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

00:00:00.000 | All right, everybody, welcome back. It's hot swap summer here

00:00:03.420 | at the all in pod cast, episode 186 of the world's number one

00:00:10.720 | podcast, calling in from the home office in Italy. Chum off

00:00:15.660 | Polly. How are you doing, sir?

00:00:16.980 | Great. How are you? You look so relaxed. Look at you. Look at

00:00:21.860 | you.

00:00:22.020 | But it's only been two days that I'm working. I mean, I'm not

00:00:27.000 | that relaxed yet. But this place does put you in the right mood.

00:00:29.620 | I gotta say, all right, sacks. I'm sure that it's been an

00:00:33.260 | uneventful week for you. How are you doing in the great state of

00:00:37.940 | California from our headquarters at the all in tower in San

00:00:41.900 | Francisco? How's the all in tower doing? Why are you doxing

00:00:44.380 | me? What's going on here?

00:00:45.700 | Because you live in San Francisco. Everybody knows

00:00:48.620 | that. All you have to do is look for the protests. Follow the

00:00:51.700 | protests. And she'll find sex also with us, of course, from

00:00:55.620 | the Ohalo headquarters. Is that backdraft? The house is on fire.

00:00:59.900 | The house is on fire. But how's your referring to which house

00:01:02.660 | which house America, which one of your Democrats or Biden's

00:01:06.340 | house? There's a political party there. I mean, you can

00:01:08.620 | interpret it as you wish. Oh, okay. Your butt is your butt on

00:01:12.460 | fire. Did you have some Indian food? Did you hit the taco truck?

00:01:16.340 | What? There's a heat wave in the west right now. He stopped at

00:01:21.100 | the taco truck. The West is on fire. The West is on fire. Okay.

00:01:25.020 | Okay, Dr. Doom, if you want to come to the all in summit now in

00:01:28.660 | year three, we've got a ton of programming updates, but the

00:01:33.180 | tickets are going to sell out. We just released another ticket.

00:01:38.100 | Sorry, you have a fly like attacking your head right now.

00:01:40.660 | You look like Mike Pence. Jesus. Is it a Mike Pence moment? That's

00:01:44.940 | a Mike Pence fly. It's a Mike Pence fly. Yeah, it is a Pence

00:01:48.100 | moment. Or it could be like a Biden moment circling the dead.

00:01:53.740 | That's too hard. It's pretty dark. Okay. Three.

00:01:58.300 | For folks who are interested in meeting the other lunatics who

00:02:19.220 | listen to this pod, if you have no money and no budget, you can

00:02:23.540 | come to one of the 50 meetups that are currently happening

00:02:27.940 | around the world next week on Thursday, July 11, go to all in

00:02:31.940 | podcast.co slash meetups all in podcast.co slash meetups, you

00:02:36.100 | can host or you can join them. It's for $0.0. Now, if you're

00:02:40.820 | doing well, you got a little extra chatter and you want to

00:02:43.020 | get together at the all in summit that's in September, we

00:02:45.980 | held back 400 tickets according to free bird who is running the

00:02:49.700 | summit now. He's released 100 this week. So get your

00:02:52.500 | applications in. And if you are trying to score a ticket or

00:02:56.020 | speaking gay gig, just don't email me email Friedberg.

00:03:00.380 | Friedberg, any updates on the content people want to know

00:03:03.660 | what's on the on the docket,

00:03:04.740 | we're definitely going to be talking about the changing

00:03:07.180 | landscape of American politics. So we are going to have some

00:03:10.300 | representation there. To have that conversation, we're going

00:03:13.420 | to be talking about the future of media, we're going to be

00:03:16.420 | doing some really cool technology deep dives in areas

00:03:19.220 | like robotics, age reversal, eVTOLs, and talking a lot about

00:03:24.180 | AI meets enterprise software. So we have a number of, you know,

00:03:27.860 | the leading enterprise software CEOs joining us for

00:03:30.540 | conversations on that front. So it's shaping up to be really

00:03:33.860 | amazing programming. Like Jason said, we're, we held back 400

00:03:37.980 | tickets from the initial batch, and we're going to release 100

00:03:40.620 | this week. So put an application in, we're trying to be

00:03:43.020 | selective. And it's going to be amazing at the parties are going

00:03:46.620 | to be awesome. All right, really excited how it's coming together.

00:03:49.860 | You're doing some bird of a feather dinners, I understand

00:03:53.580 | that you have some new concept. Can you explain that to me?

00:03:55.420 | The first night of the summit, we're we've rented out a bunch

00:03:59.500 | of great restaurants around town in LA. And we're putting people

00:04:02.380 | together for dinner at all these different restaurants. And then

00:04:04.780 | the parties are nights two and three, which are going to be,

00:04:08.020 | you know, beautiful. Everybody's gonna be great.

00:04:09.700 | Everybody comes to the parties. But that first night, everyone

00:04:12.020 | comes to the dinners, everything. Yeah, it's gonna be

00:04:13.580 | great. So we're trying to create more space for people to meet

00:04:15.540 | with each other. I know that's been a big thing in the past in

00:04:18.100 | the meetups. And at the summit is people love meeting other

00:04:20.420 | folks in the community. So

00:04:21.900 | yes, smaller groups. So the dinners will be 200 people or

00:04:24.700 | something like that. You can expect 100 depending on the

00:04:26.780 | location. Yeah. And then the bigger parties will be everybody

00:04:29.860 | 1800 people. So where do people apply for this?

00:04:31.980 | It's at summit.all in podcast.com.

00:04:35.220 | Okay, there you go, folks. And you can come to the free events

00:04:39.020 | when you come there. All right, just usually we when we do the

00:04:41.980 | dock and I pursue a mullet docket, I do the business first

00:04:44.860 | and the party in the back. But man, we got to start with

00:04:46.780 | Washington. I've never supported the mullet strategy.

00:04:49.300 | I know that. I know that you've been anti mullet from the

00:04:52.220 | beginning. You want this to be a political show?

00:04:54.060 | No, no, no, no. I never said a political show. I always said we

00:04:58.820 | start with the biggest most topical issues first. And it

00:05:01.820 | could be business or it could be politics. Correct. You were

00:05:04.100 | discriminating against the politics. You were insisting

00:05:06.420 | that it be a business issue, even if the business wasn't

00:05:09.420 | relevant, topical or interesting.

00:05:11.580 | Here we go. No, I was not. I think you're talking about

00:05:14.060 | freeberg. freeberg was the one.

00:05:15.820 | That's true. It mostly came from freeberg. Who is right? Who

00:05:19.420 | brought the ratings this pod to a whole new level?

00:05:21.660 | Yeah, freeberg Maga lunatics.

00:05:24.380 | That's this thing.

00:05:25.260 | From Robin Hood. He is the guy who did it.

00:05:29.300 | By the way, I mean, the ratings this pod hit some sort of new

00:05:35.860 | stratospheric level, not just with President Trump interview,

00:05:39.580 | but last week,

00:05:40.980 | whatever. I mean, the point is, last week was, I think the most

00:05:45.140 | crazy week in the history of politics, and it's only going to

00:05:49.820 | get crazier. So let's start off with hotswap summer, you heard

00:05:53.660 | it here first, or maybe not hotswap summer continues, you

00:05:56.500 | know, previously, historically, if you wanted to understand

00:05:58.540 | who's winning an election, you'd look at the polls, not

00:06:01.100 | perfect, obviously, some of these polls still call

00:06:02.780 | landlines, yada, yada. But then people built models, obviously,

00:06:06.140 | 538, all this kind of stuff. But it seems that this year, and

00:06:09.980 | this election cycle, people are really focused on prediction

00:06:12.540 | markets, aka betting markets, and we're looking at them in

00:06:18.020 | real time. And obviously, people have skin in the game. So you

00:06:22.460 | can I'm interested in the panel's take on the sharps on

00:06:25.420 | these platforms. And if you think that they're more accurate

00:06:27.940 | than, say, some of these polls, or the aggregators of polls, but

00:06:31.780 | Kamala Harris is now the favorite to be the Democratic

00:06:35.540 | nominee, according to one of them. So just let that soak in.

00:06:40.340 | In the last 24 hours, VP Harris's chances of being the

00:06:43.900 | Democratic nominee have gone from 18% to 50%. At the same

00:06:48.260 | time, President Biden has dropped from 66% to 28%. There

00:06:53.380 | are a bunch of long shots moonshots in there. You said

00:06:55.860 | Michelle Obama, Gretchen Whitmer, all in the 812%. But

00:07:00.300 | they were low single digits prior to last week's debate. As

00:07:05.340 | you can see in the chart, Biden Harris were about even this

00:07:07.980 | morning, the taping of this is Wednesday, July 3. But the New

00:07:13.660 | York Times reported that Biden called an ally he's considering

00:07:18.300 | dropping out. So we should note, the White House White House

00:07:22.820 | spokesman said this is absolutely false. But this is

00:07:26.620 | the money chart from I think Polly market. And we keep

00:07:30.900 | updating this document in real time while we're taping chances

00:07:33.940 | of biting dropping out are now at 77%. That's up from 60% this

00:07:39.260 | morning, 40% after the debate, after we record the show, we

00:07:43.900 | have to do before we publish the whole

00:07:46.060 | well, I don't think he's going to do that because he is

00:07:48.780 | scheduled to do a sit down interview with George

00:07:52.140 | Stephanopoulos. I think they're recording it on Friday, right,

00:07:55.860 | which is there. Oh,

00:07:57.700 | he's gonna do an interview with Stephanopoulos on Friday, and

00:08:02.420 | then Stephanopoulos is showing it in two parts on Saturday and

00:08:05.460 | Sunday. So it's going to be edited. So we don't know what

00:08:08.100 | they're going to edit in or edit out. At this point, though, the

00:08:11.340 | media is in such a freeding frenzy that I don't think that

00:08:14.780 | ABC is going to cover for Biden. So I suspect it'll probably be a

00:08:19.780 | pretty fair representation of the actual recorded interview.

00:08:23.540 | In any event, that's coming out this weekend. I think the Biden

00:08:26.780 | presidency basically hinges on this interview, if Biden can

00:08:30.180 | show that he's sharp, and he's responsive and not senile. And

00:08:35.700 | presumably, he's going to sit down and do this at the best

00:08:37.660 | hours of the day, right? They can't make that excuse anymore.

00:08:39.900 | So is that before nap time or after nap time?

00:08:42.140 | Right, exactly. So I'm sure he can do this at a time when he

00:08:46.220 | has the good stuff. I think if he knocks out of the park, maybe

00:08:49.220 | he can quell all of this speculation. But if not, if it

00:08:52.900 | goes poorly, then I think he's done.

00:08:54.580 | So this is the last chance. Again, it's like this is like

00:08:58.140 | this is like the last chance. Yeah, because think about it. I

00:09:01.220 | mean, the accusation is that he's senile. That's not a hard

00:09:05.100 | thing to disprove. If you're not actually senile, right, you just

00:09:08.660 | need to go in there. Right? It's a pretty low bar, right? Yeah.

00:09:14.820 | So he just needs to go in there and pause for whatever it is an

00:09:18.540 | hour. And he's not gonna be fed a hard, hardball question.

00:09:21.780 | Probably a pretty softball question. He just has to prove

00:09:24.580 | that he's not senile. If he can do that, it'll calm things down.

00:09:28.140 | Stephanopoulos generally does a good job. He's not a sycophant.

00:09:31.380 | I think he he considers himself a legit journalist and we'll

00:09:34.700 | we'll actually

00:09:35.420 | well, this is

00:09:36.180 | some fastballs. I think

00:09:38.380 | Bernstein moment. I mean, like if if Stephanopoulos wants to go

00:09:42.980 | into the Hall of Fame, this is his opportunity if he absolutely

00:09:45.900 | if he throws the high heater to Biden and basically is the one

00:09:49.860 | that delivers the coup de grace, then his name will be in history

00:09:55.940 | alongside Biden for that.

00:09:57.340 | But think about it. That's think about the strategy. If you're

00:10:00.140 | the if you're the Democratic Party leaders, and you are

00:10:05.260 | evaluating who to choose to replace Biden, the first thing

00:10:10.420 | you do is you have to double down on Biden. Because if you

00:10:14.940 | were neutral to negative on Biden, or passive, it's

00:10:19.460 | immediately interpreted as he's being swapped out, and then you

00:10:21.820 | don't have time to pick the right candidate. In order to

00:10:24.340 | have the time to pick the right candidate, you have to first

00:10:26.380 | double down on Biden, be really declarative that he's our

00:10:28.980 | candidate, put him on media, put him on talk shows while you were

00:10:32.180 | figuring out who's going to replace him, and what the

00:10:34.300 | strategy is to get that person to win. So there's a there's a

00:10:37.460 | chance that what's actually going on is a little bit more of

00:10:39.780 | a structured strategy around, find the right candidate, set up

00:10:43.300 | the right program to get them elected, figure out how we're

00:10:46.500 | going to move the $120 million that we raised from Biden over

00:10:49.580 | to whoever this new candidate, you can only you can only move

00:10:52.580 | it to Harris, you cannot move it, you cannot move the entire

00:10:56.180 | right.

00:10:56.580 | Entirely. So you've got you've got to put together a real plan.

00:11:00.100 | You can't just do the hot swap. You've got to have a plan for

00:11:02.380 | the hot swap, which means in the meantime, you got to buy time.

00:11:04.860 | And the best time is throw Biden forward and be like, Hey, look,

00:11:07.660 | this guy's gonna go. Yeah, you're still our guy.

00:11:10.020 | You're correct that they're buying time, obviously, while

00:11:12.260 | they try to figure this out. And the powers that be which powers

00:11:15.860 | that be the Biden camp, which is not the political machine. It's

00:11:18.980 | his literal family, Hunter, GL, etc. What they're actually

00:11:24.340 | doing, and this will be the next Nostra Canis prediction that

00:11:28.340 | will come true is they're going to

00:11:29.980 | I didn't have time to get like a whole lot. All I heard was like

00:11:36.940 | my anus is NIS not NUS. So Nostra Canis prediction coming

00:11:43.540 | in here. Here's what will happen. They are going to do

00:11:47.700 | all caps locks, all caps locks alert must credit Nostra Canis,

00:11:52.260 | they're going to do a democratic primary speed run. Here's

00:11:55.740 | what's going to happen. They're going to do five debates in 10

00:11:58.460 | weeks. And then whoever wins wins Kamala, he's going to

00:12:02.060 | resign Kamala becomes president. Kamala gets to run doesn't run.

00:12:07.700 | She gets to speed run like everybody else. Dean Phillips

00:12:10.220 | gets to come in, everybody speed runs it. The they take over the

00:12:13.940 | media. The media will go crazy over the summer massive ratings.

00:12:19.020 | Boom. And we have a winner come in. And they demolish Trump.

00:12:24.420 | That's not gonna happen. You said he's not going to get hop

00:12:26.580 | swapped as well. Nostra Canis has gone off the rails. You said

00:12:30.100 | he wouldn't get hot swap. So you have no question. If you run a

00:12:34.060 | debate, it shows it. The party the party needs to select a

00:12:38.820 | leader and they need to say this is our candidate because if they

00:12:41.620 | if they do this, it's too diffuse. It knows whoever ends

00:12:44.540 | up winning. It's trying to bring is it strengthens the party. It

00:12:48.580 | shrinks the party to say listen, he decided to resign. We wanted

00:12:52.300 | to do the most democratic thing possible. What's the most

00:12:55.140 | democratic thing possible. We put all our candidates out there

00:12:58.020 | and you the people choose to mop tell them I'm right.

00:13:00.500 | I think this is one of the dumbest predictions. You've made

00:13:04.980 | all right, you made some real doozies in your day. The hot

00:13:07.220 | swaps gonna happen. So you didn't call it the problem with

00:13:10.060 | your hot swap theory has always been that not only would Biden

00:13:13.980 | step down, but that magically they would choose the best

00:13:16.460 | candidate we would get a Jeff Bezos, we get a Jamie Dimon,

00:13:20.020 | that somehow we would get someone who represented all of

00:13:23.020 | Trump's policies without being Trump, but you would get some

00:13:25.580 | magical moderate to emerge the Democratic Party. That's not

00:13:28.700 | going to happen. Okay. Okay. Thanks to your incessant demands

00:13:32.220 | for the hot swap. Okay, you and many others and this feeding.

00:13:35.980 | I love it. Yeah, you in part along with many others have

00:13:39.540 | caused this feeding frenzy. We are going to get President

00:13:43.140 | Kamala Harris, she's the only alternative. You can see this in

00:13:45.780 | the prediction markets. Just a few days ago, it was sort of

00:13:49.420 | evenly divided between there was her there was Gavin Newsom.

00:13:52.300 | There's Gretchen Whitmer. Now it's just her. Why is that

00:13:54.540 | happened? Because they realized they can't sidestep Kamala

00:13:57.860 | Harris without offending a major constituency in the Democratic

00:14:01.540 | Party, equally important, maybe even more important, they would

00:14:04.860 | lose roughly a billion dollars of contributions to the Biden

00:14:07.660 | Harris campaign. If neither Biden nor Harris is running at

00:14:12.340 | the top of the ticket, they'd have to refund all of that money

00:14:15.460 | back to the donors who contributed it, there's no way

00:14:18.460 | they're going to start over from zero in terms of fundraising. So

00:14:22.060 | they've realized that if Joe steps aside, there is only one

00:14:26.740 | feasible candidate for them, which is Kamala Harris. Let me

00:14:29.220 | ask you a question. If Jamie Dimon declared that he's going

00:14:32.500 | to, he would be happy to take on the candidacy for the Democratic

00:14:36.260 | Party. He would call his friend Warren Buffett, he would call

00:14:40.740 | his friend, Jeff Bezos, he would call up his own personal banker

00:14:45.060 | and say, we've got half a billion, let's go. And let's

00:14:48.300 | have a run at this. There are certain folks that are outside

00:14:51.580 | of the typical political spectrum, that might actually

00:14:55.060 | have a shot at doing the extraordinary here, and stepping

00:14:58.500 | up and doing exactly what Trump and others that support Trump

00:15:02.740 | don't want to see happen, which is a candidate that can actually

00:15:06.540 | challenge Trump on the merits of their experience, on their

00:15:09.780 | values, on their capabilities as leaders as executives, and on

00:15:13.900 | their past performance. And I think that someone like that

00:15:16.900 | might be the strategists kind of move to say, this is the one

00:15:22.860 | thing we can do that can defeat Trump, because we all know from

00:15:26.180 | the polling, that Harris doesn't stand a shot.

00:15:28.420 | We tried that four years ago, and you're missing the history,

00:15:31.060 | which is Mike Bloomberg tried that exact same thing. And there

00:15:34.420 | was one word that was said to Mike, his candidates imploded.

00:15:38.220 | And it was the word billionaire. So the idea that you're going to

00:15:40.860 | get some other billionaire that all of a sudden is less hated. I

00:15:44.020 | mean, Mike Bloomberg has done some so much good, quite

00:15:46.660 | honestly. And so if he can't kind of escape the scarlet

00:15:50.820 | letter of that of the B word, I don't know anybody else.

00:15:53.180 | But here's why Bloomberg ran against other Democrats. This is

00:15:56.780 | a person that is running against another billionaire, which is

00:15:59.260 | Trump. And so if you have two people who are now on equal

00:16:02.740 | footing, and it is the Trump

00:16:04.380 | person gets a lot of people in this country, I suspect,

00:16:08.940 | let him cook. That's go for it. That's that you're operating

00:16:12.500 | you're operating under the charming delusion that the

00:16:15.420 | Democratic Party cares about democracy. This is basically a

00:16:19.940 | party that's run by political insiders that hates billionaires

00:16:23.540 | and people like this. People like Warren Buffett and Jamie

00:16:27.040 | Dimon. They pay the Democrats protection money. Okay, that's

00:16:30.780 | how Democrats see them. We're going to go shake them down to

00:16:33.540 | get money from them. They're not going to hand over the reins of

00:16:35.940 | the party. I don't disagree to some

00:16:37.900 | let me ask you a question.

00:16:39.540 | Yes, but

00:16:42.860 | he rewrote the rules of the party by running your

00:16:46.740 | Oh, he shut down. Hold on. He ran and shattered the party the

00:16:51.180 | established power structure. Remember, it was it was the Bush

00:16:53.820 | family's party. When Trump first ran, Jeb was supposed to be the

00:16:57.560 | nominee, right? He was supposed to write inherit the mantle from

00:17:00.720 | W the way that W inherited from his father. And Trump came in

00:17:04.720 | there and appealed directly to Republican primary voters, and

00:17:08.220 | called the forever wars a mistake, and said he was going

00:17:10.860 | to build the wall and said he's going to reset things with

00:17:13.320 | China issues that were latent in the Republican Party. And he

00:17:17.680 | took over the Republican Party the way you're supposed to

00:17:19.620 | through democracy, through voting, that opportunity has

00:17:22.920 | gone here because or the democratic primaries happened

00:17:25.720 | last year. And the Biden team ensured that he would basically

00:17:29.920 | win the primaries and Lee, so they control all the delegates.

00:17:33.060 | Remember that totally control the delegates, they're not going

00:17:35.580 | to release them to a Jamie Dimon or some other billionaire. Well,

00:17:39.400 | let me ask you a question. Party. Let me let me ask you a

00:17:42.100 | question. So if they if they end up facing the terminal nature of

00:17:45.680 | this, which is, if we don't put someone in that can win, we lose,

00:17:49.360 | we are not going to win. Yeah, it is over. Why do you think

00:17:52.440 | that Pamela can't win? That's their thinking right now is that

00:17:55.500 | she stands a better shot than by let's assume let's assume that

00:17:58.240 | they take a read of the polls, they take a read of the nation,

00:18:01.240 | they actually do a real look at the circumstances on the ground,

00:18:04.760 | which is that she is not going to win. If they looked at that,

00:18:08.120 | and they said, you know what, we need to win. And some sense comes

00:18:12.180 | into the head of the leaders of the Democratic Party. And they

00:18:15.080 | say, who can win? And a person like Jamie Dimon polls that he

00:18:19.080 | can win. There is a chance, I think that maybe they say this

00:18:22.800 | is how we're going to get back to the White House.

00:18:24.360 | They're never going to hand the reins of the party to a total

00:18:27.760 | outside the Democratic Party is the ultimate insider party. And

00:18:31.800 | they are going to pick an insights insiders picking

00:18:33.600 | insiders. And I think they've realized over the past week, in

00:18:36.760 | particular, that they cannot sidestep around Kamala Harris,

00:18:39.920 | both because it would be a slap in the face to her constituency

00:18:42.920 | and the money issue. So it's Kamala or bus for them. It's

00:18:46.420 | either Kamala or

00:18:47.160 | I think it's a really good. It's a really good point. What

00:18:48.880 | we'll see is just how rational hope the Democratic Party

00:18:52.360 | leadership is, are they going to continue to play based on

00:18:55.880 | insider first principles? Or will they actually take a first

00:19:01.000 | principles point of view on how do we win the election? And I

00:19:04.400 | think it will be very revealing about how the leaders of the

00:19:07.200 | Democratic Party think, based on the decision they make, and

00:19:10.760 | their donors. Well, I don't know if that's true, because I

00:19:12.840 | actually think that there's a donors are fleeing the ship,

00:19:15.480 | right? Yeah, there's a rift between the donor class and the

00:19:18.440 | Democratic Party leadership, correct. And I think the donor

00:19:20.800 | class doesn't want to lose. And by the way, sacks, what you're

00:19:23.520 | saying is probably right. But I think it could actually end up

00:19:26.120 | being a signal that there might be a change in how the who the

00:19:29.520 | donors end up supporting the next go around. For to realize

00:19:34.240 | this, a leadership change in the Democratic Party.

00:19:35.960 | Look what the prediction markets are showing is that it's not

00:19:38.760 | going to be a free fall. It's either going to be Harris or

00:19:41.280 | Biden. I mean, that's what the prediction markets are showing.

00:19:43.240 | And I think that's fundamentally right. But look, I think there's

00:19:47.080 | real danger here to the to the country in this, because what a

00:19:51.120 | lot of people are saying, and I guess it makes sense is that if

00:19:53.620 | Biden's not fit to run again, how is he fit to serve out the

00:19:57.680 | rest of his term?

00:19:58.240 | He's not fit to serve on his term, he's got to resign.

00:20:00.600 | Okay, so if he resigns, and that's probably the thing that

00:20:03.840 | helps Harris the most, right? Because now, she gets sworn in

00:20:07.520 | as commander in chief. She's the President of the United States.

00:20:10.960 | First female president. Yeah, it's a major glow up for her.

00:20:14.160 | And it imbues her with all of this gravitas and credibility

00:20:17.960 | that she's now the President United States, they can send her

00:20:21.040 | to G7 meetings and deal with other world leaders. They've got

00:20:24.120 | four months to basically take this candidate who everyone

00:20:28.080 | thought wasn't ready. Remember, a year ago during the primaries,

00:20:30.880 | when Biden ran again, one of the reasons why is because everyone

00:20:34.080 | said that comments is not ready. You know, every interview she

00:20:36.800 | does is basically a cackle or word salad. In any event,

00:20:41.520 | no one thought she was ready. Now. They have, like basically

00:20:45.760 | made her seem much more significant by giving her the

00:20:49.680 | presidency. But my point is this, we're in the middle of a

00:20:52.240 | war. We're in the middle of a war with Russia. Just a week or

00:20:57.520 | two ago, we are Russian that we're in the war, or we're

00:21:00.080 | providing weapons. Both a week or two ago, American cluster

00:21:05.440 | bombs were used to kill Russian civilian sunbathing.

00:21:10.560 | On the beach in Crimea. Okay, our weapons are targeting,

00:21:14.480 | killing Russian civilians. The Russians in response to that

00:21:18.560 | said, we are no longer in a state of peace with the United

00:21:22.480 | States. They did not say we're in a state of war. But they say

00:21:25.120 | we're no longer in a state of peace. And the Russians have

00:21:27.440 | indicated that they may escalate horizontally by giving advanced

00:21:32.000 | weapons to our enemies. For example, they've talked about

00:21:35.280 | giving cruise missiles to the hoodies. Okay, so all of this is

00:21:39.360 | happening right now in real time on the world stage. And

00:21:42.080 | you're going to remove Biden who look, I don't like Biden's

00:21:44.800 | policies. And I don't think he's competent us for more than a

00:21:49.440 | few hours a day. But I would still rather have Biden as

00:21:53.760 | commander in chief for the next six months, then take the risk

00:21:56.480 | of putting Harrison there, who's inexperienced, who's a

00:21:59.600 | lightweight, and who might want to prove how tough she is.

00:22:03.040 | Let's get your mouth in for the final word here, Chamath your

00:22:05.120 | thoughts on what's going to happen make your prediction

00:22:07.280 | between now and September? What do you think's the the mid game

00:22:11.040 | here? Before we get to the end game?

00:22:12.880 | I honestly don't know. But I think that we're in a precarious

00:22:17.920 | place where things are going to get worse. Biden actually

00:22:23.280 | approved private contractors now going into Ukraine and starting

00:22:28.400 | to fight Americans will be on the battlefield as of I think

00:22:32.800 | this was just a few days ago. If you remember the movie Wag the

00:22:37.840 | Dog, I think that it starts to create all these weird

00:22:40.640 | scenarios where people will want to create major distractions

00:22:45.360 | to try to keep the evidence and the attention away from this

00:22:49.760 | core issue that after the debate, everybody is focused on.

00:22:52.560 | I think the reality is that if you were accused, if any of you

00:22:55.680 | were accused of being mentally incapacitated, what you would

00:22:59.520 | probably do is go on every single talk show, go on every

00:23:03.200 | single news show, go on every single podcast, press

00:23:05.760 | conference, you would just do so much public facing work so as

00:23:11.040 | to completely dispel this idea so that you could firmly say it

00:23:14.320 | was a cold. Although now this week, it's jet lag, it was, it

00:23:18.960 | was jet lag, the time of day, whatever it was, you'd be able

00:23:23.520 | to just completely take the wind out of the sails. I think we're

00:23:27.840 | still getting only a controlled dribble of information and

00:23:32.320 | access to the President of the United States. So he's going to

00:23:35.360 | be on Stephanopoulos, he's going to show up for a NATO meeting.

00:23:39.120 | And so you're only seeing drips and drabs of somebody who now a

00:23:43.280 | lot of people think is not in a position, not just to run, but

00:23:46.640 | let alone run the country. You said last week, Democrat Party

00:23:49.680 | will have a meaningful reset. Still, still thinking match

00:23:53.600 | among the issue that the Democrats will have to face is

00:23:55.840 | the person that they probably want to run is someone different

00:23:59.120 | than Kamala Harris. And the problem that they're going to

00:24:02.480 | have to confront is, there's a part of it, which is

00:24:05.520 | fundraising. And I do think that David's right, there was an

00:24:07.680 | article in the FT, where one of the op ed writers said, they're

00:24:10.880 | in this sort of identity politics trap in sorts, because

00:24:13.680 | they will have to run her no matter what. And even if

00:24:17.040 | somebody did show up with the financial wherewithal, and I

00:24:20.640 | think, free book actually brings up a really interesting

00:24:23.680 | thought experiment. If there was somebody that could take the

00:24:26.320 | democratic mantle who could completely self fund their

00:24:28.800 | campaign, but he happened to be just a white man, what would the

00:24:34.880 | Democrats do relative to Kamala Harris, and I think that they

00:24:38.320 | would be in knots around what to do because of the identity

00:24:41.520 | politics issue. I think they have made it an important issue,

00:24:45.200 | this idea of inclusiveness as they've defined it. So it sets

00:24:49.360 | up for I think, a very complicated summer. Yeah. The

00:24:52.800 | other thing you have to keep in mind is how the electoral

00:24:54.960 | college works and how the ballot system works is that you don't

00:24:58.160 | have infinite time, you have to get all of this wrapped up and

00:25:00.800 | cinched up by the middle of August at the latest. And so

00:25:05.840 | we're very much on like a four or six week shot clock. And I

00:25:09.040 | don't think the democrats are doing what they need to do in

00:25:14.080 | order to completely take the wind out of the sails of this

00:25:17.040 | narrative that Biden is not prepared or capable. And the

00:25:20.640 | only way that you can do that is by having him appear 24 by

00:25:24.320 | seven in real time, in front of hundreds of millions of people

00:25:27.680 | as often as possible. And they're just not so since

00:25:30.160 | they're not doing it, they had ample time to do it. He's Yeah,

00:25:33.760 | he's, he's obviously by the way, the other the other problem

00:25:36.080 | that it creates is that you're starting to see some of these

00:25:39.040 | fissures inside of the team, there was a really charged

00:25:42.160 | article from axios that drop, which basically said that there

00:25:45.840 | are three people that have cordoned off access to the

00:25:48.160 | president. It named Yeah, that was Joe Biden, and Tomasini and

00:25:51.600 | some other person. And my initial thought when I read

00:25:54.000 | this was other than Joe Biden, who's a recognizable person, I

00:25:56.720 | had no idea who these other two people were. And I thought

00:25:59.520 | that's really precise for somebody like that, who has

00:26:03.840 | inside access to all of these sort of insiders to put that

00:26:07.280 | article up. So I think you're starting to see the sort of

00:26:11.040 | leaks and the fissures. And then that's sort of this next

00:26:14.320 | phase that will make things a little bit ugly and contorted.

00:26:16.560 | Let me ask one question here, because we got we got to move

00:26:18.560 | on to the Supreme Court stuff. sacks to poor question one, is

00:26:23.920 | there a chance that he has had a diagnosis already, and they're

00:26:27.200 | covering that up? And two, if they covered up something like

00:26:31.200 | that? What is the ramification of it? Because it's clear to

00:26:36.720 | everybody he's in cognitive decline. It's clear. It's been a

00:26:39.520 | couple of years of cognitive decline.

00:26:41.280 | No, no, that was asked of KJP in a press conference yesterday.

00:26:45.520 | She was very explicit. No. And the reason no, that she doesn't

00:26:48.720 | know. She doesn't know. No, no, the answer was much more

00:26:52.000 | explicit. Has he been diagnosed? And she said no. And the reason

00:26:55.600 | she said no is because that is very credible for her to say

00:26:58.480 | because he hasn't taken the test. Okay, so that's your

00:27:01.440 | theory. Look, it was obvious now for months, if not years,

00:27:05.040 | that there's been a huge cover up of his cognitive decline.

00:27:08.400 | And the media has participated in this anyone who raised that

00:27:12.080 | question was treated as being a partisan or a liar. And just for

00:27:15.680 | a good example of this, I know you described George

00:27:18.400 | Stephanopoulos as a straight shooter. But when Nikki Haley

00:27:21.360 | was on his show a few months ago, and I'm not a fan of Nikki

00:27:24.080 | Haley at all, but she started making this point. And

00:27:27.280 | Stephanopoulos basically wouldn't let her finish. I mean,

00:27:29.360 | basically shouted her down. So the media was actively

00:27:32.880 | suppressing the story. You take Morning Joe, a Scarborough. He

00:27:36.880 | was saying that this version of Biden is the best he's ever

00:27:39.280 | been. And we've been hearing all of that kind of stuff for

00:27:41.360 | months, they were describing true videos showing Biden being

00:27:46.080 | out of it, they were describing those as being fakes, clean

00:27:49.120 | fakes, they invented this new term for perfectly real videos

00:27:53.120 | that basically would reflect his condition. So the media has

00:27:55.760 | been engaged in a gigantic cover up of this. And as a result,

00:27:58.640 | the country is in really bad shape, because we have to go

00:28:02.960 | through the next six months, either with a senile president

00:28:06.800 | who has limited cognition, or we could end up with a new

00:28:10.880 | president who was untested, inexperienced, and based on

00:28:15.520 | every interview she's given in the last four years, appears to

00:28:18.080 | be completely clueless at a moment in time where I think we

00:28:21.680 | have the most dangerous foreign policy situation since the

00:28:24.240 | Cuban Missile Crisis. So this is a really horrible situation.

00:28:28.480 | And hold on, it's the media bears a lot of responsibility.

00:28:32.000 | And what should have happened, okay, what should have happened

00:28:34.960 | is we should have had a robust Democratic primary a year ago.

00:28:39.520 | Sure, based on concerns about binds cognitive abilities

00:28:43.760 | reported by an honest media. We never had that.

00:28:46.400 | Yeah. So you guys see this clip, by the way, there's a clip on

00:28:49.680 | Twitter, where somebody put together a clip on x, six

00:28:53.120 | minutes of 100, sort of spokespeople and proxies. And

00:28:59.680 | they all had the same thing to say about President Biden, which

00:29:02.000 | is he is sharp as attack, sharp as sharp as attack, which ended

00:29:06.400 | the tag the round part. What was so funny to me is I thought to

00:29:09.280 | myself, if I asked 100 people on the street, what do you think

00:29:13.120 | of Elon Musk, you'd have 100 different statements, there'd be

00:29:16.480 | a general theme. But you would not have even 50 people repeat

00:29:20.880 | the exact same words points, obviously. And so you have this

00:29:24.640 | funny situation where 100 different people were basically

00:29:27.520 | saying the exact same talking point. So it's not even a point

00:29:30.240 | of view. It was just something that they were told to say by

00:29:33.680 | somebody else. And that's your point. Both sides. acts is the

00:29:36.400 | real issue, which is that you don't really have an honest

00:29:38.800 | media here. And so there is no check and balance on power

00:29:42.160 | right now.

00:29:42.640 | Imagine if this feeding frenzy happened a year ago.

00:29:45.280 | Well, the contrast and compare I want to make is everybody has a

00:29:48.400 | point of view about Donald Trump. And I was thinking about

00:29:51.360 | this. The reason why everybody has a point of view about Donald

00:29:53.760 | Trump is everything that has happened in his life is

00:29:57.360 | completely transparently documented. There really is

00:30:00.320 | nothing hidden at this point. And so you have a point of view

00:30:03.520 | because you've been given all of the stuff. Right? And there's

00:30:08.480 | endless amounts of new stuff that come out about the old

00:30:10.960 | stuff. And so you know, and that's what's so interesting,

00:30:15.040 | you have the ability to come to your own decision, and it's not

00:30:18.320 | packaged through these filters. Yet with President Biden, I

00:30:21.280 | think it's so constrained and controlled. And I think you have

00:30:25.600 | to understand and appreciate that cognitive decline, let's

00:30:29.120 | assume that he isn't for the sake of the United States. But

00:30:31.840 | if he is in it, it only gets worse from here. And it

00:30:35.360 | compounds and compounds and compounds. That is what happens.

00:30:38.560 | And so not only do you have to wonder what the next five months

00:30:41.920 | are like, what does it look like in 18 and 24 and 36 months?

00:30:45.680 | That is a really important issue here.

00:30:48.800 | Clearly, Biden can't serve a second term. But the question is

00:30:51.440 | what what do we do now? And I gotta say, it's amazing to me

00:30:55.760 | that the democrats are not considering the one option that

00:31:00.320 | is kind of obvious, which is you let the man run the most

00:31:03.760 | dignified campaign he can. He's a candidate you chose, and

00:31:07.920 | satire sacks is back here. This is not satire. This is not

00:31:12.000 | satire sacks. The real problem here is the democrats refuse to

00:31:14.720 | lose. They want to cling to power. However, they can't they

00:31:19.040 | refuse to let democracy just work democracy working would be

00:31:23.040 | to do the speed run. I have a question. What would you do with

00:31:25.200 | the money? Would you just not spend it then? And just save it?

00:31:28.080 | Well, this is really interesting. So there is an

00:31:30.240 | analog. Okay, in 1996, Bob Dole was the Republican candidate for

00:31:35.200 | president. And quite frankly, he was too old. He was seen as a

00:31:38.320 | relic. Clinton was fairly popular. And it was pretty

00:31:41.840 | obvious that he was just a loser and he was going to lose. The

00:31:44.560 | republicans engage in shenanigans to try and fix the

00:31:47.760 | situation. No, they just accepted the inevitable that

00:31:50.640 | Dole was going to lose. And what they did is they pulled

00:31:53.440 | financing from his campaign, at least in the final month, and

00:31:56.880 | they redistributed it to House and Senate candidates. And

00:31:59.760 | actually, they did better. In the House and Senate, they held

00:32:02.960 | on to the House and Senate. I think they lost a few seats, but

00:32:06.080 | way less than they were expecting to. And they kind of

00:32:08.240 | ran on a campaign that, you know, you can't trust slick

00:32:11.680 | Willie. So keep us on split the ticket and keep us on as a check

00:32:16.880 | against him. And it actually worked fairly well. It was the

00:32:19.760 | best republicans could do. But frankly, they let Bob Dole run a

00:32:23.440 | dignified campaign. My advice to the democrats would be don't

00:32:27.120 | have Biden resign at doing a shake up. Listen to sacks.

00:32:31.280 | There's your political

00:32:32.400 | right now, when you put an untested, unexperienced, clueless

00:32:38.960 | president in there, he's going to want to show how tough she

00:32:41.440 | is and bring in her own team. No, no, no middle of this

00:32:44.080 | dangerous situation, let Biden run a dignified campaign and

00:32:47.680 | lose. My advice to the democrats is to embrace an outsider. Give

00:32:52.560 | the people what they want, freedom of choice, freedom to

00:32:57.440 | elect a leader and bring someone in that falls outside of the

00:33:01.600 | traditional political spectrum that does not want to hold

00:33:04.560 | public office, because it's not their career. They can bring

00:33:07.600 | money to the table, they can bring credibility to the table,

00:33:10.000 | and they can win votes and compete effectively against

00:33:12.720 | Trump. If your goal is to retain the White House, Kamala,

00:33:16.400 | give us to Jamie, Jamie Dimon, Jamie Dimon, Bob, give us a

00:33:21.920 | second. Bob Iger. Yeah, it's a great one.

00:33:24.640 | Another great one. Yeah, it's called wish casting. You're

00:33:30.000 | doing wish casting. I'm not speaking about realism. I'm

00:33:32.880 | speaking. I'm speaking about what it would take to win. Yes,

00:33:35.680 | they actually want to win someone that could win a popular

00:33:38.560 | vote, someone that could actually win votes away from

00:33:40.480 | Trump, because you can't introduce someone like Whitmer

00:33:43.120 | or more this late in the season when no one in the United States

00:33:46.560 | knows who the heck this person is. Yeah, when you have someone

00:33:48.880 | with credibility, with economic and business success, with

00:33:52.240 | executive authority, with capital and connections into the

00:33:55.760 | Democratic Party, but isn't part of the political machine

00:33:58.480 | that you and many others in the Democratic Party are now

00:34:01.600 | starting to hate. Let's go have an opportunity to actually win.

00:34:05.120 | Yes. And if they were smart, and they got their together,

00:34:07.360 | they would say, you know what, it's time for a change, just

00:34:09.520 | like the Republicans had to do when they use the Republican

00:34:12.800 | playbook. Brilliant, Friedberg. Brilliant. Okay, well, you guys

00:34:15.760 | better have a magic lamp with a genie in it, because that's the

00:34:18.480 | only way this is going to happen. Well, listen, it's I'm

00:34:21.520 | just trying to keep the show fresh. Okay, okay, here we go.

00:34:24.160 | Next topic. Final word. Here we go. I'm giving Friedberg the

00:34:28.880 | final row. He had the best take. I'm giving Friedberg the final

00:34:33.280 | word. Oh, you're pulling your McNeil era. Absolutely. Yeah.

00:34:36.720 | Okay, here we go. There were seven rulings in a bunch of

00:34:38.800 | SCOTUS activity over the last week. But these are really

00:34:42.160 | important, consequential decisions. We are going to talk

00:34:45.440 | about three of them. And I'm going to try to get through

00:34:48.800 | these quickly. Obviously, you could talk about these for

00:34:51.920 | hours, and people will be, you know, doing case studies on them

00:34:55.120 | for a long time. But let me try to do this quickly. So we can

00:34:58.160 | get everybody's take on them. The first one I want to talk

00:35:00.160 | about is net choice. This is the content moderation cases that

00:35:03.840 | you may have heard of, there were two very controversial laws

00:35:06.640 | passed in Florida and Texas in 2021. In the wake of January 6,

00:35:11.200 | the Florida law, if you weren't aware of it, and I don't suspect

00:35:14.640 | most people are, would cover platforms with over 100 million

00:35:18.080 | monthly active users or 100 million in annual revenue. In

00:35:21.200 | other words, they're targeting x YouTube, Facebook meta, those

00:35:24.560 | kinds of sites. And they would require those platforms to

00:35:28.000 | notify users if their posts are removed or altered. And the

00:35:31.360 | platforms would have to make general disclosures about their

00:35:33.680 | operations and policies. And the Texas law was very similar

00:35:36.960 | platforms over 50 million monthly active users, and it

00:35:40.160 | would require them to notify users whose posts were removed

00:35:42.960 | and provide an explanation of why all that kind of stuff. Both

00:35:46.080 | of these laws were challenged in court in 2021. Just to give you

00:35:50.000 | an idea like why I think the conservatives were upset about

00:35:54.320 | this. Obviously, Trump being suspended indefinitely on

00:35:59.280 | Twitter, Facebook and other platforms or the labeling of

00:36:02.160 | content like we've seen on our own channel on YouTube. Net

00:36:04.960 | choice is a tech industry group includes Facebook and YouTube

00:36:07.920 | and the parent companies of those. And they sued to block

00:36:12.000 | these two laws. Justice Kagan, a liberal wrote the unanimous

00:36:15.440 | decision, obviously no dissensions here. And the

00:36:18.320 | majority held the editorial judgment and the curation of

00:36:20.640 | other people's speech is a unique expressive product of

00:36:23.440 | its own, which entitles it to First Amendment protection. So

00:36:27.360 | just to give you an example, if you wanted to create a social

00:36:29.280 | network, we can't be anonymous like LinkedIn, you can do that.

00:36:31.840 | If you want to do something like Twitter x and have anonymous

00:36:34.000 | accounts, you can do that as well. If you want to create a

00:36:36.000 | social network with adult content, you can do it. Or like

00:36:39.200 | Zack is doing on threats. Interestingly, they are down

00:36:42.080 | playing political content, obviously other platforms

00:36:44.640 | amplify political content. So let me and so the end of all

00:36:51.600 | this in terms of how the court handled it is, they offered some

00:36:54.960 | guidance and sent the cases back to the lower courts to clarify

00:36:57.760 | a bunch of stuff. Just to keep this brief. Chamath, what are

00:37:00.960 | your thoughts on this? Obviously, some of the ideas

00:37:04.400 | here, like letting users know why they were banned or why

00:37:08.720 | content was taken down. I think the overwhelming majority of

00:37:11.520 | users would like to have that. But is this the government's

00:37:14.000 | role? I'm not enough of a legal scholar to know the details of

00:37:17.840 | this case, except to say that when the entire court goes in

00:37:23.520 | one direction, it's probably because this never should have

00:37:27.520 | been brought to the court in the first place. And they're

00:37:29.280 | giving a very clear message. It wasn't even ideologically

00:37:32.640 | strained to figure out what the right answer should be. So,

00:37:36.160 | Saks, obviously, your chosen party was the one who brought

00:37:39.760 | this, you have concerns about the platforms doing this. But do

00:37:42.800 | you have equal concerns about the government, then I guess,

00:37:45.840 | being the ones who have to enforce these? Is this a good

00:37:49.280 | ruling? Well, I think that with respect to the Texas and

00:37:53.600 | Florida laws, I think their heart was in the right place,

00:37:56.160 | they were motivated by the right things, which was to reduce

00:37:58.560 | censorship on the social media platforms, specifically

00:38:01.760 | censorship of conservatives, which is to say they're, they're

00:38:04.800 | citizens. But those laws probably were overly broad. And

00:38:10.160 | they infringed on the free speech of corporations, because

00:38:14.320 | I guess corporations get free speech, too. And basically,

00:38:16.880 | what the ruling says is that content moderation receives the

00:38:20.000 | same First Amendment protections as any other kind of speech. So

00:38:23.680 | the decisions of what content you're going to keep up or take

00:38:27.920 | down on your own property, is itself a speech decision. And

00:38:33.200 | the government has to respect that. So that's what the ruling

00:38:35.920 | here was saying. I think it's not a bad decision. I wish the

00:38:38.720 | Supreme Court, however, had coupled this with a better

00:38:41.920 | decision in the Missouri versus Biden case, which they, they

00:38:46.160 | basically said that the plaintiffs lack standing to

00:38:48.160 | pursue. So they didn't necessarily give a dispositive

00:38:51.920 | ruling in that case, but they threw it, they threw it out. And

00:38:55.280 | and basically, what that case was about was the Biden

00:38:58.560 | administration was engaged in attempts to influence or

00:39:02.080 | pressure social media companies to take down speech as a

00:39:05.680 | practice known as jawboning. And I wish they had coupled this

00:39:09.920 | decision with a better decision in in Missouri versus Biden

00:39:14.160 | saying the government's not allowed to coerce social

00:39:16.880 | networks to take down speech either. And they refuse to do

00:39:20.000 | that. So I wouldn't say these are like the greatest set of

00:39:23.680 | decisions with regard to free speech that the courts ever

00:39:27.040 | done. I hope that they will come back in the future. Once

00:39:30.560 | they find a plaintiff with the right standing to address that

00:39:33.440 | issue. Yeah, that's a key issue. Freeberger thoughts.

00:39:35.520 | Yeah. So I've said for a long time, we've obviously had

00:39:38.800 | conversations about Twitter and shadow banning and some of the

00:39:42.880 | other activities on what are typically called social media

00:39:45.600 | platforms. At the end of the day, these are all as I've

00:39:48.560 | shared in the past, my belief is they're all content companies,

00:39:51.440 | they have a choice as executives and it's editors of

00:39:55.680 | those companies to decide how to editorialize the content on

00:39:58.480 | their platforms. They can choose to create content with

00:40:01.440 | writers that they pay on staff, like a newspaper might, they

00:40:04.480 | can choose to create content with actors and directors that

00:40:07.200 | they pay to create novel video series for them like HBO might,

00:40:11.200 | or they can choose to make content creation available to

00:40:15.040 | third parties that don't get paid like users. And at the end

00:40:18.720 | of the day, what they choose to do with that content and how

00:40:21.200 | they choose to display that content is up to them as an

00:40:24.080 | editorial platform that is ultimately creating content for

00:40:27.120 | other consumers. I don't view that user generated content

00:40:30.080 | platforms are a right of the consumers to have access to

00:40:34.800 | share their thoughts. They have the internet to do that. And

00:40:37.360 | they have many other places that they can go to, to create

00:40:39.680 | blogs, to create websites to do whatever else they want to do

00:40:42.880 | to express themselves. But to have a technological platform

00:40:46.320 | that lets them submit content, that then the editors get to

00:40:49.360 | decide how and where they show that content. I think they

00:40:52.160 | should understand because it's in the terms and conditions

00:40:54.240 | when you sign up. So I don't believe in social media

00:40:56.640 | platforms as utilities. And I don't think that the government

00:40:59.680 | should have any role in deciding what is or isn't on those

00:41:03.040 | platforms. This goes both ways. I think that the company should

00:41:06.480 | decide what kind of platforms they want to have, whether they

00:41:09.440 | want to have free speech that allows inappropriate content,

00:41:12.960 | or content that might be offensive, or whether they want

00:41:15.840 | to have a highly moderated platform to make it more

00:41:18.000 | broadly available or appealing to users, it's entirely up to

00:41:20.880 | them. And I really do appreciate the ruling, because I think

00:41:24.000 | that the government should have less of a role in intervening

00:41:26.080 | and deciding how media companies create content and how they

00:41:28.640 | editorialize that content.

00:41:29.760 | Yeah, so I think that's well said. And I was in the same sort

00:41:33.040 | of camp as you freeberg, which is like a battle of snowflakes

00:41:36.160 | here, like, the liberals, obviously, we're canceling

00:41:38.480 | people on these platforms. And now like the bag of folks want

00:41:41.200 | to come in and have the government regulated. If you

00:41:43.360 | want to compete here, just create a new product or service

00:41:46.720 | in the market, you're on the board of rumble sacks, like

00:41:49.760 | they're doing really well. And if you squeeze too tight, and

00:41:52.720 | your platform doesn't work, it's the marketplace should, you

00:41:55.680 | know, figure out who the winners are. And you know, it's it's not

00:41:59.840 | a situation where you want the government getting in there,

00:42:02.560 | because then they're going to go to a newspaper. And there's so

00:42:05.440 | much precedent here. You know, I actually read some of the of

00:42:08.640 | these rulings, which is really interesting. They're written

00:42:10.880 | phenomenally well, I will put in the show notes, the actual

00:42:13.280 | links to the PDFs of these decisions, they're well worth

00:42:16.000 | reading. And in this case, they brought up a bunch of the

00:42:20.240 | previous law was fascinating, like people wanted to force a

00:42:23.920 | newspaper to allow you know, one candidate to reply and give

00:42:28.960 | him space. They were like, No, you can't do that. It's their

00:42:30.720 | newspaper, they decide what they publish. Another person

00:42:33.360 | wanted to have a corporate newsletter be forced to give

00:42:37.200 | information about the other sides. You just don't get to do

00:42:39.680 | that. I'll just say one more thing. What else is striking is

00:42:42.160 | just how insular and protectionist Texas and Florida

00:42:45.520 | are being. And it's not just with this law. It's also with

00:42:48.560 | the lab grown meat or cultivated meat laws that they've passed

00:42:51.040 | and other states are passing similar laws, which is limiting

00:42:53.920 | innovation in the state and limiting freedom to operate in

00:42:56.480 | the state in order to protect interests of individuals and

00:43:00.080 | corporations that already exist within that state. So it's

00:43:02.720 | really important to note this isn't a good or a bad thing. But

00:43:05.760 | those states are operating in a way the lawmakers of those

00:43:08.240 | states are operating in a way that's trying to protect the

00:43:10.720 | interests of the individuals and businesses in the state over

00:43:13.360 | the freedoms that might and the liberties that might otherwise

00:43:16.080 | be available. And I think we often talk about these states

00:43:17.840 | being more free, but these laws and the cultivated meat ban laws

00:43:20.880 | in my opinion, indicate that these states are actually on the

00:43:23.680 | contrary. They're much more kind of protectionist. Where's your

00:43:27.040 | take on that sex to free birds point? I mean, I think this,

00:43:30.080 | this ruling might have been necessary from a constitutional

00:43:32.480 | standpoint, because corporations do have free speech rights. But

00:43:36.240 | again, I would say that I think that the laws of Texas and

00:43:39.440 | Florida are coming from a good place, which is they were trying

00:43:42.240 | to protect the rights of their citizens to engage in free

00:43:45.440 | speech. I think it's just unfortunate that in this case,

00:43:48.320 | it's a zero sum game. And as a result, those laws were

00:43:52.080 | invalidated. I think that makes sense. But I still think we have

00:43:54.480 | a problem.

00:43:55.040 | I agree with you, the platforms have too much power. What is

00:43:58.080 | your proposed solution? You obviously don't want to have the

00:44:01.040 | government in there, like running a newsroom or running

00:44:03.360 | Twitter x, because you yourself were saying, hey, the

00:44:05.760 | government's too involved in x and these platforms and doing

00:44:09.440 | this job owning. So obviously, having the more involved is bad,

00:44:13.440 | right? You're against them being involved.

00:44:14.960 | Yeah, I think it's really tricky to figure out how to solve

00:44:17.360 | this. God, I think for one thing, you don't want the

00:44:20.800 | government job owning these sites to take down content that

00:44:23.280 | clearly should be a free speech violation. I'm disappointed the

00:44:26.000 | court didn't get to that.

00:44:26.880 | I think we're totally missing the bigger picture. There's like

00:44:30.160 | a lot of fear mongering that I think has happened with respect

00:44:34.160 | to the Supreme Court, and that it's all of a sudden become

00:44:38.560 | some super ideological, super rigid, super activist place. And

00:44:45.280 | I think it's, in fact, much of the opposite, and the data

00:44:48.560 | supports that. And so I think it's important for people to

00:44:51.360 | know that what's actually happening is that many of these

00:44:54.880 | decisions are very much split along non ideological lines. And

00:45:00.000 | I think that that's an important thing. So I just like I'm

00:45:02.240 | pulling this up, and I just want to read some of these things to

00:45:04.320 | you. US versus Rahimi, which is a federal law that prohibits

00:45:09.120 | people subjected to domestic violence, restraining orders

00:45:13.040 | from having a firearm. That was an eight to one decision were

00:45:16.160 | all but Thomas supported that makes a lot of sense, you would

00:45:19.120 | think racial gerrymandering, that was more ideological, where

00:45:23.440 | it was a conservative bloc versus Sotomayor, Brown and

00:45:26.720 | Kagan, Trump, the Anderson, which is Trump getting back on

00:45:30.400 | the Colorado ballot nine. Oh, FDA versus the Alliance for

00:45:36.640 | Hippocratic Medicine, which was access to the abortion pill,

00:45:39.920 | nine, zero, maintaining access. Moyle versus us, which is

00:45:46.080 | whether Idaho strict abortion law conflicts with the federal

00:45:49.040 | law, non ideological, where it was Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and

00:45:53.520 | Katanji, Brown, Jackson, who descended. So it goes on and on.

00:45:57.280 | And I think what's so interesting about all of this is

00:45:59.440 | that I had thought that this was not like what it was, what I

00:46:03.680 | thought what had happened is, Trump's track, the Supreme

00:46:06.640 | Court, all of a sudden, we are ripping all these laws apart,

00:46:10.400 | this long standing sort of doctrine of what has passed. But

00:46:15.600 | yet, I think what's actually happening is people are pretty

00:46:18.160 | thoughtfully pushing the responsibility to the states. And

00:46:23.280 | I think that the court's decisions are relatively

00:46:26.800 | unpredictable, in the sense that it's not just a conservative

00:46:29.440 | bloc versus a liberal bloc. I think that's the real story. And

00:46:32.880 | when you unpack a bunch of these decisions in that context,

00:46:35.920 | that's what's so interesting to me is like, these are pretty

00:46:39.440 | nuanced decisions that get at the heart of a lot of key

00:46:41.920 | important issues happening across non ideological lines,

00:46:45.200 | Jan six, one Katanji, Brown, Jackson was the Biden appointee

00:46:48.080 | that basically supported this thing that may throw out 200

00:46:50.960 | plus convictions for Jan six, and Amy Coney Bare was on the

00:46:53.600 | other side. This is an unpredictable Supreme Court. I

00:46:55.760 | think they think for themselves, they seem to be independent.

00:46:58.400 | And I think they're coming to their own conclusions. That's

00:47:01.760 | the only thing to take away from the distribution of the

00:47:03.760 | votes that should make people feel a little bit better.

00:47:06.480 | So I think this next ruling is the most important one. And I

00:47:09.360 | think will be the most important one that we've seen with this

00:47:12.160 | new court that has three of the nine justices placed by Trump to

00:47:18.560 | your point Chamath. And this one is seismic, the looper versus

00:47:23.280 | Raimondo decision overturned Chevron. Okay, so this one takes

00:47:26.960 | a little explaining the court overruled a landmark 1984

00:47:29.840 | decision in the Chevron case from 40 years ago. For context,

00:47:35.280 | the original ruling created the Chevron doctrine where the

00:47:38.640 | government and federal courts generally defer to the stances

00:47:42.000 | of federal agencies unless Congress has written specific

00:47:45.280 | laws on an issue. The 1984 ruling upheld the EPA's

00:47:48.640 | interpretation of the Clean Air Act. It's very influential.

00:47:52.000 | This has been cited by federal courts over 18,000 times in 40

00:47:55.520 | years, it was overruled in another six to three decision

00:47:58.480 | where the justices voted along party lines from basically the

00:48:02.000 | shift power back to federal judges and courts instead of

00:48:04.480 | administrative agency staffed by experts, academics, all that

00:48:07.840 | kind of stuff. In the majority opinion, Roberts conservative

00:48:12.080 | obviously, said the Chevron doctrine violates the

00:48:15.280 | Administrative Procedures Act of federal law that directs the

00:48:17.360 | courts to review actions taken by federal agencies. He also

00:48:19.760 | pointed out that the courts are regularly expected to deal with

00:48:22.000 | technical questions. So this should not be considered beyond

00:48:24.320 | their ability to scope. Kagan, a liberal wrote a critical

00:48:27.120 | dissent. She said the agency staff with scientists and

00:48:29.200 | experts are more likely to have the expertise to make these

00:48:31.680 | decisions rather than the judges. She also pointed out

00:48:34.960 | that the system had been functioning for 40 years. And

00:48:37.520 | this ruling will create a massive quote jolt to the legal

00:48:40.640 | system. Chamath get in there. Do you remember when President

00:48:43.440 | Biden tried to pass the budget two years ago, and he was one

00:48:48.160 | vote short. And Joe Manchin ended up putting it over the top.

00:48:52.480 | But he negotiated what was a redo of a bunch of regulation.

00:48:57.360 | And he was promised that there would be this regulatory

00:49:01.360 | overhaul that happened. And that was sort of why he had

00:49:05.600 | decided to vote for that budget bill, it ended up not

00:49:09.360 | happening. So the reason why I think he had saw that and he

00:49:13.440 | discussed this is that there are so many businesses that now

00:49:17.040 | suffer from the regulations of these agencies, because when the

00:49:20.880 | agency enacted that regulation, it was just a different time and

00:49:24.240 | place. And there was no clean way to go back to an independent

00:49:29.440 | body and say, I understand what your intention was in 1985,

00:49:34.240 | when you wrote that regulation. But in 2024, things have

00:49:38.160 | changed. Can we reconsider and basically what the courts have

00:49:43.360 | done now will allow companies who believe that regulations

00:49:47.440 | are either overwrought or misguided. For today's market

00:49:52.080 | landscape, bring it to an independent judiciary and have

00:49:56.240 | them decide. And I think that that's a very reasonable check

00:49:59.440 | and balance. And I think that's, that makes a lot of sense.

00:50:02.480 | Folks can pass laws. And if folks believe that those laws do

00:50:05.920 | you undo harm, now you have a mechanism to go and actually

00:50:10.160 | explain your case to somebody independent who can then make a

00:50:13.440 | judgment. I think that that's a good check and balance.

00:50:16.000 | freeburg. I knew this was the one you most wanted to talk

00:50:18.240 | about. What's your take on this end of the age of experts and

00:50:23.600 | throwing things back to the court? What will be the

00:50:25.760 | practical ramifications? I don't know how much experience you

00:50:29.040 | guys have had dealing with federal regulators, you have a

00:50:34.000 | lot more than I think. Yeah. And I've worked in a lot across a

00:50:37.760 | number of federal agencies in businesses I've been involved

00:50:41.200 | in. And I can tell you, it is, as I'm sure you would expect,

00:50:45.520 | there's a lot of bureaucratic morass in, in these agencies.

00:50:49.360 | And if you think about it, it's because the agencies are

00:50:52.640 | effectively under the Chevron doctrine, vested unlimited

00:50:56.880 | authority to create rules and regulations that they then

00:51:01.200 | determine are meant to represent the laws that were passed by

00:51:05.120 | Congress. But more often than not, those rules and regulations

00:51:08.800 | begin to bleed outside of the lines of the intention of the

00:51:13.600 | laws when they were passed. And this is because those agencies

00:51:17.920 | by creating new rules and regulations, this isn't this

00:51:21.280 | isn't some like, you know, I have a subversive reason for

00:51:25.040 | doing this, but these agencies have an incentive for creating

00:51:28.960 | more rules and regulations, because they then get to go back

00:51:31.520 | to Congress and ask for more budget and hire more people and

00:51:35.840 | grow the importance and the scale of their agency. This is

00:51:39.680 | the natural kind of organic growth that arises in any

00:51:43.200 | living system. And any organization of individuals is

00:51:46.560 | also a living system and has the same incentive. It wants to

00:51:49.760 | have more resources, it wants to get bigger, it wants to do

00:51:52.480 | more stuff, it wants to be more important. And the Chevron

00:51:55.760 | doctrine has allowed agencies to operate independent and

00:51:59.920 | outside of the lines that were defined in the laws that were

00:52:02.800 | passed, that that then vested them this authority, that then

00:52:06.080 | they can go and say, I want more budget, I want to get

00:52:07.920 | bigger. And I'm optimistic that this ruling will limit the

00:52:12.960 | agency's authorities and limit their ability to create more

00:52:16.480 | bureaucratic overhead, more headcount, more individuals

00:52:20.560 | that need to now go and administer the rules and

00:52:23.440 | regulations that they themselves create. And so I'm

00:52:26.560 | actually very optimistic and hopeful about this, this

00:52:29.760 | change. Now, the downside, the negative to this, is that there

00:52:32.880 | are a number of really important regulatory roles that

00:52:37.360 | agencies have come to play that never got passed as bills, like

00:52:41.280 | environmental protection rules. And there's a negative

00:52:45.120 | consequence that will arise to some degree, with respect to

00:52:48.080 | health of the environment, health of people, etc. But I

00:52:50.560 | think net net, Congress needs to do its job, it needs to go

00:52:54.080 | back to session, and it needs to sit down and needs to pass

00:52:56.960 | laws that really clearly define what is and what isn't going to

00:53:00.080 | be legal going forward. And then the agencies operate

00:53:02.880 | strictly within those bounds. So to recap, it could get a

00:53:05.840 | little messy, but it's better, healthier system, because this

00:53:09.120 | system has become super bloated over 40 years. That was my take

00:53:13.040 | on it as well. sacks, what's your take on this? This feels

00:53:15.920 | like a huge win to me. What do you know?

00:53:18.560 | Oh, I agree with that. And I agree with what freeberg said,

00:53:21.440 | look, when when this decision, the Chevron decision came down

00:53:24.480 | in 1984, at the height of the Reagan Revolution, conservatives

00:53:28.160 | actually liked it, they praised it, because we were coming off

00:53:31.600 | a period of an activist court, you know, the Warren Court, and

00:53:36.240 | they thought that shifting power from the courts, the agencies

00:53:39.200 | would actually be a good move. Well, it turns out it completely

00:53:41.680 | backfired. Whichever one it came out was not a widely noticed

00:53:45.520 | decision since then has been cited 18,000 times by federal

00:53:49.760 | courts has turned out to be enormously important and

00:53:52.400 | influential. And the reason for all those citations is it's the

00:53:56.080 | courts deferring to the rulemaking of an agency, you

00:53:59.440 | know, what Chevron basically says is, as long as the

00:54:01.920 | agency's interpretation is reasonable, or you could say not

00:54:05.600 | unreasonable, then the agency can basically promulgate the

00:54:08.640 | rule. And what this has led to is an orgy of rulemaking by all

00:54:12.960 | these federal agencies. And so most of our laws now

00:54:17.520 | effectively are being made by unelected bureaucrats who are

00:54:20.640 | part of this three letter alphabet soup of government

00:54:23.520 | agencies. It's not the Congress, it's not the court, it's not the

00:54:26.480 | president. It's this fourth branch of government that's not

00:54:29.520 | in the Constitution, which is the administrative state. And so

00:54:33.040 | the administrative state has become incredibly powerful as

00:54:36.160 | a result of Chevron doctrine. And now I think by reversing it,

00:54:40.160 | you actually give a chance for the restoration of democracy.

00:54:44.320 | Basically, the agencies are not empowered to essentially make

00:54:47.680 | whatever rules they want, as long as they superficially

00:54:50.400 | appear reasonable, they actually have to show that their rules

00:54:54.000 | are within a statute that they were directed by Congress to

00:54:58.400 | effectively engage in the rulemaking. So this is a step in

00:55:01.040 | the right direction for sure. But again, the real problem here

00:55:03.440 | is reigning in this unelected administrative state.

00:55:05.600 | Yeah, come up any final thoughts here as we move on to

00:55:08.560 | the next one.

00:55:09.040 | Seems like the Supreme Court is doing a great job.

00:55:13.760 | I agree.

00:55:15.520 | All nine of them. I mean, they really, they really seem to be

00:55:18.640 | doing a tremendous job. I give them a lot of credit.

00:55:22.320 | I feel like I've become a conservative. Maybe I'm a

00:55:25.200 | conservative now, sex. I don't know, I may have to sit down and

00:55:28.160 | confess to you. Because I read a number of these decisions. And

00:55:31.200 | I was like, I agree, I agree. And this is supposed to be a

00:55:33.280 | conservative court. So I'm not sure.

00:55:34.800 | Well, it's actually it's not, it's not an originalist court.

00:55:38.480 | It's not a conservative court. This is what I'm saying. Like

00:55:40.400 | these are words that are planted by people that want you to

00:55:43.280 | believe their version of the lie. Great. So there are a lot

00:55:47.760 | of originalists on the court. And what the originalists

00:55:50.720 | doctrine says, and sacks, you can correct me is I read the

00:55:53.920 | Constitution with faith and fidelity, and I just see what

00:55:56.800 | it's what it says, not I interpret it, not I fill in the

00:56:00.560 | words, I just, what it says is what we're allowed. And I think

00:56:04.160 | that there's some, there's a really good version of America

00:56:08.000 | in that view of the world.

00:56:09.120 | Yeah, I mean, I would say it's not even necessarily an

00:56:12.400 | originalist or conservative court. It's a 333 court, meaning

00:56:15.600 | there's three conservatives, there's three liberals, there's

00:56:17.600 | three justice in the middle, you have this middle block, led by

00:56:20.960 | the Chief Justice Roberts with Kavanaugh and Barrett, and then

00:56:23.840 | you got the conservatives with Gorsuch and Thomas and Alito.

00:56:28.240 | And sometimes the middle block goes with the liberals, sometimes

00:56:31.280 | it goes with the conservatives. Again, it's more of like a

00:56:33.600 | triangle. And as we know, the triangle is the best shape for

00:56:37.120 | equipoise, right? Because it creates balance. And I think

00:56:40.240 | what we have right now is a balanced court. And I think on

00:56:42.480 | the whole, they've done a good job. And I think it's kind of

00:56:45.520 | sad that in reaction to some of these decisions, you've got

00:56:49.040 | powerful lawmakers like Elizabeth Warren, who are

00:56:51.360 | explicitly calling for packing in the court. They're actually

00:56:54.800 | saying, you know, put a bunch of justice on here to ruin this

00:56:57.520 | equipoise that we have. I think it's really sad. I think that

00:57:00.720 | the court right now is one of the last highly functional

00:57:03.360 | institutions in American public life. And for elected leaders to

00:57:07.600 | be calling for its destruction is just sad.

00:57:10.400 | Well, I you know, I think what here and here's an image from

00:57:14.320 | Axio showing, you know, six Republican nominated and three

00:57:18.480 | Democrat nominated, I think, to give the counter argument, you

00:57:22.240 | know, Roe v. Wade, being overturned was something the

00:57:25.360 | majority of the country didn't want. These three people were

00:57:28.000 | added for that explicit purpose by Trump, people have trauma,

00:57:33.200 | pain over that reasonably, I think. And then the truth is,

00:57:37.280 | though, if they are, you know, just one standard deviation

00:57:41.280 | here, as you can see in this Axios chart, which is based on

00:57:45.040 | some data, I don't I don't trust this chart. I think this chart

00:57:48.640 | is worthless, Jason, I think. Well, let me explain to you

00:57:50.800 | what actual articles No, but I'm saying no, no, look at the

00:57:53.200 | actual you don't even know what it is. If you look at my point

00:57:57.040 | is this is meaningless. A child could have drawn this. It means

00:57:59.120 | nothing. No, no, a child didn't draw it. This was how do you

00:58:02.480 | know? I'm reading because I'm reading the sources. I'm reading

00:58:05.680 | the source of the data. This is based on something called the

00:58:07.920 | Martin Quinn score and analysis by political scientists, Andrew

00:58:10.880 | Martin, Kevin Quinn, known as the Martin Quinn score places

00:58:14.000 | judges on an idea lecture, ideological spectrum, a lower

00:58:17.120 | score indicates a more liberal justice, or a high score

00:58:20.000 | indicates a more conservative justice. And then they went

00:58:23.200 | through all of their decisions. You're saying a subjective

00:58:26.880 | classifier, a subjective classifier is created by these

00:58:29.920 | two random people. And you're not regurgitating the score like

00:58:33.120 | it means something. No, I think it's an interesting way. It's an

00:58:36.560 | interesting chart to discuss to understand a little bit of

00:58:39.760 | their meanings. What I would encourage anybody to do is to

00:58:43.360 | look at the actual substance of the decisions, and the votes and

00:58:48.000 | what you will see is that people are not as easily predictable as

00:58:51.680 | that chart would show. And I think that's what's important.

00:58:53.920 | Okay. I think that chart supports exactly what you just

00:59:00.960 | said, sacks, right? Yeah.

00:59:02.320 | I mean, not exactly. I mean, again, I view it as a 333 court,

00:59:07.600 | a lot of other people have written about that. And they've

00:59:09.280 | got their own diagrams and charts to show that look, I

00:59:11.600 | think it's a court, like I said, in equipoise, I don't think it's

00:59:14.880 | partisan, I think it's it's been reasonably fair. I don't agree

00:59:18.640 | with every single ruling. Like I said, I would have liked to

00:59:21.360 | seen a different result in Biden v. Missouri. However, I think on

00:59:25.520 | the whole, they're doing a good job. And it really should be a

00:59:27.280 | scandal that you've got powerful lawmakers explicitly calling for

00:59:32.000 | the court to be passed. I mean, that would be a disaster, right?

00:59:35.280 | Because you have nine justices, which is a good number, you try

00:59:37.920 | to increase that to 13. Then the next time the republicans have

00:59:40.960 | control, they're going to increase it to 15, or 21, or

00:59:44.080 | whatever. And pretty soon, we're gonna have 100 justices on the

00:59:46.480 | court, you'll ruin it. You know, really, nine justices should be

00:59:50.160 | a constitutional requirement, we should fix it at nine and not

00:59:53.360 | mess with that. So it's just scandalous to me that you've got

00:59:57.360 | politicians who are reacting to reasonable decisions by saying

01:00:01.760 | that we need to pack the court.

01:00:03.040 | Okay, quick hit here. This is an important story for you.

01:00:05.440 | Chamath Scott has also agreed to hear a case on the limits of

01:00:08.160 | online porn in its next term, which starts in October.

01:00:11.040 | Will it will it impact incognito mode? Because if it is

01:00:16.640 | that, yeah, just

01:00:18.000 | you're in trouble.

01:00:20.640 | I just I think there's a, are you?

01:00:26.480 | Could you imagine if they banned incognito mode?

01:00:30.000 | I think you might want to do a deep dive into how incognito

01:00:34.160 | incognito mode is you may want to get a VP. I'm pretty sure

01:00:38.000 | Texas is going to ban incognito.

01:00:39.680 | Texas and Florida, I think a couple of these sites because of

01:00:45.920 | the threat of, you know, this, these laws of age gating, they've

01:00:51.280 | just decided to wholesale leave certain states by IP address.

01:00:55.520 | Therefore, the sale of VPNs in Texas went up because when you

01:00:59.600 | went to certain porn sites, I said, hey, because of Texas is

01:01:01.840 | proposing these laws, we're not going to allow you to visit this

01:01:05.840 | website, Nick, do the NBC thing, the more you know, the more

01:01:09.520 | okay, let's go disagree to hear a case on the limits of online

01:01:14.720 | porn in its next term, which starts in October, the long

01:01:18.400 | question was passed by Texas legislature in 2023 requires

01:01:21.360 | porn sites to verify the age of their users and restrict access

01:01:24.720 | for minors. It seems reasonable Fifth Circuit Court in New

01:01:27.600 | Orleans upheld the law sending it to the Supreme Court if

01:01:29.760 | upheld users would have to submit personal info that

01:01:32.640 | verifies that over 18 to watch porn. The law is opposed by the

01:01:36.720 | ACLU and the free speech coalition, which is a trade

01:01:39.680 | group representing adult entertainers and companies they

01:01:42.000 | argue it places an undue burden on adults wishing to access

01:01:44.960 | constantly protected free expression. Oh, speaking of

01:01:48.000 | porn and its related businesses. The Rick's cabaret recession

01:01:54.000 | index is back on you guys see this? It was published on

01:01:56.720 | Twitter. So Rick's cabaret is a collection of public strip

01:02:00.160 | clubs. And and what's interesting about the Rick's

01:02:04.320 | cabaret stock price is that it has presaged the last two

01:02:08.160 | recessions when whenever the stock dives, people people have

01:02:11.760 | said it actually predicts an upcoming recession and the

01:02:15.440 | stock just you know, puked up like 25 or 30% in the last

01:02:19.840 | week. There it is. So people do not have the cheddar to go to

01:02:26.400 | the cabaret and go splashy cash. It's called it's called

01:02:32.480 | Rick's cabaret. But the strip club index says recessions is

01:02:36.080 | on the offer. I prefer cabaret. It's more charming. All right,

01:02:41.120 | so surprise you're not discussing the immunity case.

01:02:44.720 | That's the one that all the pundits I made it I made it last

01:02:48.640 | I'll counter the Rick's cabaret recession indicator as valid

01:02:54.960 | anymore based on the theory of our good friend on the group

01:02:57.600 | chat, who I think has done a very good job highlighting that

01:03:00.320 | the strip club industry has been decimated by only fans. As a

01:03:03.760 | result, Rick's cabaret is more likely down because of only

01:03:06.560 | fans and the lack of shall we say, employee base available to

01:03:13.840 | work in these establishments because they make more money

01:03:16.080 | working online and only fans now. That was a theory post

01:03:19.680 | posited by one of our good friends.

01:03:21.440 | But you got to think that that showed up in the data at least

01:03:24.240 | a year or two years ago, no? Because how long has only fans

01:03:27.680 | been around a long time, I'm guessing.

01:03:28.880 | Well, but I think it peaked during COVID because you know,

01:03:32.080 | you couldn't go to a cabaret if you wanted to take in a cabaret

01:03:34.960 | show and have a, you know, a bottle of champagne at a cabaret

01:03:39.680 | show, you can do it. So you're the thesis of our friend is the

01:03:44.800 | thesis of our friend entertainers. Yeah, only fans

01:03:48.400 | took all the entertainers out of the strip club industry

01:03:51.440 | because they make more money online, right cab range, the

01:03:54.800 | cabaret industry, I'm sorry, please edit that Nick. And as a

01:03:57.920 | result, the quality of the product at the cabaret business

01:04:01.520 | has declined. And as a result, revenue has declined. It took a

01:04:04.560 | little bit of time to earn that in. So so the virtual cabaret

01:04:07.440 | industry, our friends theory, we give them a big shout out, we

01:04:09.920 | will. Yeah, shout out to a book called the beep theory. Yeah,

01:04:14.160 | the beep theory. So the the elite cabaret artists can make

01:04:19.120 | more money on only fans that go there. And then that leaves the

01:04:23.840 | less refined artists. Why it's so good. So pure, I'm trying to

01:04:31.840 | navigate this and not get labeled. Saks, where are you on

01:04:34.960 | this? What's your opinion?

01:04:35.760 | So anyway, so far 16 red states have passed or agreed to pass

01:04:45.760 | each game Jake has got a dunder Mifflin index of whatever.

01:04:48.720 | Sorry, I couldn't hear you guys are laughing too quick. Say it

01:04:53.120 | again. Cut out. You had the dunder Mifflin score of x, y, z

01:04:57.520 | nonsense.

01:04:58.880 | Hunter Mifflin. So quick check out Dr. Mifflin score.

01:05:06.480 | I don't understand the dunder Mifflin score. Didn't you know

01:05:13.920 | is that from the office? I don't watch the office. Oh, okay.

01:05:17.280 | Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. What is wrong with you? You would never

01:05:20.000 | got into it. I never got into it. But yeah, probably watched

01:05:22.800 | it like for that's the paper company where they work. Yeah.

01:05:25.440 | Yeah. Apparently, we've had a huge victory for Trump in the

01:05:28.720 | immunity case. Trump sued in this case based on special

01:05:32.800 | counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump for alleged attempts

01:05:37.520 | to overturn the 2020 election and his role in January six, if

01:05:41.520 | you don't remember that case. Since there's so many cases

01:05:45.200 | against Trump. This was based on Trump pressuring Mike Pence to

01:05:48.800 | not certify the election his phone call to get the 11,780

01:05:52.640 | votes that were missing in Georgia or Giuliani and the

01:05:57.440 | whack pack trying to fake electorates to overturn the

01:06:00.000 | election. Trump argued that he should be immune from

01:06:03.680 | prosecution for acts committed while he was president. So go

01:06:06.960 | to ruled six, three, along party lines, that former presidents

01:06:11.760 | can't face prosecution for actions that related to core

01:06:15.360 | powers of their office, office, and official official, official

01:06:20.080 | core powers of their office and that all official acts receive

01:06:26.160 | at least the broad presumption of immunity. Here's the quote

01:06:29.920 | under our constitutional structure of separated powers,

01:06:32.800 | the nature of presidential power entitles former president

01:06:36.080 | to absolute immunity for criminal prosecution for actions

01:06:39.120 | within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional

01:06:42.960 | authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity

01:06:46.400 | from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no

01:06:49.760 | immunity for unofficial acts that would be outside the duty

01:06:53.760 | of the President's Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that

01:06:57.040 | decision that the decision doesn't necessarily mean

01:06:59.840 | presidents are above the law. In her dissenting opinion, Justice

01:07:03.920 | Sotomayor wrote that under the new ruling, criminal law can't

01:07:07.280 | be applied to presidents even if they misuse their office for

01:07:11.040 | personal gain. She wrote that if the President orders the Navy

01:07:13.920 | SEAL Team six to assassinate a political rival, he is now

01:07:16.800 | insulated from criminal prosecution. Another quote, the

01:07:19.280 | President is now a king above the law. She closed with this

01:07:22.800 | line, with fear for our democracy, I dissent. Notably,

01:07:26.560 | this breaks the tradition of closing with I respectfully

01:07:28.960 | dissent. So Trump's attempts to overturn the election results

01:07:32.000 | case now hinges on whether Trump's conduct was private, or

01:07:35.920 | related to his official duty. For example, the lower courts

01:07:40.480 | now have to determine when Trump pressured Pence to not

01:07:43.280 | certify the election if that was an official business of being

01:07:47.200 | president or not, or when he called Georgia and said, Hey,

01:07:50.480 | can you find me 11,000 votes? Was that official duty? Or was

01:07:54.000 | it outside his duty? President Trump has already cited the

01:07:57.520 | immunity ruling in requesting a New York judge throw out his

01:08:00.640 | conviction in the hush money case, sentencing for that was

01:08:04.400 | pushed back from July 11, to September, because of this

01:08:07.280 | ruling sacks, there's you're running. Well, Jacob, what do

01:08:10.720 | you think? This is I'm really curious. I mean, I read the

01:08:15.760 | original the halfway through the the original PDF. And I do

01:08:21.600 | think the President needs immunity, obviously for

01:08:24.640 | conducting business. And then I do think if they step outside

01:08:28.400 | the lines, they should not have immunity. And then the devil

01:08:32.800 | will be in the details here. And that's what courts and juries

01:08:36.320 | exist to do. So when I told Mike Pence to not certify the

01:08:39.920 | election, he's obviously not doing that as part of his duty

01:08:44.560 | as president, when he called Georgia to get the 11,000 votes,

01:08:47.840 | he was not doing that. That's why he had outside counsel

01:08:50.640 | there. That's why he hired Giuliani in the whack pack.

01:08:53.280 | What do you think? What do you think of Sotomayor's

01:08:55.440 | hypothetical of using SEAL Team six to kill a political rival?

01:08:58.720 | Well, I thought that that's, you think that he would be

01:09:01.840 | immune from process? Anybody would be immune from

01:09:03.680 | prosecution for that? No, that seemed a little bit

01:09:06.480 | hysterical. And actually, that came up in the discussions. I

01:09:10.480 | actually listened to the audio version of this when they were

01:09:13.280 | doing the the q&a, basically. And I think you listened to it

01:09:16.800 | to Friedberg when I talked about it. So yeah, I think the

01:09:20.080 | devil will be in the details here and how they execute it.

01:09:22.320 | Obviously, you need to have immunity if you're going to, I

01:09:26.160 | don't know, take actions, you know, to assassinate Osama bin

01:09:29.280 | Laden, right, or whatever it is. But you know, it's it is a bit

01:09:34.240 | concerning this concept of being able to shield the

01:09:38.640 | president when he asks, I don't know the Attorney General to do

01:09:42.640 | something illegal. So these are the details that are going to

01:09:45.040 | need to be worked out here. And obviously, it's a split

01:09:47.360 | decision. So the Supreme Court themselves can't agree on this.

01:09:50.480 | I think that there's just so much we don't know about what it

01:09:52.880 | takes to be the President of the United States. The example that

01:09:55.280 | I gave you guys in the group chat is like, look at the whole

01:09:57.440 | Iran contra fair. How complicated was that? Can any of

01:10:01.360 | us really understand what all of the interplay was when Ronald

01:10:05.040 | Reagan decides to work around a weapons embargo, sell weapons

01:10:10.400 | to Iran, take money, funnel it and fund the Sandinistas. In the

01:10:16.240 | middle of all of that, there was a huge cocaine trade that was

01:10:18.960 | kind of enabled or supported. I mean, who How do we know, I

01:10:24.000 | think there's just a lot of latitude that you give to the

01:10:27.600 | one person that you elect to be president. And so maybe it's

01:10:30.640 | just a good reminder for all of us that we are electing one

01:10:33.440 | person, we cannot be electing five or six people, we're not

01:10:36.320 | electing a shadow cabinet, we're electing one person. And

01:10:39.600 | this is just a reminder of how much power that one person has.

01:10:42.320 | Zach, you have thoughts?

01:10:46.480 | I think this was an easy decision. All the majority did

01:10:49.440 | was codify explicitly what has long been presumed that

01:10:53.440 | presidents enjoy broad immunity for official acts that they

01:10:57.680 | undertake in the exercise of their constitutional authority

01:11:00.640 | and the duties of their office. It was established decades ago

01:11:04.160 | that presidents enjoy broad immunity from civil lawsuits.

01:11:08.160 | So it's already been the case that presidents can't be sued

01:11:11.200 | civilly. Well, criminal liability is even harder to

01:11:15.200 | prove. So if you have the broad immunity from civil, you should

01:11:18.480 | have broad immunity from criminal as well. And the Supreme

01:11:22.080 | Court, I think, had never ruled on criminal immunity, because

01:11:24.640 | they never had to know former presidents ever been subjected

01:11:27.360 | to the type of lawfare that's been deployed against Trump,

01:11:30.240 | who also happens to be the political opponent of the

01:11:32.640 | current president. So I think it's a shame that the Supreme

01:11:36.320 | Court has had to rule on this. Did they get every detail?

01:11:39.440 | Right? I don't know. I don't know what it means for the

01:11:41.520 | future. However, I know the reason they're doing it, which

01:11:45.040 | is we've had this unprecedented lawfare against Trump. And

01:11:48.400 | that's why they've been forced to do this. So ultimately, I

01:11:50.720 | think this is the right decision. No, it does not

01:11:53.360 | authorize drone strikes against the president's political

01:11:56.080 | enemies. That's insane. It does not make the president above

01:11:58.800 | the law or a king. And I think that Roberts, in his ruling,

01:12:03.600 | said the key things. He said that the dissent's position in

01:12:06.960 | the end boils down to ignoring the constitution's separation

01:12:10.960 | of powers and the court's precedent, and instead, fearmongers

01:12:15.520 | on the basis of extreme hypotheticals. And then he says

01:12:19.280 | that the dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an

01:12:23.280 | executive branch that cannibalizes itself with each

01:12:26.240 | successive president free to prosecute his predecessors, yet

01:12:30.400 | unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear

01:12:34.240 | that he may be next. I think that's really the key line here

01:12:37.680 | is that you're posing all these insane hypotheticals, instead

01:12:42.000 | of recognizing the practical reality that if you don't give

01:12:45.600 | presidents immunity, then the next president is going to

01:12:48.400 | prosecute the old president, and future presidents will be

01:12:51.200 | hamstrung in doing this very important job that's already

01:12:54.880 | difficult enough. So I think that this was just a necessary

01:12:58.240 | decision. There was no way around it. And the president

01:13:02.160 | already has civil immunity, you got to give him criminal

01:13:04.000 | immunity to.

01:13:05.200 | Freeberg, your thoughts, I guess the the steel man on the

01:13:07.760 | other side would be, you know, Trump doing things like calling

01:13:11.520 | Georgia and asking to find votes, or pressuring the

01:13:14.640 | president, the vice president to overturn the election results

01:13:19.120 | after 60 failed legal cases, you know, is what's concerning

01:13:22.720 | the other side. So do you have a take on it?

01:13:25.440 | I think that the distinction between acting in their

01:13:30.080 | executive capacity as President of the United States

01:13:34.640 | versus their personal capacity as an individual candidate, or

01:13:38.480 | an individual that could benefit through some other means, is a

01:13:43.760 | really good distinction. I think how the courts ultimately

01:13:46.720 | adjudicate that distinction is what's still ahead. But I do

01:13:50.560 | think that the clarity of that distinction is critical. I it

01:13:53.760 | seems like the right thing, how this is going to play out with

01:13:56.560 | respect to election interference, does interfering in

01:13:59.440 | the election constitute one's role as an executive overseeing

01:14:04.240 | the federal election process? Or does it constitute one's

01:14:08.480 | personal benefits that may arise if one is individually

01:14:10.720 | elected is the key determinant that the lower court will

01:14:13.360 | likely have to make? Maybe that gets kicked back up again in

01:14:16.320 | the future. If there's a disagreement over the decision

01:14:20.560 | that the court does make, with regards to that distinction.

01:14:22.960 | Where do you stand on that, Sax? You in previous episodes

01:14:25.920 | have said you didn't believe in this election interference, and

01:14:28.240 | you thought Trump lost. Have you changed your position on

01:14:31.040 | that? Or are you still in that position?

01:14:33.920 | That's totally irrelevant to the court's decision.

01:14:35.760 | Let me ask a follow up to that then. So in the case of, do you

01:14:39.200 | think Trump was acting officially when he asked Georgia

01:14:42.160 | to find the votes when he asked Pence to overturn the election?

01:14:44.480 | Or do you think he was acting in his duty?

01:14:46.560 | I think that that what you just described there is what's known

01:14:49.680 | as a question of fact. In the legal system, there are

01:14:53.040 | questions of law and questions of fact. And what the Supreme

01:14:56.160 | Court has done is given us a doctrine, they've answered the

01:14:59.600 | question of law, they've basically given us a three part

01:15:01.600 | test. They said that when the president acts within his

01:15:04.960 | exclusive constitutional authority, he gets broad

01:15:07.440 | immunity, when he does an official duty, but that's not in

01:15:10.480 | that category, he gets presumptive immunity, meaning

01:15:13.360 | that the prosecutor can still go after him, they just have to

01:15:15.360 | rebut the presumption. And when he engages in a personal act,

01:15:18.800 | there's no immunity. So look, what has to happen now is if

01:15:22.560 | Jack Smith wants to continue this prosecution of Trump, he's

01:15:26.160 | going to have to make the argument that Trump's acts were

01:15:29.280 | either personal, or were part of his duties, but he's going to

01:15:33.600 | rebut the presumption. So that is the now the question of fact

01:15:37.760 | that Jack Smith would have to litigate. And I'm not going to

01:15:40.960 | litigate it here. I don't know the answer to that. But again, I

01:15:43.680 | would separate questions of law and questions of fact what the

01:15:45.840 | Supreme Court has done, I think, has given us a useful

01:15:48.640 | doctrine that the presidency now needs in light of the reality

01:15:53.440 | of lawfare.

01:15:54.240 | So this is the one I think, Chamath, that is super

01:15:56.960 | fascinating, because I could see President Trump and his

01:16:00.480 | lawyer saying, Hey, very simple, you know, we think there was

01:16:04.240 | election interference. So yeah, we called Georgia to make sure

01:16:07.600 | that those 11,000 votes were there. And hey, you know, we

01:16:11.200 | thought this was not a fair election. So I was acting in my

01:16:13.600 | duty. And when I told Pence to not certify the election, I

01:16:17.360 | could see them making that argument. What do you think?

01:16:18.960 | I don't know the specifics of these cases. But I think it's

01:16:24.320 | going to force a prosecutor to have a really strong point of

01:16:27.680 | view and have evidence and then go after somebody. But again, I

01:16:31.760 | think you're focusing too much on Trump. Robert said in the

01:16:35.680 | decision, you have to look past the exigencies of the current

01:16:39.840 | moment. This is a set of rules that's about past presidents and

01:16:43.040 | future presidents. This is for forever. And so that's the most

01:16:48.000 | important thing here, which is there's a set of rules that I

01:16:50.160 | think we can all agree on, because the man that we all

01:16:53.200 | elect, dutifully elect is the most powerful person in the

01:16:57.120 | world. We knew it before. We know it now. So even more

01:17:01.520 | important that we make sure we're picking one person and

01:17:05.120 | that person is capable of doing the job. You may not agree. But

01:17:09.120 | they need to be competent and capable of doing the job.

01:17:12.640 | Yeah, well, they definitely have to be competent. And this case

01:17:15.920 | was brought by Trump over this specific issue. So I think

01:17:19.440 | that's, if we look at this specific judgment here, that's

01:17:22.800 | what they're going to have to determine in the coming months

01:17:25.680 | or years with this case is was he acting in his duty or was he

01:17:29.520 | not? That's going to be a really interesting case.

01:17:32.240 | Between this ruling and another case called Fisher versus US,

01:17:35.200 | which is the January 6 obstruction case, where the

01:17:37.920 | Supreme Court in a 6-3 majority found that Sarbanes-Oxley was

01:17:42.720 | being misused to create a new crime called obstructing an

01:17:47.040 | official proceeding. When you combine that judgment with this

01:17:50.080 | judgment, I think Jack Smith should just resign. It's pretty

01:17:53.680 | clear that Supreme Court has kicked the legs out from under

01:17:56.080 | his case.

01:17:56.800 | And by the way, Katanji, Katanji Jackson supported that

01:18:00.000 | decision.

01:18:00.320 | That's right. So again, not a not a hyper ideological, not a

01:18:04.480 | hyper partisan court. They just ruled that Sarbanes-Oxley had

01:18:07.600 | nothing to do with what happened on January 6, and it was being

01:18:10.800 | misused by a creative prosecutor. And I told you,

01:18:13.760 | when these Jack Smith cases first came, I said, it's not the

01:18:16.720 | job of a prosecutor to be creative. Their job is to

01:18:19.840 | narrowly interpret the law and to enforce the law. And you

01:18:23.040 | combine these rulings together, and you can see that Jack Smith

01:18:25.760 | has now an even more uphill battle. It's time for him to

01:18:29.280 | resign.

01:18:29.680 | By the way, that's 200 convictions. It's not just one.

01:18:34.480 | That's right, that's right.

01:18:35.440 | It's 200 of them.

01:18:36.720 | Small percentage of the overall convictions now.

01:18:39.280 | They took hundreds of people who did not engage in any violence

01:18:42.800 | on January 6. Many of them just wandered through an open door

01:18:46.640 | in the Capitol, and they were prosecuted to the hilt. They

01:18:49.680 | were sent to jail for that, because this DOJ wanted to send

01:18:52.880 | a statement. They wanted to use them as a political talking

01:18:56.720 | point. And that's a shame. I think hundreds of people were

01:19:00.080 | horribly mistreated by the judicial system as part of a

01:19:05.120 | political prosecution.

01:19:06.080 | Except for the ones who beat police and brought long guns.

01:19:10.000 | No problem putting those people in jail. No problem. Anyone who

01:19:12.720 | used violence, go directly to jail, do not pass go. But some

01:19:16.160 | of these people just took a tour through the Capitol.

01:19:19.120 | All those people got suspended sentences and trespassing.

01:19:22.400 | No, some of them went to jail.

01:19:23.840 | The ones who went to jail.

01:19:24.560 | Jacob Chansley spent three years in jail.

01:19:26.880 | Yeah, the ones who went to jail were the ones who beat cops.

01:19:30.000 | No, not Jacob Chansley. That poor man, just because he wore

01:19:33.680 | the Viking. Remember the guy with the Viking hat?

01:19:35.840 | Oh, yeah. So they also went to jail if you did damage, if you

01:19:40.080 | vandalized. Yeah, that was the other reason people went to

01:19:41.920 | jail.

01:19:42.160 | I saw a video of him getting a guided tour through the

01:19:44.080 | Capitol.

01:19:44.560 | I mean, if you vandalized a Capitol building, I guess you

01:19:47.920 | have to do something.

01:19:48.400 | What did he do? He moved a dais around?

01:19:49.920 | No, I think they like shattered the windows and, you know.

01:19:53.600 | He didn't. I never saw any video of him doing that.

01:19:56.000 | Anyway.

01:19:56.560 | They picked on him because he was an easy target because he

01:19:59.360 | looked like a weirdo and he had the Viking horns and he has a

01:20:03.760 | history of mental problems. And so they put that man in jail for

01:20:08.560 | years.

01:20:09.360 | Yeah, I'm not concerned about him. I'm concerned about the

01:20:11.680 | ones who brought all the long guns to the hotels around the

01:20:14.000 | Capitol to have backup firepower.

01:20:16.720 | But, you know, hey, everybody's got a different opinion on this.

01:20:19.920 | We, that wraps up the all-in podcast.

01:20:22.240 | You can have those concerns. I don't think it lets you put

01:20:24.640 | innocent people in jail.

01:20:25.600 | Yeah, I think that you can hold both of those ideas. I don't

01:20:28.560 | think anybody innocent should go to jail and I don't think the

01:20:30.800 | Oath Keeper should have brought guns to the Capitol. Okay.

01:20:33.360 | They didn't. They brought them to Virginia, just to be clear.

01:20:35.520 | Yeah, they brought them to the hotels around them. Huge, large

01:20:38.560 | caches.

01:20:38.880 | In Virginia.

01:20:39.280 | That's correct. Yeah.

01:20:40.320 | In Virginia.

01:20:41.200 | Yeah. They drove to the Capitol on January 6th.

01:20:43.520 | Anyway, I'm not defending them.

01:20:46.800 | No, I'm not defending them. I'm just clarifying that there are

01:20:49.040 | no guns at the Capitol because that's a lie.

01:20:52.080 | But I don't think innocent people who just wandered through

01:20:55.360 | the Capitol should go to jail and that clearly happened.

01:20:57.520 | We agree. They should not go to jail. They should get

01:20:59.600 | trespassing tickets. Okay.

01:21:00.800 | This is episode 186 of the world's number one podcast. Did

01:21:06.080 | Biden resign while we're taping?

01:21:07.840 | Biden just went on a campaign call and he said, "Let me say

01:21:10.560 | this as clearly as I possibly can, as simply and straightforward

01:21:13.680 | as I can. I am running. No one's pushing me out. I'm not

01:21:17.200 | leaving. I'm in this race to the end and we're going to win."

01:21:19.840 | Whoa.

01:21:21.360 | I think it's more likely than not that they're not going to

01:21:23.840 | replace Biden because the only feasible alternative is Harris

01:21:28.720 | and should be worse. And I think it's more dangerous for the

01:21:31.440 | country, frankly. I'd rather just see Biden finish out his

01:21:34.160 | term than put someone new and inexperienced.

01:21:38.640 | Even if he had to run for office.

01:21:41.760 | It's too bad choices, J-Cal, and I don't agree with Biden's

01:21:44.400 | policies, but there's continuity there.

01:21:46.400 | Okay, for the chairman dictator from the home office in Italy,

01:21:49.680 | Chamath Paihapatia, your sultan of science, and the rain man.

01:21:54.720 | Yeah, definitely, definitely cabinet position. David Sachs,

01:21:58.960 | I am the world's greatest moderator of the number one

01:22:02.080 | podcast in the world. We'll see you next time.

01:22:03.600 | Bye-bye.

01:22:04.080 | Love you, boys. Bye-bye.

01:22:16.000 | Bye-bye.

01:22:27.920 | Bye-bye.

01:22:39.840 | Thank you, George, because they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

01:22:45.760 | What about B? What about B?

01:22:47.760 | What about B?

01:22:49.760 | We need to get merch.

01:22:51.760 | Merchies are back.

01:22:53.760 | I'm going all in.

01:22:55.760 | I'm going all in.

01:23:01.760 | ♪ I'm falling in ♪

01:23:03.680 | [BLANK_AUDIO]

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

Chapters