendous

SPEAKER_56: job i give them a lot of credit i feel like i've become a conservative maybe i'm a conservative now sax i don't know i i may have to sit down and confess to you because i read a number of these decisions and i was like i agree i agree and this is supposed to be a conservative court so i'm not

SPEAKER_306: sure well it's right it's actually it's not it's not an originalist court it's not a conservative

SPEAKER_161: court this is what i'm saying like these are words that are planted by people that want you to believe

SPEAKER_25: their version of the lie there are a lot of originalists on the court and what the originalist doctrine says and sax you can correct me is i read the constitution with faith and fidelity and i just see what it's what it says not i interpret it not i fill in the words i just what it says is what we're allowed and i think that there's some there's a really good version of america in that view of the

SPEAKER_91: world yeah i mean i would say it's not even necessarily an originalist or conservative court it's

SPEAKER_73: a 3-3-3 court meaning there's three conservatives there's three liberals and there's three justice in the middle you have this middle block led by the chief justice roberts with kavanaugh and barrett and then you got the conservatives with gorsuch and thomas and alito and sometimes the middle block goes with the liberals sometimes it goes with the conservatives again it's more of like a triangle and as we know the triangle is the best shape for equipoise right because it creates balance and i think what we have right now is a balanced court and i think on the whole they've done a good job and i think it's kind of sad that in reaction to some of these decisions you've got powerful lawmakers like elizabeth warren who are explicitly calling for packing the court they're actually saying you know put a bunch of justice on here to ruin this equipoise that we have i think it's really sad i think that the court right now is one of the last highly functional institutions in american public life and for elected leaders to be calling for its

SPEAKER_314: destruction is just sad well i you know i think what here and here's an image from axio showing you

SPEAKER_88: know six republican nominated and three democrat nominated i think to give the counter argument you know roe v wade uh being overturned was something the majority of the country didn't want these three people were added for that explicit purpose by trump people have trauma uh pain over that reasonably i think and then the truth is though if they are you know just one standard deviation here as you can see in this axios chart which is based on some data i don't i don't trust the terms

SPEAKER_316: of this this chart is worthless jason i think well let me explain to you what it is actual articles no

SPEAKER_317: but i'm saying no no look at the actual you don't even know what it is yeah if you look at it yeah

SPEAKER_210: my point is this is meaningless a child could have drawn this it means nothing no no a child didn't draw it this was how do you know because i'm reading because i'm reading the source of the data

SPEAKER_66: this is based on something called the martin quinn score an analysis by political scientist andrew martin and kevin quinn notice the martin quinn score places judges on an idea ideological spectrum a lower score indicates a more liberal justice or a high score indicates a more conservative justice and then they went through all of their decisions so you're saying

Chamath Palihapitiya: a subjective classifier a subjective classifier is created by these two random people and you're now representing the score like it means something no i think it's an interesting

SPEAKER_210: way it's an interesting chart to discuss to understand a little bit of their meanings what

SPEAKER_25: i would encourage anybody to do is to look at the actual substance of the decisions and the votes and what you will see is that people are not as easily predictable as that chart would show and i think

SPEAKER_323: that's what's important uh okay um i think that chart supports exactly what you just said sax right yeah

SPEAKER_91: i mean not exactly i mean again i view it as a 333 court a lot of other people have written about that and they've got their own diagrams and charts to show that look i think it's a court like i said in equipoise i don't think it's partisan i think it's it's being reasonably fair i don't agree with every single ruling like i said i would have liked to have seen a different result in biden v missouri

SPEAKER_73: however i think on the whole they're doing a good job and it really should be a scandal that you've got powerful lawmakers explicitly calling for the court to be passed i mean that would be a disaster right because you have nine justices which is a good number you try to increase that to 13 then the next time the republicans have control they're going to increase it to 15 or 21 or whatever and pretty soon we're going to have 100 justices on the court you'll ruin it you know really nine justices should be a constitutional requirement we should just fix it at nine and not mess with that so it's just scandalous to me that you've got politicians who are reacting to reasonable decisions by saying

SPEAKER_267: that we need to pack the court okay quick hit here this is an important story for you chamath scotus also agreed to hear a case on the limits of online porn in its next term which starts in october

SPEAKER_26: the law in question was passed will it will it impact incognito mode because if it is that

SPEAKER_328: just you're in trouble

SPEAKER_332: did you flee to italy or are you could you imagine if they banned incognito mode i think you might want

SPEAKER_333: to do a deep dive into how incognito incognito mode is you may want to get a vpa i'm pretty sure texas is

SPEAKER_60: going to ban incognito mode exactly texas and florida i think a couple of these sites because of the

SPEAKER_87: threat of you know this these laws of age gating they've just decided to wholesale leave certain states by ip address therefore the sale of vpns in texas went up because when you went to certain porn sites i said hey because of texas is proposing these laws we're not going to allow you to visit

SPEAKER_210: this website nick do the nbc thing the more you know the more you know okay scotus agreed to hear

SPEAKER_341: a case on the limits of online porn in its next term which starts in october the law in question was

SPEAKER_66: passed by texas legislature in 2023 requires porn sites to verify the age of their users and restrict access for minors it seems reasonable fifth circuit court in new orleans upheld the law sending it to

SPEAKER_88: the supreme court if upheld users would have to submit personal info that verifies they're over 18 to watch porn the law is opposed by the aclu and the free speech coalition which is a trade group

SPEAKER_66: representing adult entertainers and companies they argue it places an undue burden on adults wishing

SPEAKER_88: to access constantly protected free expression oh speaking of porn and its related businesses

SPEAKER_25: the rick's cabaret recession index is back on did you guys see this it was published on twitter so rick's cabaret is a collection of public strip clubs i mean that includes sports and and what's interesting

Chamath Palihapitiya: about the rick's cabaret stock price is that it has presaged the last two recessions and whenever the stock dies people people have said it actually predicts an upcoming recession and the stock just

David Friedberg: you know puked up like 25 or 30 percent in the last week oh boy there it is so people do not have

SPEAKER_267: the cheddar to go to the cabaret and go splashy cash and i got it it's called it's called rick's

SPEAKER_25: cabaret but the strip club index says of recessions is on the off and i prefer cabaret it's just it's

David Sacks: more charming all right so i'm surprised you're not discussing the immunity case that's the one that

SPEAKER_357: all the pundits were ventilating i made it i made it last i'll uh counter the rick's cabaret

SPEAKER_56: recession indicator as valid anymore based on the theory of our good friend on the group chat who i think has done a very good job highlighting that the strip club industry has been decimated by only fans as a result rick's cabaret is more likely down because of only fans and the lack of shall we say employee base available to work in these establishments because they make more money working online at only fans now that was a theory post posited by one of our good friends but you got

SPEAKER_359: to think that that showed up in the data at least a year two years ago no because how long has only

SPEAKER_88: fans been around a long time i'm guessing well but i think it peaked during covid because you know you couldn't go to a cabaret if you wanted to take in a cabaret show and have a you know a bottle of champagne

SPEAKER_362: at a cabaret show you couldn't do it so you're the thesis of our friend is the thesis of our

SPEAKER_257: flight entertainers yeah only fans took all the entertainers out of the strip club industry because

SPEAKER_56: they make more money online cab range uh the cabaret industry i'm sorry please edit that nick and as a

SPEAKER_145: result the quality of the product at the cabaret business has declined and as a result revenue has declined it took a little bit of time to earn that in so so the virtual cabaret industry that's our

SPEAKER_357: friend's theory we give them a big shout out we will yeah shout out to it we'll call it the beep

SPEAKER_88: theory yeah the beep theory so the the elite cabaret artists who can make more money on only fans

SPEAKER_07: they'll go there and then that leaves the less refined artists the real person why it's so good

SPEAKER_368: so pure i'm trying to navigate this and not get labeled zax where are you on this what's your opinion

SPEAKER_88: sacks so uh anyway so far 16 red states have passed or agreed to pass each game jake l's got the

SPEAKER_337: dunder mifflin index of whatever yeah sorry i couldn't hear you guys are laughing too quick

SPEAKER_328: can you say it again cut out you had the dunder mifflin score of xyz red

SPEAKER_383: under mifflin so quick check i'll check the dunder mifflin score

SPEAKER_385: i don't understand the dunder mifflin score didn't you ever watch the office i don't watch the office

SPEAKER_387: oh okay sorry sorry what is wrong with you you would never got into it i never got into it but i've

SPEAKER_390: probably watched it like four times the paper company where they work yeah yeah apparently

SPEAKER_60: we've had a huge victory for trump in the immunity case trump sued in this case based on special

SPEAKER_88: counsel's jack smith's prosecution of trump for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in january 6 if you don't remember that case since there's so many cases against trump this was uh based on trump pressuring mike pence to not certify the election his phone call to get the 11 780 votes that were missing in georgia or giuliani and the whack pack trying to fake electorates to overturn the election trump argued that he should be immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president sagotis ruled 6-3 along party lines

SPEAKER_66: that former presidents can't face prosecution for actions that related to core powers of their

SPEAKER_10: office office and official official official core powers of their office and that all official acts

SPEAKER_66: receive at least the broad presumption of immunity here's the quote under our constitutional structure of separated powers the nature of presidential power entitles former president to absolute immunity for criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts there is no immunity for unofficial acts that would be outside the duty of the president's chief justice

SPEAKER_88: roberts emphasized that decision that the decision doesn't necessarily mean presidents are above the law in her dissenting opinion justice sotomayor wrote that under the new ruling criminal law can't be applied to

SPEAKER_267: presidents even if they misuse their office for personal gain she wrote that if the president orders the navy seal team six to assassinate a political rival he is now insulated from criminal prosecution another quote the president is now a king above the law she closed with this line with fear for our democracy i dissent notably this breaks the tradition of closing with i respectfully dissent so trump's attempts to overturn the election results case now hinges on whether trump's conduct was private or related to his official duty for example the lower courts now have to determine when trump pressured

SPEAKER_88: pence to not certify the election if that was an official business of being president or not or when he called georgia and said hey can you find me 11 000 votes was that official duty or was it outside his

SPEAKER_267: duty president trump has already cited the immunity ruling in requesting a new york judge throw out his conviction in the hush money case sentencing for that was pushed back from july 11 to september because of this ruling sax there's your what do you think jaco well jaco what do you think this is i'm really

SPEAKER_361: curious what i mean i i read the the i'm halfway through the the original pdf and i do think the

SPEAKER_66: president needs immunity obviously for conducting business and then i do think if they step outside the lines they should not have immunity and then the devil will be in the details here and that's what courts and juries exist to do so when he told mike pence to not certify the election he's obviously not doing that as part of his duty as president when he called georgia to get the 11 000 votes he was not doing that that's why he had outside counsel there that's why he hired giuliani and the whack pack what

David Friedberg: do you think what do you think of sotomayor's hypothetical of using seal team six to kill a political rival well i that was you think that that's you think that he would be immune from process anybody

SPEAKER_87: would be immune from prosecution for that no that seemed a little bit hysterical and actually that came

SPEAKER_267: up in the discussions i actually listened to the audio version of this when they were doing the the q a

SPEAKER_88: basically um and i think you listen to it too freeberg when i talked about it so yeah i think the devil will be in the details here and how they execute it obviously you need to have immunity if you're going to i don't know take actions you know to assassinate osama bin laden right or or whatever

SPEAKER_87: it is but you know it's it is a a bit concerning this concept of being able to shield the president

SPEAKER_88: when he asks i don't know the attorney general to do something illegal so these are the details that are going to need to be worked out here and obviously it's a split decision so the supreme court

David Friedberg: themselves can't agree on this i think that there's just so much we don't know about what it takes to

SPEAKER_25: be the president of the united states the example that i gave you guys in the group chat is like look at the whole iran contra affair how complicated was that can any of us really understand what all

Chamath Palihapitiya: of the interplay was when ronald reagan decides to work around a weapons embargo sell weapons to iran take money funnel it and fund the sandinistas in the middle of all of that there was a huge cocaine trade that was kind of enabled or supported i mean who how do we know i think there's just a lot of

SPEAKER_25: latitude that you give to the one person that you elect to be president and so maybe it's just a good reminder for all of us that we are electing one person we cannot be electing five or six people we're not electing a shadow cabinet we're electing one person and this is just a reminder of how much power

SPEAKER_404: that one person has sac do you have thoughts i think this was an easy decision all the majority did was

SPEAKER_91: codify explicitly what has long been presumed that presidents enjoy broad immunity for official acts that they undertake in the exercise of their constitutional authority and the duties of their office it was established decades ago that presidents enjoy broad immunity from civil lawsuits

SPEAKER_73: so it's already been the case that presidents can't be sued civilly well criminal liability is even harder to prove so if you have the broad immunity from civil you should have broad immunity from criminal as well and the stream court i think had never ruled on criminal immunity because they never had to no former president's ever been subjected to the type of lawfare that's been deployed against trump who also happens to be the political opponent of the current president so i think it's a shame that the stream court has had to rule on this did they get every detail right i don't know i don't know what it means for the future however i know the reason they're doing it which is we've had this unprecedented lawfare against trump and that's why they've been forced to do this so ultimately i think this is the right decision no it does not authorize drone strikes against the president's political enemies that's insane it does not make the president above the law or a king and i think that roberts in his ruling said that the key things he said that the dissent's position in the end boils down to ignoring the constitution separation of powers and the court's precedent and instead fear mongers on the basis of extreme hypotheticals and then he says that the dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an executive branch that cannibalizes itself with each successive president free to prosecute his predecessors yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next i think that's really the key line here is that you're posing all these insane hypotheticals instead of recognizing the practical reality that if you don't give presidents immunity then the next president's going to prosecute the old president and future presidents will be hamstrung in doing this very important job that's already difficult enough so i think that this was just a necessary decision

David Sacks: there was no way around it and the president already has civil immunity you got to give him criminal

SPEAKER_88: immunity too freeberg your thoughts i guess the the steel man on the other side would be you know trump doing things like calling georgia and asking to find votes or pressuring the president the vice president to overturn the election results after 60 failed legal cases you know is what's concerning

SPEAKER_407: the other side so do you have a take on it i think that the distinction between acting in their

SPEAKER_56: executive capacity as president of the united states versus their personal capacity as an individual candidate or an individual that could benefit through some other means is a really good distinction i think how the courts ultimately adjudicate that distinction is what's still ahead but i do think that the clarity of that distinction is critical i it seems like the right thing how this is going to play out with respect to election interference does interfering in the election constitute one's role as an executive overseeing the federal election process or does it constitute one's personal benefits that may arise if one is individually elected is the key determinant that the lower court will likely have to make maybe that gets kicked back up again in the future if there's a disagreement over the decision

SPEAKER_159: that the court does make with regards to that distinction where do you stand on that sacks you in

SPEAKER_408: previous episodes have said you didn't believe in this election interference and you thought trump

SPEAKER_88: lost have you changed your position on that or are you still in that position uh that's totally

SPEAKER_87: irrelevant to the course decision let me ask you follow up to that then so in the case of do you think trump was acting officially when he asked georgia to find the votes when he asked pence to overturn the

SPEAKER_129: election or do you think he was acting in his duty i think that that what you just described there is

SPEAKER_91: what's known as a question of fact in the legal system there are questions of law and questions of fact and what the stream court has done is given us a doctrine they've answered the question of law they

SPEAKER_73: basically given us a three-part test they said that when the president acts within his exclusive constitutional authority he gets broad immunity when he does an official duty but that's not in that category he gets presumptive immunity meaning that the prosecutor can still go after him they just have to rebut the presumption and when he engages in a personal act there's no immunity so look what has to happen now is if jack smith wants to continue this prosecution of trump he's going to have to make the argument that trump's acts were either personal or were part of his duties but he's going to rebut the presumption so that that is the now the question of fact that jack smith would have to litigate and i'm not going to litigate it here i don't know the answer to that but again i would separate questions of law and questions of fact what the supreme court has done i think has given us a useful doctrine that the presidency now needs in light of the reality of lawfare so this is the one i

SPEAKER_192: think chamath that is super fascinating because i could see president trump and his lawyer saying hey

SPEAKER_88: very simple you know we we think there was election interference so yeah we called georgia to make sure

SPEAKER_87: that those 11 000 votes were were there and hey you know we thought this was not a fair election so i was acting in my duty and when i told pence to not certify the election i could see them making that

SPEAKER_121: argument what do you think i don't know the specifics of these cases but ah i think it's going to

SPEAKER_116: force a prosecutor to have a really strong point of view and have evidence and then go after somebody but again i think you're focusing too much on trump robert said in the decision you have to look past the exigencies of the current moment this is a set of rules that's about past presidents and future presidents this is for forever and so that's the most important thing here which is there's a set of

SPEAKER_25: rules that i think we can all agree on because the man that we all elect dutifully elect is the most powerful person in the world we knew it before we know it now so even more important that we make

David Friedberg: sure we're picking one person and that person is capable of doing the job you may not agree but they

SPEAKER_267: need to be competent and capable of doing the job yeah well they definitely have to be competent and this case was brought by trump over this specific issue so i think that's if we look at this specific judgment here that's what they're going to have to determine in the coming months or years with this

SPEAKER_198: case is was he acting in his duty or was he not that's going to be a really interesting case between

SPEAKER_91: this ruling and another case called fisher versus us which is the january 6 obstruction case where the supreme court in the 6-3 majority found that sarbanes-oxley was being misused to create a new crime called obstructing an official proceeding when you combine that judgment with this judgment i think jack smith should just resign it's pretty clear that some court has kicked the legs out from under his

SPEAKER_237: case and by the way katanji katanji jackson supported that decision that's right so again not

SPEAKER_73: uh not a ideological not a hyper-partisan court they just ruled that sarbanes-oxley had nothing to do with what happened on january 6th and it was being misused by a creative prosecutor and i told you when these jack smith cases first came i said it's not the job of a prosecutor to be creative their job is to narrowly interpret the law and to enforce the law and you combine these rulings together and you can see that jack smith has now an even more uphill battle it's time for him to resign stop by the way

SPEAKER_210: that's 200 convictions it's not just one that's right that's right it's 200 of them small percentage

SPEAKER_414: of the overall convictions now they took hundreds of people who did not engage in any violence on

SPEAKER_73: january 6 many of them just wandered through an open door in the capital and they were prosecuted to the hilt they were sent to jail for that because this doj wanted to send a statement they wanted to use them as a political talking point and that's a shame i think hundreds of people were horribly mistreated by the judicial system as as part of a political prosecution now except for the ones who beat police and brought no problem putting those people in jail no problem anyone who use violence go directly to jail do not pass go but some of these people just took a tour through the capital

SPEAKER_418: all those people got suspended sentences and trespassing the ones who went to jail

SPEAKER_419: jacob chansley spent three years in jail yeah the ones who went to jail were the ones who beat cops

SPEAKER_420: or not jacob chansley that poor man just because he wore the viking remember the guy with the viking

SPEAKER_88: oh yeah so they also went to jail if you did damage if you vandalized yeah that was the other reason

SPEAKER_412: people went to jail i saw a video of him getting a guided tour through the capital i mean if you

SPEAKER_350: vandalized a capital building i guess you have to do something he moved a dais room no i think they like shattered the windows and you know he didn't i never saw any video of him doing that anyway they

SPEAKER_73: they picked on him because he was an easy target because he looked like a weirdo and he had the viking horns and he has he has a history of mental problems and so they put that man in jail for years

SPEAKER_408: yeah i'm not concerned about him i'm concerned about the ones who brought all the long guns to the hotels around the capital to have backup firepower but you know hey uh everybody's got a different opinion on this we uh that wraps up the all-in podcast you can you can you can have those

David Sacks: concerns i don't think it lets you put innocent people in jail yeah i think you can hold both of

SPEAKER_408: those ideas i don't think anybody innocent should go to jail and i don't think the oath keeper should

SPEAKER_412: have brought guns to the capital okay they didn't they bumped to virginia just to be clear yeah

SPEAKER_408: they brought them to the hotels around them huge large caches in virginia correct yeah in virginia

David Sacks: yeah they drove to the capital on january 6. anyway i'm not defending them i'm not defending them i'm just clarifying that there are no guns at the capital because that's no they were in the hotels that's a lie but i don't think innocent people who just wandered through the capital should go to jail

SPEAKER_419: and that clearly we are great we are we agree they should not go to get trespassing tickets okay

SPEAKER_430: this is episode 186 of the world's number one podcast did biden resign while we're taping biden

SPEAKER_56: just went on a campaign call and he said let me say this as clearly as i possibly can as simply and straightforward as i can i am running no one's pushing me out i'm not leaving i'm in this race

SPEAKER_91: to the end and we're going to win whoa i think it's more likely than not that they're not going to replace biden because the only feasible alternative is harris and should be worse and i think it's more dangerous for the country frankly i'd rather just see biden finish out his term

SPEAKER_437: than put someone new experience even if he had to come true true bad it's too bad choices jacal and

SPEAKER_73: i don't agree with biden's policies but there's continuity there okay for the chairman dictator

SPEAKER_10: from the home office in italy chamar pahapatiya your sultan of science and the rain man yeah definitely definitely cabinet position david sax i am the world's greatest moderator of the number

SPEAKER_138: one podcast in the world we'll see you next time bye bye love you boys

SPEAKER_447: that's gonna be good we need to get murkies are back