Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 4: Everything.
Speaker 3: Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 3: for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do we have
Speaker 1: Former President Trump has a court date today. We will
Speaker 1: tell you what to expect and also what is going
Speaker 1: on with his legal team and the judge that's been
Speaker 1: assigned to the case and all of those details. We
Speaker 1: also have new details about the Ukrainian counter offensive and
Speaker 1: how that is going. New numbers about the economy, foreclosures
Speaker 1: are rising, and also outwn with San Francisco really struggling
Speaker 1: already seems to be in that sort of like doom
Speaker 1: loop situation, So we'll tell you about all of that.
Speaker 1: We also have some new legal wrangling between Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: and Fox News. They actually sent him a cease and
Speaker 1: assist and Chuck Grassley making some pretty interesting comments on
Speaker 1: the floor about President Biden with regards to those alleged
Speaker 1: payments with Barisma five million dollars Ukraine, etcetera.
Speaker 5: So we'll tell you about that.
Speaker 1: We have James Vanderbeek, he is the actor who became
Speaker 1: famous in Dawson's Creek, to talk about the Democratic primaries
Speaker 1: and how he became Fox News's favorite Democrat, how he.
Speaker 5: Feels about that.
Speaker 1: But before we get to any of that, we want
Speaker 1: to say thank you all so much for the incredibly
Speaker 1: supportive comments and also the wonderful feedback about the new set,
Speaker 1: which we are super excited about and also still getting
Speaker 1: our sea legs around and figuring out all the shots
Speaker 1: and making them perfect. So we genuinely appreciate all the feedback.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's all continuous improvement here at Breaking Points. I
Speaker 2: just want to say again thank you to all the
Speaker 2: positive support. You guys have been so amazing. Many of
Speaker 2: you have been checked out our new merchandise with the
Speaker 2: new beautiful logo, the mugs and all that stuff. Everything
Speaker 2: is available Breakingpoints dot com. There's a merch tab and
Speaker 2: you can become a premium supporter if you want to
Speaker 2: go and help.
Speaker 3: Us continue our expansion ramp up.
Speaker 2: For all of this, We've got RFK Junior later on
Speaker 2: today that we'll be interviewing. We'll be releasing that interview separately,
Speaker 2: so if you're a premium member and others, keep your
Speaker 2: eyes glued on the podcast feed that's going to come
Speaker 2: sometime in the afternoon.
Speaker 3: But with that, Crystal, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: President Trump expected in a South Florida courtroom this afternoon
Speaker 1: at three PM for his arraignment with regard to those
Speaker 1: document charges. A lot of questions in this case about
Speaker 1: the judge that has been assigned, Judge Aleen Cannon. Let's
Speaker 1: go and put this up on the screen so you
Speaker 1: might recall she's the one that was involved previously. She's
Speaker 1: a Trump appointee, a very recent actually Trump appointee, and
Speaker 1: she ruled that there needed to be a special master
Speaker 1: to go through the documents that were being pulled from
Speaker 1: mar A Lago. She also that basically blocked the prosecution
Speaker 1: from being able to continue to go through and evaluate
Speaker 1: those documents. At that time, a panel of three judges,
Speaker 1: all of them appointed by Republican presidents came in and
Speaker 1: basically said that ruling was wrong and overruled her in
Speaker 1: quite strong terms. So there are a lot of questions
Speaker 1: about whether she is should recuse herself from overseeing this
Speaker 1: particular case, which was apparently randomly assigned to her. Let
Speaker 1: me read a little bit from that article that we
Speaker 1: just had up on the screen. This was Isaac Chottner
Speaker 1: interviewing a legal expert about the question saga about her refusal.
Speaker 1: So the governing code around when a judge should recuse
Speaker 1: says they should take themselves out if the judge's impartiality
Speaker 1: quote might reasonably be questioned. Now, this legal expert says,
Speaker 1: the fact that a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that the judge is partial. The public may
Speaker 1: simply not trust the impartiality of the judge because public
Speaker 1: trust and the work of the court is a value
Speaker 1: as important as the work itself. The rule says the
Speaker 1: judge should not sit when we can't fairly ask the
Speaker 1: public to trust what the judge does. That rule is
Speaker 1: especially important in this case. One thing the prosecution can
Speaker 1: do is move to recuse Judge Cannon on the ground
Speaker 1: that in light of her experience in the search weren't
Speaker 1: case last year, her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Speaker 5: The way that this works.
Speaker 1: Just as a technical matter, which I'm learning about in
Speaker 1: real time, is it's actually on the judge herself to
Speaker 1: decide whether or not she should refuse. The government can
Speaker 1: ask and send like a nice note of like, hey,
Speaker 1: we think maybe you should recuse, she gets to make
Speaker 1: the ultimate decision. Now, there is a process where if
Speaker 1: she says no, I'm good, I'm staying on the case,
Speaker 1: where the government can appeal, but it is unlikely that
Speaker 1: those appeals. Those appeals succeed rarely. They do succeed sometimes,
Speaker 1: but they succeed rarely. And you also risk sort of
Speaker 1: like pissing off the judge who's important to your case.
Speaker 1: So it's a little bit complicated for them. One note
Speaker 1: on just what is going to happen today with this arraignment.
Speaker 1: So in addition to Judge Cannon, who, as I said,
Speaker 1: Trump appointee, who was seen as taking this very favorable
Speaker 1: ruling towards Trump and being overruled by a bunch of
Speaker 1: conservative judges. In addition to her being appointed, there's also
Speaker 1: a magistrate judge who was appointed to be involved with
Speaker 1: this case as well. They're sort of like you could
Speaker 1: see them as like a helper judge. That's the individual
Speaker 1: who will be overseeing this particular arraignment today, but overall randomly,
Speaker 1: this judge canon is the one assigned to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot of focus here on this judge,
Speaker 2: and I think it's interesting because this is previews exactly
Speaker 2: what we were trying to show everyone yesterday, Even regardless
Speaker 2: of how you may feel about said judge, this sets
Speaker 2: up even more legal fights and wrangling which was going
Speaker 2: to take a lot of time, and you can expect
Speaker 2: to hear quite a bit about in the coming months,
Speaker 2: which you'll of course make it so that there is
Speaker 2: not necessarily going to be a quote speedy resolution to
Speaker 2: this trial. Yes, that's actually where I think my main
Speaker 2: takeaway is. I was like, man, the level of wrangling
Speaker 2: here over just beginning in an initial appearance over just
Speaker 2: the judge previews all of the procedural fights from here
Speaker 2: to come, from yes documents to Supreme Court challenges to
Speaker 2: the heels.
Speaker 3: And as you said yesterday.
Speaker 2: The people who aren't lawyers are like, why should I
Speaker 2: care about this? Well, you should care because it just
Speaker 2: shows you the level of wrangling just in this one case,
Speaker 2: let alone, what could come forward in the January sixth case,
Speaker 2: if that has ever brought against Trump, and how none
Speaker 2: of that may necessarily be resolved come election day twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four.
Speaker 1: I think it is very likely and people need to
Speaker 1: really take this in that election day is going to
Speaker 1: be both about, of course, the future of the country
Speaker 1: and who's going to be president, etc. And also whether
Speaker 1: Trump is going to spend the next four years in
Speaker 1: the White House or in prison. I mean the charge
Speaker 1: it Listen, the jury's going to be in South Florida.
Speaker 1: That gives you him a better shot in terms of
Speaker 1: jury selection. That's probably his best chance, yes, is that
Speaker 1: they're able to land some hardcore Trump supporter on the
Speaker 1: jury who just isn't going to convict basically no matter what,
Speaker 1: because the facts as laid down as we know them
Speaker 1: at this point, if it was anyone else, that'd be
Speaker 1: open and shut. I mean, I just don't think that
Speaker 1: there's any denying that, given we literally have him on
Speaker 1: tape being like I'm committing crimes here. Guys, look at
Speaker 1: me committing crimes. So that makes you know the stakes
Speaker 1: certainly for his supporters who want to see him be
Speaker 1: a free man. That makes the stakes very high politically
Speaker 1: in terms of the timeline as you're laying out soccer,
Speaker 1: this is going to take a long time to resolve,
Speaker 1: and he wants it. His team is going to push
Speaker 1: for this to take a long time to resolve. They're
Speaker 1: going to fight on the jurisdiction, they're going to they're
Speaker 1: going to be all kinds of motions that they file
Speaker 1: to try to drag out the process because he knows
Speaker 1: really his best chance at maintaining his freedom is to
Speaker 1: be back in the White House where he can pardon
Speaker 1: himself and have control and you know, be off the
Speaker 1: hook at least while he's there, you know, on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Speaker 1: So they're going to do everything they can to slow
Speaker 1: this down. So it's you know, it's an it's a
Speaker 1: pretty wild dynamic here that we're looking at in terms
Speaker 1: of the details for today, Just so you guys know
Speaker 1: what is going to go down. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screens from NPR. Just what will happen at his arraignment.
Speaker 1: It's scheduled for three pm Eastern time in Miami. There's
Speaker 1: not going to be a lot that the public is
Speaker 1: going to be able to see. They talk about the
Speaker 1: courthouse is actually connected to an underground garage, so he
Speaker 1: can be ferried in. It can provide a secure spot
Speaker 1: for him to be taken to be electronically finger printed,
Speaker 1: just like in New York. We're not expecting handcuffs, We're
Speaker 1: not expecting a mugshot, which you know is not really
Speaker 1: necessary for such a high profile figure. We are unlikely
Speaker 1: there are not going to be any cameras in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: We're unlikely to see a lot of what happens. And
Speaker 1: so you know, it's it's there's not going to be
Speaker 1: a lot that comes from this court appearance today, expectedly
Speaker 1: with Trump.
Speaker 5: You never know, but that's the expectation.
Speaker 1: Last time that we did this in New York, there
Speaker 1: was we hadn't gotten the details of the case yet.
Speaker 1: So we're all kind of waiting with Baita brought to see,
Speaker 1: all right, what are the details of the charges? Are
Speaker 1: there things in here that we don't know about? And
Speaker 1: when the statement of facts came out, you know, revealed
Speaker 1: that basically it was what was already in the public record.
Speaker 1: We already have the charges here, So again and there's
Speaker 1: not an expectation that we're going to learn a lot
Speaker 1: more about this case. They do say some reporters will
Speaker 1: be allowed to watch and share electronic updates, so we
Speaker 1: will get some account coming out of the courtroom of
Speaker 1: what happens, but no camera and no expectation that we're
Speaker 1: going to learn a lot more about what additional evidence
Speaker 1: the government may have.
Speaker 2: It's simply it's more of a procedural matter than it
Speaker 2: is one that is in any way similar to what
Speaker 2: happened in Manhattan. We're going to get it, like you said,
Speaker 2: the thirty seven charges, but we already know all the
Speaker 2: details of every single one of them. The indictment and
Speaker 2: the charging document already been released. We've had the initial photos.
Speaker 2: The government itself says they're going to push for a
Speaker 2: seventy day resolution in terms of starting the trial, but
Speaker 2: as we keep saying, that does not account for defense
Speaker 2: motions and for others that must be resolved through the
Speaker 2: court process. So everyone just buckle up and realize that
Speaker 2: this is very, very different than what happened in Manhattan.
Speaker 3: We have the documents.
Speaker 2: In many ways, the symbolic appearance of him treking down
Speaker 2: to the federal courthouse before the judge. Even though we
Speaker 2: won't get a photo or any of that is the
Speaker 2: most important thing that's happening.
Speaker 3: And then, of course Crystal.
Speaker 2: Later today eight fifteen pm, the president will be having
Speaker 2: a or former president We'll be having a rally of
Speaker 2: press conference at Bedminster.
Speaker 3: Not sure if he's going to take any questions.
Speaker 2: He can be flying back to the state of New
Speaker 2: Jersey after his court appearance, and we will have some
Speaker 2: analysis later on tonight for everybody around that. So everyone
Speaker 2: just keep that in mind as we go into today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so before we move on to the next piece
Speaker 1: about Trump's plans for today's et cetera, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of reporting out this morning. We knew already that some
Speaker 1: high profile members of his legal team, just before the
Speaker 1: indictment dropped, bailed on the team, and we're starting to
Speaker 1: get some details over.
Speaker 5: Why that is.
Speaker 1: I mean, none of this is going to surprise you, right,
Speaker 1: There's tons of infighting. Apparently there's a lot of upset
Speaker 1: over Boris Epstein, who is like, you know, they some
Speaker 1: of the lawyers him cm as wildly unqualified to be
Speaker 1: leading this team and have been very critical of some
Speaker 1: of the filings that he has put and sent into judges,
Speaker 1: including like a court filing that talked about how Trump
Speaker 1: dominated in the Republican primaries, which is totally irrelevant to
Speaker 1: a legal case.
Speaker 5: There were disagreements about like the.
Speaker 1: Media strategy, but what appears to be based on the
Speaker 1: reporting is there's a big divide in the potential legal strategy.
Speaker 1: One side wants to take the very Trumpian approach of
Speaker 1: being extremely blicos and making more of a political argument
Speaker 1: and coming out guns blazing, even at risk of you know,
Speaker 1: pissing off the judge and flaming the jury whatever. So
Speaker 1: that's one side wants to take, like the very Trumpian approach.
Speaker 1: And then the other side says, hey, listen, all you
Speaker 1: need is one juror in South Florida to take your side.
Speaker 1: So we think that you could actually win this case legally,
Speaker 1: you know, through the legal process, versus the political process
Speaker 1: by you know, playing it safe and mounting a traditional
Speaker 1: defense and doing the things that lawyers and clients normally do.
Speaker 1: So apparently that's the divide, and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: reporting this morning about how really having a hell of
Speaker 1: a time getting lawyers to replace the dudes who just left.
Speaker 5: I mean, would you want to work with this guy?
Speaker 5: I mean, he doesn't pay his bills on time.
Speaker 1: He like will randomly be caught on tape bragging about
Speaker 1: committing crimes. He lies to his own lawyers. So even
Speaker 1: though obviously it would come with a ton of prestige
Speaker 1: to represent the former president in the most you know,
Speaker 1: what's going to be the most closely watched case perhaps
Speaker 1: in the history of the country, even though that comes
Speaker 1: with all of this prestige, basically every in Flora is like, Eh,
Speaker 1: we're good here, And it does matter because you know,
Speaker 1: these judges, they're human beings, whether it ends up being
Speaker 1: Judge Cannon or anyone else. Having someone who's local who
Speaker 1: understands this particular judge, their particular temperament, maybe as someone of.
Speaker 5: A relationship with it.
Speaker 1: Like it's gross that those things matter, but having local
Speaker 1: counsel with that kind of local knowledge actually really does
Speaker 1: matter in terms of outcoming.
Speaker 2: Now, you're right, I mean, one thing I learned covering
Speaker 2: Trump during Russiagate, he went through like multiple different lawyers.
Speaker 2: During the Mueller investigation, there was always a lot of drama.
Speaker 3: Even the impeachment.
Speaker 2: If you'll remember, there were like all these different arguments
Speaker 2: about who was going to speak on his behalf for
Speaker 2: impeachment one and for impeachment too. I just think in
Speaker 2: the end of the day, he'll figure it out. You know,
Speaker 2: there's always somebody in the Republican Party that wants to
Speaker 2: make a.
Speaker 3: Big name for themself.
Speaker 2: Now, will he get the most will he get the
Speaker 2: most competent defense. I'm just going to go out on
Speaker 2: a limb and say probably not of just giving the caliber.
Speaker 2: But as always, he will find something. And look, as
Speaker 2: you know, if the stakes become genuinely existential, it's not
Speaker 2: like the Republican establishment or at least some of the
Speaker 2: lawyers aren't going to at least have some people come
Speaker 2: and back.
Speaker 3: Him like people. That's what happened during the last impeachment.
Speaker 2: You know, every time there was a lot of consternation,
Speaker 2: but at the end of the day, like people went
Speaker 2: to bat for Trump. And especially if he continues to
Speaker 2: lead in the polls, consider it you really going to
Speaker 2: abandon your nominee at the court. No, they're gonna you know,
Speaker 2: there's too much on the line, there's too much money
Speaker 2: at stake.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, let's say that's a good way to shift
Speaker 1: to sort of the politics of this. So Trump has
Speaker 1: called on supporters to show up in protest. Today, Lit's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. He was on radio
Speaker 1: program talking about you know how he wants with this
Speaker 1: was with Roger Stone, a longtime friend and ally who
Speaker 1: he also pardoned for his alleged crimes. So he says,
Speaker 1: our country has to protest. We've lost everything. They have
Speaker 1: to go out, and they have to protest peacefully. He says,
Speaker 1: they have to go out. He also called Justice Department
Speaker 1: Special counsel Jack Smith, who was of course hading the investigation.
Speaker 5: He called him deranged.
Speaker 1: Now, I have no idea how many people are going
Speaker 1: to show up, what you know, whether the protests are
Speaker 1: more likely to be peaceful or not. But if history
Speaker 1: is any guide, when it was the New York indictment,
Speaker 1: and he also encouraged people to show up in protest,
Speaker 1: there wasn't a huge turnout. I did see some chatter online,
Speaker 1: some reporting online that like Proud Boys and others feel like, oh,
Speaker 1: this could be a setup or worried about after January,
Speaker 1: like worried about the FEDS and all that sort of stuff,
Speaker 1: as they probably should be. And so my guess will
Speaker 1: be that the protests will not be a whole whole
Speaker 1: lot to talk about.
Speaker 5: But you know, you never know.
Speaker 1: Trump has a very adamant base. He's directly asked them
Speaker 1: to show up and support him. In South Florida outside
Speaker 1: the Miami Courthouse, I know the city is definitely preparing
Speaker 1: for a large and potentially contentious gathering there.
Speaker 5: So that's what we know on that front.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm put this up on the screen because I
Speaker 2: actually think this is the most important part. Is he
Speaker 2: guess what, He's going to host his first major fundraiser
Speaker 2: the day of his earth That is really what it
Speaker 2: all comes down to for me, Crystal, is whether people
Speaker 2: show up to him or not.
Speaker 3: As we learned in Manhattan, well not that many.
Speaker 2: People, although of course in Florida there's quite a few
Speaker 2: more Trump supporters. But regardless, when Trump is under attack,
Speaker 2: that's when he raises the most money. That's why he's
Speaker 2: doing his press conference and big appearance or rally whatever
Speaker 2: you want to call it, at Bedminster. And that's also
Speaker 2: why he had that same gathering on the night of
Speaker 2: his Manhattan indictment, why he flew back to Florida and
Speaker 2: had that big mar A Lago event, Because he has
Speaker 2: always raised the most whenever he's under attach Impeachment one
Speaker 2: was a bonanza for him, Impeachment two even more of
Speaker 2: a bonanza. It's like we never seem to learn that
Speaker 2: lesson at the very least in terms of the political benefit.
Speaker 2: And you know, just yesterday, what did we bring everybody
Speaker 2: the news? Sixty one percent support in the Republican primary.
Speaker 2: Ron des Hantis not only didn't get a polling bump
Speaker 2: whenever he announced, he got a polling drop. Every single
Speaker 2: of every contender going after Trump on these documents and
Speaker 2: all this other, all these other issues. People like Asa
Speaker 2: Hutchinson and Chris Christy, they had the highest level of
Speaker 2: I will not support that person, the highest level.
Speaker 3: It shows you that, you know, any.
Speaker 2: Republican who wants to play with this in the primary,
Speaker 2: it's not going to work.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Of course, that does not dispel the fact that independent
Speaker 2: voters is a problem, and it just generally feeds into
Speaker 2: the drama narrative. So I'm not saying it makes him
Speaker 2: more powerful powerful for the general election, but in terms
Speaker 2: of the Republican primary, there is no question this is
Speaker 2: nothing but a benefit to him, and he will raise
Speaker 2: a probably historic amount of money as a result of
Speaker 2: these charges.
Speaker 1: The other thing that's interesting is partly because he has
Speaker 1: so burned his own fundraising list, his grassroots fundraising has
Speaker 1: actually fallen off quite significantly.
Speaker 5: It's not anything like what it used to be, that's true.
Speaker 1: But the thing that does juice it is, you know,
Speaker 1: the raid on mar A Lago indictment in Manhattan, indictment
Speaker 1: now in South Florida, that juices his numbers. But even
Speaker 1: the fact that he is focused on because this isn't
Speaker 1: a grassroots fundraiser, This is for the big high dollar donors,
Speaker 1: this event that he's doing in Bedminster, and they say that,
Speaker 1: in contrast to his previous campaigns, he actually this time
Speaker 1: has to work the phones. He's got to do call time,
Speaker 1: he's got to woo bundlers, he's got to woo other
Speaker 1: major contributors. They're expecting more than three hundred bundlers to
Speaker 1: be on board the campaign by the end of June.
Speaker 1: But you know, previously he didn't have to do that
Speaker 1: same like wooing the big guy grind the big guys
Speaker 1: grind that other candidates always have to do that like
Speaker 1: Ron De Santis has to do for example, and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has to do because they don't have that same
Speaker 1: level of grossroots support.
Speaker 5: So there's there's two pieces here.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, yes, this will certainly juice his
Speaker 1: grossroots fundraising dollars, no doubt about it. But it does
Speaker 1: show you that, you know, even the base, like they've
Speaker 1: been so tapped in terms of their fundering and the
Speaker 1: number of emails that Trump has sent sup Borders is
Speaker 1: insane and it's really burned every Republican candidate because people
Speaker 1: are just so exhausted by the constant please existential, please
Speaker 1: for cash. But so this would be this will be
Speaker 1: one event that will certainly help him in that regard.
Speaker 1: You know, there's also you sent this this morning saga.
Speaker 1: There's rumblings that donors are still like, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: if Trump looks like he's going down, maybe we need
Speaker 1: to get Brian Kemp into the race. Maybe we need
Speaker 1: to get maybe we need to get Glenn Youngkin into
Speaker 1: the race. And it's just incredible because you already have
Speaker 1: all of these contenders. What do you think is going
Speaker 1: to be different about a Glenn Youngkin jumping in that's
Speaker 1: gonna supplant Trump? Like I'm sorry, but I just it
Speaker 1: feels to me, like, this primary is all but over
Speaker 1: before it's even begun.
Speaker 2: We can't say the obituary just yet. But I was
Speaker 2: just thinking that Ron DeSantis's people are very upset with
Speaker 2: Chris Christy and with everybody else. They're like, they're pulling
Speaker 2: away from all of our potential support. And I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 2: that is kind of true, you know what.
Speaker 5: That's fine.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing, even if none of them were
Speaker 1: in the race, the argument from Trump's opponents and the
Speaker 1: donors who were allied with his opponents was like, oh,
Speaker 1: he's got his base thirty five to forty percent support,
Speaker 1: but that's it.
Speaker 5: Well, the latest pulls them sixty something percent.
Speaker 2: It's not just that one either, it's even significant numbers
Speaker 2: that haven't over fifty exactly.
Speaker 1: So even if everyone but Rond de Santis drops out,
Speaker 1: Trump is still winning.
Speaker 5: So that's their case. Their theory of the case has
Speaker 5: kind of.
Speaker 1: Already collapsed, which is they had to think somewhere in
Speaker 1: their heart of hearts that these indictments, the legal trouble whatever,
Speaker 1: that even though Republicans still liked him, they'd be like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's too messy, I'm ready to move on. That is
Speaker 1: not the case they had to think that, all right,
Speaker 1: he's got his hardcore base, but there's a majority of
Speaker 1: Republicans who want to move on. Clearly not the case
Speaker 1: they thought. And remember we covered these articles on Ronda
Speaker 1: Santis before he jumped in the race. They're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: his poles have been flagging lately, but he's not even
Speaker 1: in the race yet, Like, wait till he gets in
Speaker 1: the race and you're going to see how he picks
Speaker 1: up ground.
Speaker 5: Well, he's only gone in the other direction.
Speaker 1: So all of the claims that were made to bolster
Speaker 1: the case of Ronda Santis in particular, but all of
Speaker 1: his adversaries in the Republican primary, they've already kind of
Speaker 1: fallen apart.
Speaker 3: I think that their case is falling.
Speaker 2: I will just say, what, votes haven't been cast yet,
Speaker 2: so let's not entirely count him out.
Speaker 3: Although you know, I'm.
Speaker 2: Pretty excited to see how the votes cast out. We
Speaker 2: couldn't see a historic polling miss, right, Like maybe there
Speaker 2: is some secret action of Republicans that really are the
Speaker 2: silent not even silent anti Trump voter in the Republican primary,
Speaker 2: to be clear, not in the general election, because I
Speaker 2: actually do think that person does kind of exist at
Speaker 2: the least in the general election, but for a primary,
Speaker 2: we're not seeing a lot of that evidence so far.
Speaker 2: We're just seeing Trump absolutely dominate every single contest, media cycle,
Speaker 2: and everything that he touches, which pretty much fits with
Speaker 2: everything that I always thought was going to happen from
Speaker 2: the very beginning. Let's go ahead and talk about Ukraine.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in Ukraine
Speaker 2: that we wanted to hold to make sure. We dedicated
Speaker 2: a signific amount of time to in today's show. The
Speaker 2: long awaited counter offensive is officially on. It has launched.
Speaker 2: Now how is it going now? Initially, much of the
Speaker 2: conversation was happening around the dam that the dam that
Speaker 2: was blown up in eastern Ukraine.
Speaker 3: That damn.
Speaker 2: There was a lot of discussion did the Russians blow
Speaker 2: it up? Did the Ukrainians be really both sides kind
Speaker 2: of benefited from it. President Zelensky actually went and visited
Speaker 2: the region. There are reasons to think that both sides
Speaker 2: could have done the sabotage, and you know, ultimately it
Speaker 2: is still a human catastrophe. But now what we know
Speaker 2: is about a week into the overall offensive, we're getting
Speaker 2: some indications about Russian strategy and about Ukraine the gains
Speaker 2: it may or may not hope to make in this
Speaker 2: overall campaign. Let's go and put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. The initial takeaway that appears to be forming
Speaker 2: amongst Western analysts is that the Russian improved weaponry and
Speaker 2: tactics is posing challenges to the Ukrainian counter offensive, even
Speaker 2: with all of the weapons that have been provided to
Speaker 2: Ukraine so far. As I said previously, the initial kind
Speaker 2: of analysis was focusing on what was going on with
Speaker 2: the drone, but overall, sorry with the dam but overall
Speaker 2: what we are watching is much slower progress than that
Speaker 2: was initially made in the original Ukrainian counter offensive. And
Speaker 2: this is also being verified by many Western analysts and
Speaker 2: others who have watched as the Russians have really taken
Speaker 2: over a year to bolster their six hundred mile front line.
Speaker 2: They say that they've honed in on electronic weapons, reducing
Speaker 2: Ukrainians edge and combat drones. They've turned heavy bombs from
Speaker 2: its massive Cold War arsenal into precision guided munitions capable
Speaker 2: of striking targets without putting its warplanes at risk. And
Speaker 2: the tactics are switching much more towards the defensive position
Speaker 2: that we saw, especially after what happened in Bakhmud. So
Speaker 2: the initial news too that I found are really interesting.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up there. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of maps that we wanted to show everyone from the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal. The counter offensive that we can see
Speaker 2: here is the initial one is the view from the
Speaker 2: front line where you can actually see Ukraine that has
Speaker 2: taken back a few villages in the Dinetzk region. I'm
Speaker 2: not going to go ahead and pronounce these for those
Speaker 2: who are watching. You can see there pretty clearly where
Speaker 2: the front line is, and then some of the villages
Speaker 2: that the Ukrainians have been stepping up artillery attacks and
Speaker 2: then taking back villages. Go to the next one, please,
Speaker 2: so that people can see a little bit more. This
Speaker 2: gives some more insight into the dam near the city
Speaker 2: of Kurson which exploded some of the flow areas that
Speaker 2: had been flooding. And then also it shows you where
Speaker 2: more dangers were in the cities that are around the
Speaker 2: flattest land in southern Ukraine. The next map please also
Speaker 2: does some indication about the dam and where the actual
Speaker 2: demolition site had occurred.
Speaker 3: So Crystal the.
Speaker 2: Main takeaway within all of this, and please can me
Speaker 2: flow over the third element please on the screen, is
Speaker 2: that the defensive capabilities of the Russians, or at the
Speaker 2: very least, have been bolstered such that the Ukrainians are
Speaker 2: having a harder time. That doesn't mean that it may
Speaker 2: not necessarily succeed, but that the initial push is not
Speaker 2: working as well as the last one. They say that
Speaker 2: the Ukrainian Army has already lost half of its unique
Speaker 2: leopard breaching vehicles which have been provided to them by
Speaker 2: the West, and they've already come to the Germans and
Speaker 2: said that they need even more of them. So overall,
Speaker 2: and you know, if anybody's interested, you can go see.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of videos out there floating around about
Speaker 2: some of the battles going on. It's absolutely brutal and
Speaker 2: devastating stuff. But you know, I mean, this just fits
Speaker 2: with some of the analysis that we've seen up there,
Speaker 2: the warnings from the Defense Chief General Mark Millie that
Speaker 2: we're basically seeing, you know, classic World War One type
Speaker 2: trench scenario, and that fits with the you know, whichever
Speaker 2: army is attacking is generally going to be the one
Speaker 2: really on the losing side in terms of casualties. Maybe
Speaker 2: they can turn it around, they can show us something
Speaker 2: that they haven't seen before. But it's pretty clear here
Speaker 2: that you know, things are are really grinding.
Speaker 1: Yeah, together, I mean to boil this down based on
Speaker 1: this analysis to the most simplistic terms, The Ukrainians have
Speaker 1: learned a lot over the fifteen months of the war,
Speaker 1: but so of the Russians. You know, the Ukrainians have
Speaker 1: been bolstered, certainly by more and more advanced weaponry that
Speaker 1: we've been willing to ship them. We've been training them
Speaker 1: aggressively in modern military techniques. But the Russians have also
Speaker 1: learned a lot from their loss, and they have an
Speaker 1: advantage because they're in the defensive position. And that's just
Speaker 1: the nature of war if you get into a grinding
Speaker 1: war of attrition, which is what this increasingly looks like.
Speaker 5: We have always said, and this is not based.
Speaker 1: On our own analysis, is based on what a lot
Speaker 1: of experts here are saying that really advantages the Russians.
Speaker 1: And you can see it in the way that Zolensky
Speaker 1: and American and European officials are carefully talking about what
Speaker 1: quote unquote success might look like.
Speaker 5: And this is something we've pointed to before.
Speaker 1: Zelensky has really worked hard to play down expectations of
Speaker 1: what this counter offensive might look like, and seem to
Speaker 1: also sort of delay the start of it for quite
Speaker 1: a while. You know, we are now getting into summer
Speaker 1: for the spring offensive. But put this up on the screen,
Speaker 1: they say. Publicly, American and European officials are leaving any
Speaker 1: definition of success to Zolensky of Ukraine for now. Zelensky
Speaker 1: has not laid out any public goals beyond his off
Speaker 1: stated demand that Russian troops must leave the whole of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: He's known as a master communicator. Any perception he's backing
Speaker 1: off that broad ind abition would risk undermining his support
Speaker 1: At a critical moment. Privately, US and European officials concede
Speaker 1: pushing all of Russia's forces out of occupied Ukrainian land
Speaker 1: is highly unlikely. Still, two themes emerge as clear ideas
Speaker 1: of quote unquote success. That the Ukrainian army retake and
Speaker 1: hold on to keith swass of territory previously occupied by
Speaker 1: the Russians, and that Kiev deal the Russian military a
Speaker 1: debilitating blow that forces the Kremlin to question the future
Speaker 1: of its military options in Ukraine. So it's early days,
Speaker 1: so we have to see what develops. Thus far, they've
Speaker 1: been able to take a few low, tiny villages, you know,
Speaker 1: not make major progress. They're obviously losing a lot in
Speaker 1: doing that. You point to the leopard breaching tanks, losing
Speaker 1: half of those in the early phases here. So as
Speaker 1: of yet, they're nowhere close to even the more limited
Speaker 1: definition of success. And part of what they would be
Speaker 1: aiming for here is to gain some strategic leverage if
Speaker 1: they are going to go to the negotiating table to
Speaker 1: be able to strike a better deal. If they're unable
Speaker 1: to do that, then you know, I think the pathward
Speaker 1: is really really unclear.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was also some indication of what they're really
Speaker 2: going after, which is, they say American and European officials,
Speaker 2: it is key for Ukraine to cut off, or at
Speaker 2: least squeeze the so called land bridge, the large swath
Speaker 2: of territory that Russia sees between its border and the
Speaker 2: Peninsula of Crimea, which has become the main supply right
Speaker 2: for the military stronghold. It's that and then the Zapprovia
Speaker 2: nuclear power plant. I apologize if I did not say
Speaker 2: that correctly, which of course has been inside of Russian
Speaker 2: control since very early days of the war. It has
Speaker 2: been a great matter of consternation as to how it's
Speaker 2: being run. It looks like those are the two massive
Speaker 2: targets for the Ukrainian military. Another scenario, they say right now,
Speaker 2: is that the Russians could make an error by potentially
Speaker 2: putting their troops in the wrong place or defending a
Speaker 2: trench line too lightly, which could potentially allow Ukraine to
Speaker 2: punch through their lines and execute a devastating blow to
Speaker 2: Russian troops. So there's still a lot different scenarios right
Speaker 2: now which are on the table, But from the best
Speaker 2: we can tell, things are kind of grinding right now
Speaker 2: in the initial phase of the campaign. No great success
Speaker 2: by the Russians, no great success yet by the Ukrainians,
Speaker 2: and lots of attrition that looks very very World War.
Speaker 3: One style as of now.
Speaker 2: And already, you know, the Cope article is about what
Speaker 2: success looks like and all of that are being released
Speaker 2: by the West. But hey, everybody could be wrong, you know. Again,
Speaker 2: really nobody knows how this thing is going to go
Speaker 2: until they officially kind of call it off.
Speaker 1: The military analysts have been very wrong at different times
Speaker 1: in this conflict. So we got to keep that in mind.
Speaker 1: The last thing that I think it's always important to
Speaker 1: bear in mind with regard to, you know, our proxy
Speaker 1: war against a nuclear armed superpower is they say, while
Speaker 1: US officials have set the risk of mister Putin's using
Speaker 1: a nuclear weapon have receded, American intelligence agencies say total
Speaker 1: defeat in Ukraine or a loss of Crimea are two
Speaker 1: scenarios under which mister Putin could potentially order the use
Speaker 1: of a nuclear weapon. This, again is consistent with what
Speaker 1: we've been saying from the beginning. If his back is
Speaker 1: really against the wall and it really looks existential, that's
Speaker 1: why you end up in extremely dangerous train. And it's
Speaker 1: important ever to take our eye off of that.
Speaker 3: Yep, very very important reminder as always.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get to some new disturbing economic indicators here.
Speaker 1: We've followed as closely as you can the housing market
Speaker 1: on this show because it's so important to the economy,
Speaker 1: it's so important to all of you and your lives,
Speaker 1: and let's go and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: We now have a home foreclosures rising nationwide Florida, California
Speaker 1: and Texas.
Speaker 5: Are apparently in the lead.
Speaker 1: You know, you've got May foreclosure related filings that includes
Speaker 1: default notices, scheduled actions, bank repossessions all up seven percent
Speaker 1: from April, fourteen percent from a year ago. Nationwide, you're
Speaker 1: talking about over thirty five thousand properties. You also have
Speaker 1: actual foreclosures up four percent month over month and five
Speaker 1: percent from a year ago.
Speaker 5: As I mentioned.
Speaker 1: Before, leading the way, you have Florida, California, and Texas.
Speaker 1: Now they do sound a note here to keep in
Speaker 1: mind the context, which is that in spite of the increase,
Speaker 1: these overall foreclosure rates actually remain about level with where
Speaker 1: we were pre pandemic. So part of what happened is
Speaker 1: you had a lot of forbearance programs during the pandemic.
Speaker 1: Well those have now lapsed and now they've gone so
Speaker 1: in some ways you're back to business as usual. However,
Speaker 1: there's still a lot of reasons to be concerned. Workers'
Speaker 1: incomes remain below their pre pandemic highs. Of course, the
Speaker 1: cost of consumer goods and services remains elevated. That puts
Speaker 1: workers at a greater risk of falling behind on payments.
Speaker 1: We've talked here about how credit card debt and other
Speaker 1: types of debt have surged to all time highs, and
Speaker 1: of course inflation continues to bite into incomes and makes
Speaker 1: it very difficult to keep up on your house payment.
Speaker 1: So some warning signs here that you are a little
Speaker 1: bit troubling about the direction of the economy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's always important too.
Speaker 2: And now, so you know, we'll recall this is Florida,
Speaker 2: California and Texas. Florida two of the most booming states
Speaker 2: in the entire Union, so you know, their economies are
Speaker 2: very important to overall GDP. Also, they have the biggest
Speaker 2: housing growth market, so if you do see foreclosures that
Speaker 2: are happening there, we should recall during the two thousand
Speaker 2: and eight crisis, the foreclosures in California were like forty
Speaker 2: percent or whatever of the total. So the housing markets
Speaker 2: in those two states are very important for the overall
Speaker 2: national trends. Another thing I think it's very important Crystal
Speaker 2: to understand here is the role of the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 2: And we have this piece that we can go and
Speaker 2: put up on the screen from Bloomberg, which is that
Speaker 2: they are not currently have any real plans to do
Speaker 2: anything about this. It said the Fed is going to
Speaker 2: keep rates high thanks to inflation fueled by corporate greed.
Speaker 2: Which here's another one which is very interesting, showing pretty
Speaker 2: definitively that a key piece of inflation, not all of inflation.
Speaker 2: Does show you that there's a lot of profiteering that
Speaker 2: is going on right now according to the majority of
Speaker 2: investors themselves. Yes, not according to people, according to the
Speaker 2: actual people in the market right now.
Speaker 5: Yes, yes.
Speaker 1: And you know, greedflation was considered like this fringe crank,
Speaker 1: silly theory that was to be dismissed by all the
Speaker 1: serious people here in DC. Now they are having to
Speaker 1: reckon with the fact that this was a real phenomenon
Speaker 1: and it made up a significant chunk of inflation. In
Speaker 1: this survey that they put out to investors, ninety percent
Speaker 1: of investors said companies on both sides of the Atlantic
Speaker 1: have been raising prices in excess of their own costs
Speaker 1: since the pandemic began. So using the excuse of inflation
Speaker 1: to price gouch is part of what's going on, and
Speaker 1: that's why inflation has come down somewhat. But that's why
Speaker 1: it's been so sticky and hasn't responded as much to
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve hiking rates as they thought that it would,
Speaker 1: and because it's not a particularly effective tool for dealing
Speaker 1: with the problem of corporations using their monopoly power in
Speaker 1: many instances to price gouge consumers and raise prices way
Speaker 1: beyond the inflation that they were actually experiencing. They asked
Speaker 1: this group of respondents also, hey, what should we do
Speaker 1: about this? And a good chunk of them said, hey,
Speaker 1: tighter monetary policy is the way to go, which you know,
Speaker 1: to me, doesn't make a whole lot of sense given
Speaker 1: we've had. Tighter monetary policy doesn't really seemed to be
Speaker 1: solving the problem. It doesn't directly get at that issue
Speaker 1: of corporate greed. But the ones who said, you know what,
Speaker 1: it's not tighter monetary policy. We need to do something else.
Speaker 1: The things they suggested were better enforcement of anti trust
Speaker 1: laws around mergers. It makes a lot of sense, along
Speaker 1: with efforts to stimulate more competition. Support for higher corporate taxes,
Speaker 1: potentially including windfall charges in areas where price gouging is identified,
Speaker 1: something I definitely support. One blunt recommendation was to quote
Speaker 1: tax them to oblivion now to show you just what
Speaker 1: we're talking about here with regard to greed inflation. I
Speaker 1: actually thought this chart was really told the tale quite effectively.
Speaker 5: Put this up on.
Speaker 1: The screen so you can see profit margins of US
Speaker 1: non financial corporate businesses leading up to twenty twenty, and
Speaker 1: then during the pandemic, when you start having the you know,
Speaker 1: ability of companies to claim inflation and jack up prices,
Speaker 1: those profit margins just absolutely skyrocket and they haven't come
Speaker 1: anywhere close to back to what the levels were previously.
Speaker 1: So it shows you it really is an anomalous period
Speaker 1: that this really is a significant part of the story.
Speaker 1: And you know, Jerne pal again, they're considering what they're
Speaker 1: going to do in terms of interest rates.
Speaker 5: They're meeting this week.
Speaker 1: There is starting to be some dissent on the direction
Speaker 1: that they should go in soccer, because you're now at
Speaker 1: a point where the economy is really on a precipice.
Speaker 1: We've already seen, of course, a number of banks fail.
Speaker 1: Many would argue, okay, that was anomalists. Other banks are fine,
Speaker 1: it's stable. It's not a problem that is not really clear.
Speaker 1: And then you also have things like the foreclosure rate
Speaker 1: ticking up. You have signs that there's increasing softness in
Speaker 1: the labor You have indications that the economy really might
Speaker 1: be starting to crack and on a bit of.
Speaker 5: You know, at a bit of a breaking point. No
Speaker 5: fun intended.
Speaker 1: And so if you continue hiking rates, or even leave
Speaker 1: rates as high as they are, you risk sending us
Speaker 1: into a deep recession with catastrophic counscert.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we actually got some breaking news literally just right
Speaker 2: now about consumer inflation.
Speaker 3: So I'm going to go ahead and read this off.
Speaker 2: The consumer price inflation report from the Fed just came
Speaker 2: or from the government just came out. Inflation continues to cool,
Speaker 2: offering relief to customers. Consumer prices rose four percent in
Speaker 2: the year through May, eleventh consecutive month of declines in
Speaker 2: the pace of inflation.
Speaker 3: That's eleven months so far.
Speaker 2: That may support plans by the Federal Reserve to pause
Speaker 2: interest rate increases just because we have a cooler.
Speaker 3: Quote unquote inflation report.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean though, that things are rosy, because it's
Speaker 2: still four percent of year over year, only slightly less
Speaker 2: than economists had inspected, cooled down from four point nine
Speaker 2: percent last month. So basically they have been saying is
Speaker 2: that this could give Jerome power and the Federal Reserve
Speaker 2: a pretext to not to at least pause interest rate increases,
Speaker 2: but does not necessarily mean that it is a guarantee,
Speaker 2: and it's not like they're going to bring them down.
Speaker 3: They would just simply pause.
Speaker 2: So high mortgage rates, high borrowing costs, all of that
Speaker 2: here to stay and continue to put down red pressure
Speaker 2: on the economy at least for right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so one window into some of the impact
Speaker 1: that the fed's actions are causing. And this is not
Speaker 1: just about the FED. This is also about the broader economy.
Speaker 1: This is also about commercial real estate. This is also
Speaker 1: about issues regarding crime and homelessness. San Francisco is really
Speaker 1: in a bad way. I mean, I just think there's
Speaker 1: no denying it at this point. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. They're losing some of their hotel owners of
Speaker 1: some of the most prominent properties in the city. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are places that if you've been to San Francisco,
Speaker 1: you've very likely seen in key shopping districts. They say
Speaker 1: that this is according to the Wall Street Journal, they're
Speaker 1: once thriving hotel market suffering its worst stretch in at
Speaker 1: least fifteen years, pummeled by the same forces that have
Speaker 1: emptied out the city's office towers closed, many retail stores.
Speaker 1: Just to give you a sense of the carnage here,
Speaker 1: you've got the owner of the city's Huntington Hotel.
Speaker 5: They sold their property after foreclosure.
Speaker 1: The Hotel San Francisco sold in foreclosure. Club Quarter San
Speaker 1: Francisco has been in default on its loan since twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: may also be headed to foreclosure. Other lodging properties in
Speaker 1: the city also vulnerable. More than twenty additional twenty San
Speaker 1: Francisco hotels facing loans due in the next two years,
Speaker 1: and their biggest potential hotel default yet, Park Hotels and
Speaker 1: Resorts last week said it is stop making loan payments
Speaker 1: on debts secured by the Hilton San Francisco, Union Square
Speaker 1: and Park fifty five San Francisco. Those two hotels alone
Speaker 1: have three thousand rooms between them. They are right in
Speaker 1: the heart, you know, Union Square, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: the heart of San Francisco. These are iconic properties. And
Speaker 1: part of what happened here is a broader story about
Speaker 1: commercial real estate in general, which is so much of
Speaker 1: this debt is coming due, and San Francisco is really
Speaker 1: particularly hard hit for a number of reasons.
Speaker 5: The tech session being among them.
Speaker 1: You know, issues concerning quality of life, homelessness, crime as
Speaker 1: I mentioned before, have really hit them hard as well.
Speaker 1: And you've had so few tech workers going back into
Speaker 1: offices that these offices are completely vacant in many instances.
Speaker 1: So as hotels are coming up on they need to
Speaker 1: refinance these loans. The fact that interest rates have been
Speaker 1: increased so much by the FED makes it wildly unaffordable
Speaker 1: to start with. Lenders are looking at the state of
Speaker 1: affairs and saying, like foot traffic and travel to San
Speaker 1: Francisco is way down, so we don't think that this
Speaker 1: is a particularly good bet. So it looks increasingly like
Speaker 1: San Francisco is in that so called doom loop that
Speaker 1: so many cities are terrified of entering.
Speaker 2: It makes sense to San Francisco and La are probably
Speaker 2: going to be the first heads on the chopping block
Speaker 2: because you reference, they've got the quality of life issues,
Speaker 2: they've got crime, and they've got the debt problem, and
Speaker 2: they've got reducing population, so that it just shows you
Speaker 2: that they were already of course, like in the middle
Speaker 2: of all this downward pressure, the ones that are most
Speaker 2: out there in terms of the risk are the ones
Speaker 2: going to be first to fall. One of the indications.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. You found
Speaker 2: this this morning, Crystal, the Westfield Mall is actually giving
Speaker 2: up its namesake after the Nordstrom closure and given plunging
Speaker 2: sales and foot traffic. For those who have not been,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is a pretty famous shopping center. It's
Speaker 2: the biggest one in all of San Francisco. Is downtown
Speaker 2: was known not even a decade ago as kind of
Speaker 2: a thriving real retail location, and they say for twenty
Speaker 2: years Westfield proudly and successfully operated San Francisco Center, investing
Speaker 2: over that time and the vitality of the property. But
Speaker 2: given the challenging operating conditions in downtown San Francisco, which
Speaker 2: have led to declines in sales, occupancy, and foot traffic,
Speaker 2: we have made the difficult decision to begin the process
Speaker 2: to transfer management to our lender to allow them to
Speaker 2: appoint a receiver to operate the property going forward. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is three hundred this is a thousands of square
Speaker 2: feet of office space, of retail space and more, which
Speaker 2: was a huge get for them, Crystal, and they're basically
Speaker 2: giving it to the bank and being like, this is
Speaker 2: your problem now, we're not even going to try and
Speaker 2: make our debt servicing. So look, I mean, we've got
Speaker 2: the current problem that they are citing as unsafe conditions,
Speaker 2: lack of enforcement against rampant criminal activity, and then you
Speaker 2: combine that with the overall property debt crisis that is
Speaker 2: hitting them.
Speaker 3: This is gonna happen again soon.
Speaker 2: San Francisco is just I mean, like, you know, it's
Speaker 2: so far out there, but you know, as the crisis
Speaker 2: loops in LA will be next. We already did that
Speaker 2: entire piece about LA commercial real estate selling at one
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty five dollars a square foot debt finance
Speaker 2: to two hundred something. It's you know, at a certain point,
Speaker 2: reality is going to smack these people in the face.
Speaker 2: Huge swats of cities La, San Francisco, Chicago, DC.
Speaker 3: Here right here in Washington, d C. New York City.
Speaker 3: They've got an.
Speaker 2: Occupancy rate in New York City of some forty percent
Speaker 2: or something. Yeah that whenever it comes to a full
Speaker 2: like actually back in the office. So work from home
Speaker 2: is great for workers, but it is nuking commercial real estate.
Speaker 2: I don't personally have you know, a lot of sympathy
Speaker 2: for some of these people. But also whenever you hear
Speaker 2: people like Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochel, they're like,
Speaker 2: we need to kind of people back at the office.
Speaker 2: They don't care about like your quality of life or whatever.
Speaker 3: They care about.
Speaker 2: The commercial developers who are lying in their pockets full
Speaker 2: of campaign contribution.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you are pretty worried about what's going to
Speaker 1: happen here. I mean, San Francisco is an outlier. I
Speaker 1: do want to be clear about that. So with regards
Speaker 1: to Westfield Mall, San Francisco foot traffic was down forty
Speaker 1: two percent between.
Speaker 5: Twenty nineteen and twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: So in just a few years time, San Francisco foot
Speaker 1: traffic has drop by almost half. If you look at
Speaker 1: all of the other Westfield owned US malls, foot traffic
Speaker 1: was only down two percent. So it is a dramatic
Speaker 1: outlier because it is the beating heart of Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: and the tech world, and those are the companies that,
Speaker 1: first of all, they've had, you know, massive layoffs there.
Speaker 1: While there's a tight labor market and a lot of
Speaker 1: industries in the tech industry, they've seen huge layoffs and
Speaker 1: they were also at the bleeding edge of you know,
Speaker 1: work from home and hybrid work. So the office space
Speaker 1: there is just wiped down, they say. The Chronicle Office building,
Speaker 1: which is a block from that mall, has a sixty
Speaker 1: percent VY can see rate as tenants Yahoo and Autodesks,
Speaker 1: Lisa's Expire. The neighboring office tower four fifteen Natoma, also
Speaker 1: owned by Brickfield, is ready for this ninety seven percent vacant.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, ninety seven percent.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So San Francisco in particular, but every city is going
Speaker 1: to be groppling with some level of these post pandemic changes.
Speaker 5: They got to come up with the plan fast.
Speaker 1: And you know, you think about San francist like, the
Speaker 1: cost of housing is so wildly unaffordable. They have to
Speaker 1: deal with their affordable housing crisis in order to try
Speaker 1: to bring people back into these cities before. You really
Speaker 1: can't escape this loop. And it is sad because I mean,
Speaker 1: it's an iconic city. It's a beautiful city, the setting,
Speaker 1: it's historic. You know, I have always like, I think
Speaker 1: San Francisco is a really cool place. I always enjoyed
Speaker 1: visiting it. It's very unique. So to see it in
Speaker 1: this kind of trouble is it's it is very sad,
Speaker 1: and I hope they can figure it out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for those who who watched the show a lot,
Speaker 2: you know the purple tie, I have actually bought that
Speaker 2: at that.
Speaker 3: North Stroom in San Francisco.
Speaker 2: I was attending a weight, I was attending a wedding
Speaker 2: and I literally forgot to bring a tie. And I
Speaker 2: was like, and where do I First of all, people
Speaker 2: in San Francisco, you guys all need to wear ties.
Speaker 3: They abandoned the tie a long time ago.
Speaker 2: So I was like, where do I even get a
Speaker 2: tie in this like worst dress city in the entire country.
Speaker 3: And someone's like, oh, you should go to Northtrum. I
Speaker 3: was like, oh, that's a good idea.
Speaker 2: And I went to the North Trum in this mall,
Speaker 2: this exact one that had closed in Westfield.
Speaker 3: I remember very vividly.
Speaker 5: I've been in this mall too.
Speaker 1: I mean it's really central if you're in downtown San Francis.
Speaker 5: Like, it's really central. It's really visible.
Speaker 1: So when you lose, now, I do you want to
Speaker 1: be clear, Like it's not at all clear that it's
Speaker 1: going to like close all together. It can stay open
Speaker 1: during the bankruptcy process, but you know, we'll see we'll see.
Speaker 3: What happens things.
Speaker 2: Things ain't great, going great for them. Yeah, indeed, let's
Speaker 2: go to the next one here. This is an important story,
Speaker 2: one that we promised to stay on. We said we
Speaker 2: wanted to bring more details if they arose about the
Speaker 2: Biden bribery charges. So yesterday, Senator Chuck Grassley, who has
Speaker 2: been kind of at the forefront of this along with
Speaker 2: the House Republicans investigating the FBI and the claim that
Speaker 2: there is a form which exists inside of the FBI
Speaker 2: or inside of the FBI which details distinct corruption allegations
Speaker 2: and specific bribery charges against President Biden from when he
Speaker 2: was the Vice president of the United States. Chuck Grassley,
Speaker 2: who apparently has seen some of these documents, were given
Speaker 2: an indication of the document around this form, around this allegation,
Speaker 2: gave more details yesterday on the floor of the United
Speaker 2: States Senate. Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 6: At the foreign national who allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter
Speaker 6: Biden allegedly has audio recordings of his conversation with them,
Speaker 6: seventeen such recordings. According to the ten twenty three, the
Speaker 6: foreign national possesses fifteen audio recordings of phone calls between
Speaker 6: him and Hunter Biden. According to the ten twenty three,
Speaker 6: the foreign national possesses two audio recordings of phone calls
Speaker 6: between him and then Vice President Joe Biden. These recordings
Speaker 6: were allegedly kept as a sort of insurance policy for
Speaker 6: the foreign national in case that he got into a
Speaker 6: tight spot. The ten twenty three also indicates that then
Speaker 6: Vice President Joe Biden may have been involved in BUGEMA
Speaker 6: employing Hunter Biden. Based on the facts known to the
Speaker 6: Congress and the public, it's clear that the Justice Department
Speaker 6: the FBI haven't nearly had the same laser focus on
Speaker 6: the Biden family.
Speaker 3: So that's the important detail.
Speaker 2: Basically, what he's given us there Crystal is allegations around
Speaker 2: and at least specificity around quote unquote seventeen recorded calls
Speaker 2: between the BERESMA executive and then Joe and then Hunter Biden,
Speaker 2: specifically the two of them talking.
Speaker 3: Now, in terms.
Speaker 2: Of the believability of this, yeah, I mean we should
Speaker 2: always remember this is coming from an FBI document which
Speaker 2: they fill out.
Speaker 3: It's not necessarily verified. It's just an allegation.
Speaker 2: As in, I could go to the FBI and be like,
Speaker 2: I have information about Crystal Ball.
Speaker 5: And they would twenty five recording exactly, and.
Speaker 2: They would whip out the same form that he's alleging
Speaker 2: exists here, which is unverified information from a confidential source.
Speaker 3: Now that being said, it doesn't mean.
Speaker 2: That it doesn't need to bear scrutiny and we don't
Speaker 2: need to know about this. Who is this foreign individual?
Speaker 2: Is there recording around this? And it's always been central
Speaker 2: to the really the entire case around Hunter Biden, which
Speaker 2: is look for people who don't know, why does Beisma matter.
Speaker 2: It's not just about one hundred and what fifty thousand
Speaker 2: dollars a month that Hunter was receiving. It's that Ukraine
Speaker 2: entered Ukrainian Energy Company hired Hunter Biden specifically at the
Speaker 2: time that his father, Joe Biden, was the head of
Speaker 2: Ukraine policy for the Obama administration. It was an explicit
Speaker 2: attempt to try and buy political influence because Biden was
Speaker 2: the decision maker on all things Ukraine policy while he
Speaker 2: was the Vice President of the United States. And then,
Speaker 2: of course, given what was going on right now with
Speaker 2: the Ukraine War, how can you not say that that
Speaker 2: didn't have at least some impact. You know, when the
Speaker 2: history books are written, it's going to be one of
Speaker 2: the most obvious connections of all time, at least in
Speaker 2: terms of somebody who literally had portfolio of Ukraine and
Speaker 2: then literally has a war breakout there whenever that person
Speaker 2: becomes president. Kind of crazy. Now, was there any influence
Speaker 2: by the Ukrainian regime buy you know, these bribery charges
Speaker 2: and did any of that money make its way in
Speaker 2: any form in any benefit to the current president of
Speaker 2: the United States? I mean it bears scrutiny, yeah, and
Speaker 2: it bears possibility.
Speaker 3: How can you more it is? How can you possibly
Speaker 3: rule that out? I don't think you can.
Speaker 5: No, you can, absolutely, you definitely can't.
Speaker 1: I mean, we already have the type of disgusting and
Speaker 1: disgraceful but probably legal corruption and shadiness in this case. Ye, Like,
Speaker 1: that's already there, you know, having Hunter Biden come on
Speaker 1: like that. It's very clear that peace. The question that
Speaker 1: these allegations from Grossly and Jamie Comer and others get
Speaker 1: to is whether you have actually out and out, like
Speaker 1: direct illegal bribery, which is a very high bar now
Speaker 1: according to the Supreme Court. Now, I've been trying to
Speaker 1: follow this thread, and there are a couple of pieces
Speaker 1: of it that I'm struggling, so I'm going to try
Speaker 1: to lay this out and sorry, you tell me if
Speaker 1: I have this right. So my understanding is Grassly the
Speaker 1: reason he's speaking out is because he actually saw this
Speaker 1: full document unredacted.
Speaker 5: Okay. A while back then, there was a.
Speaker 1: Push from the House Subcommittee on Weaponization of Government to
Speaker 1: get access to this document. They were threatening to hold
Speaker 1: Christopher Ray, who's the head of the FBI, in contempt
Speaker 1: over not providing this document. So he partially relents and
Speaker 1: gives them access to the documents. However, pieces of it
Speaker 1: are redacted, and what Grassly is asserting is part of
Speaker 1: what was redacted were the you know, the allegations that
Speaker 1: this foreign national had these audio recordings of both Hunter
Speaker 1: and of President Joe Biden. And so what Grassley is
Speaker 1: doing here is saying, hey, FBI, okay, sure you showed
Speaker 1: us a part, and you showed the House a part
Speaker 1: of this. I saw the whole part, the whole thing,
Speaker 1: and here's the piece that you're leaving out. So you
Speaker 1: need to explain why you're leaving that out, and you
Speaker 1: need to come clean about everything that is contained in
Speaker 1: this document, both of this committee and to the American people.
Speaker 3: That's an excellent summary. That's effectively what's going on.
Speaker 2: Now. We have a contempt vote that could be coming
Speaker 2: up in Congress where they'll be voting whether to hold
Speaker 2: the FBI director directly in the contempt. That's to try
Speaker 2: and force their hand to give them the full, unredacted document.
Speaker 2: We should also remind people of what you brought up
Speaker 2: though yesterday, Crystal, which is even whenever Comer was asked
Speaker 2: about this. Yeah, the committee they said, do you have
Speaker 2: evidence he committed crimes? You said, well, they should have
Speaker 2: been crimes. So they're not yet definitively declaring that an
Speaker 2: official crime has been has happened here. Now, look, I
Speaker 2: don't even care whether it's technically a crime or not.
Speaker 2: I just want to know, did the guide take money
Speaker 2: from the Ukrainian or energy company or not? Very simple?
Speaker 2: We know Hunter, Did we know that Hunter floated Biden's
Speaker 2: brother James many times. They have all kinds of crazy
Speaker 2: and insane schemes together where they profited a hell of
Speaker 2: a lot from the Chinese regime, from a lot of
Speaker 2: other different around the world, Romania, all these other you know,
Speaker 2: one of the richest men and women in Moscow wiring Hunter,
Speaker 2: all this money, these all apparently just get swept under
Speaker 2: the rug. I mean, just as bad as Jared kushner
Speaker 2: Saudi grift is, which I guess is probably more monumental
Speaker 2: in terms of an overall dollar scale.
Speaker 3: It's not two billion dollars. It's still just as bad
Speaker 3: as what's going on with Hunter.
Speaker 2: And it's actually a perfect view to why all this
Speaker 2: should be straight up illegal. But you know, I'm not
Speaker 2: going to hold my breath on any of that. That's
Speaker 2: basically what we know so far in terms of the details.
Speaker 2: Chuck Grassley says he saw the document. One of the
Speaker 2: reasons why they didn't even get the document earlier is
Speaker 2: because they didn't have subpoena power. The Democrats had controlled
Speaker 2: the Senate, the Republicans had didn't have control of the House.
Speaker 2: So now that they do, this is something that they've
Speaker 2: been wanting to zero in on for quite some time.
Speaker 2: Jim Jordan Comer many of these others trying to get
Speaker 2: to the bottom of it. Whether any of it will
Speaker 2: actually come out, I remain skeptical, just because even if
Speaker 2: it does, Crystal the line is going to be, Yeah,
Speaker 2: but where are the actual recordings? I mean, do they
Speaker 2: even exist, and all of this is quote unquote unverified.
Speaker 2: I mean also it could give us insight if they
Speaker 2: had this information and they ruled it out. Well, on
Speaker 2: what basis did you rule this out? And what investigation?
Speaker 2: Did you even launch? An investigation that would be a
Speaker 2: scandal in and of itself. How did the FBI handle
Speaker 2: this whenever they learned about it?
Speaker 5: One hundred percent, and we deserve answers on all of that.
Speaker 5: I don't think there's any doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And there's, like I said, there's already enough shadiness and
Speaker 1: probably legal unfortunately corruption that is in the public record
Speaker 1: for us all to you doubt the veracity of the
Speaker 1: Biden version of this story.
Speaker 5: But it's also important to keep in.
Speaker 1: Mind, I mean, Comer is effectively out and out admitted
Speaker 1: that the purpose of this committee is to dig Joe
Speaker 1: Biden so that Republicans can be in the back in
Speaker 1: the White House. So it's not like these people don't
Speaker 1: have a partisan motive as well. So just remember we're
Speaker 1: dealing with dishonest actors all the way around.
Speaker 2: That's what makes covering this always difficult, yes, you know,
Speaker 2: and you know we always try and preface that too
Speaker 2: with FBI. We're like, look, we're not saying we're trust
Speaker 2: the FBI here. I don't trust in many of the
Speaker 2: actors that's going on.
Speaker 3: I want cold hard facts.
Speaker 2: See if they if they're saying there's a recording of
Speaker 2: Joe and Hunter talking business, I need to hear that
Speaker 2: phone call.
Speaker 3: I need to hear it yesterday.
Speaker 2: So, by the way, if you're out there, let us know.
Speaker 2: I'd be happy to take a listen to it. Whoever
Speaker 2: you are foreign national, we will protect you and we
Speaker 2: will play it here on the show. I don't care
Speaker 2: what the political consequences of that one are. Okay, let's
Speaker 2: go ahead and talk about Tucker Carlson and this new
Speaker 2: development in the war between him and Fox News. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up here on the screen, guys. Fox News
Speaker 2: escalating its actions against Tucker, saying they have sent a
Speaker 2: cease and desist letter to Tucker as he ramps up
Speaker 2: the competing series on Twitter that has drew a combined
Speaker 2: quote one hundred and sixty nine million views for its
Speaker 2: first two episodes. Now, it's important to note here Fox
Speaker 2: did not actually release the seasoned decist letter. It's very
Speaker 2: likely Tucker's legal team because in bold at the very
Speaker 2: top of the letter is quote not for publication. Tucker
Speaker 2: and his legal team have really hitten back at Fox News,
Speaker 2: maintaining that it is his First Amendment right to be
Speaker 2: able to continue posting on Twitter, and he says that
Speaker 2: Fox has already committed material breaches of his own contract,
Speaker 2: which frees him up to do this. Fox, though, is
Speaker 2: continuing to pay Tucker Carlson. They say that the contract
Speaker 2: keeps his content all content exclusive to Fox all the
Speaker 2: way through December thirty one of twenty twenty four. So
Speaker 2: currently right now, the Tucker Carlson on Twitter show Crystal
Speaker 2: is scheduled to return actually today on Tuesday. Tucker said
Speaker 2: that Tucker's executive producer, Justin Wells, his former producer on
Speaker 2: his original show Tucker Carlson, tonight was said that they
Speaker 2: would be returning on Tuesday, so that Tucker gave his
Speaker 2: thoughts on the Trump indictment. Now, why I think this
Speaker 2: is a important is no signs of stopping the original
Speaker 2: Tucker Carlson on Twitter show was released. Fox News came
Speaker 2: to them and said, hey, you need to stop doing that,
Speaker 2: or we're going to say that you're in a breech
Speaker 2: of contract. He released a second show. Then they've officially
Speaker 2: said this now cease and desist letter. Well, the legal
Speaker 2: team also is saying that this is not going to stop.
Speaker 2: Let's put this next one up on the screen. Harmey
Speaker 2: Dylan a well known Republican lawyer. She is also representing
Speaker 2: Tucker Carlson as well. She tweeted this out yesterday, my
Speaker 2: friend and client Tucker will not be silenced by the
Speaker 2: far left or by Fox News. And Harmeat actually was
Speaker 2: a very frequent guest on the Fox News program. She
Speaker 2: said she will no longer being appear on the network
Speaker 2: at all as this war continues, and really it reveals,
Speaker 2: you know, kind of the war that's going on behind
Speaker 2: the scenes. And also in terms of this whole non compete.
Speaker 2: I mean, and you and I tak Tucker out of it.
Speaker 2: You and I have also been at the center of
Speaker 2: this nonsense before. These things should be straight up be lease,
Speaker 2: there's no reason people should be bound by this, whether
Speaker 2: they can fake pay you not to work. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 2: it sounds like a decent deal, but to me, it
Speaker 2: is a violation of First Amendment, right. It's like what
Speaker 2: a company owns, not only your image, your likeness, but
Speaker 2: your ability to say anything about what you think whatsoever.
Speaker 2: He's not even making any money off it's not like
Speaker 2: you charge anything. It's not like Elon is paying him.
Speaker 2: It's straight up his ability to put thoughts out online.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it has major implications way beyond Tucker, because every
Speaker 1: single media contract has these non competes in them. And
Speaker 1: by the way, I mean, this is like the super
Speaker 1: high brow version of this problem of this problem where
Speaker 1: it's like you can't work, you can't go to work
Speaker 1: for any other network for some period of time, and
Speaker 1: we're going to still pay you millions to do just
Speaker 1: like that's the high brow version of this problem. You're right,
Speaker 1: these non competes are also becoming rife, you know, throughout
Speaker 1: our society, even like sandwich shops.
Speaker 3: Workers believe it's Jimmy Johnson.
Speaker 1: Yeah, having a sign non competes. They can't go down
Speaker 1: the street and work for Subway or whatever. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just completely it's gotten wildly out of hand. And
Speaker 1: so as I said before, you've got sort of like
Speaker 1: Tucker aligning with the Biden administration and the post unpredicted
Speaker 1: horseshoe of all time to do away with these non
Speaker 1: compete clauses because it is. It is really abusive, and
Speaker 1: the ones in media contracts are particularly bad because they lock.
Speaker 5: You up for a long period of time.
Speaker 1: And if Fox is arguing now, as they clearly are,
Speaker 1: that even like you know, being able to put on
Speaker 1: a video on Twitter, that that's banned by your non compete,
Speaker 1: it's I have no idea how.
Speaker 5: The courts are going to view this. I'm sure it
Speaker 5: will depend a lot on what judge again and all
Speaker 5: that kind.
Speaker 1: Of stuff, but it could have really far reaching consequences
Speaker 1: for the entire media landscape. If a judge comes in
Speaker 1: and says, no, you know, this non compete is either
Speaker 1: unconstitutional to start with, I mean, that would be an
Speaker 1: earthquake in media and like across the entire economy. But
Speaker 1: if they even specifically say, you know, no Twitter, that
Speaker 1: it doesn't apply to Twitter, it doesn't apply to social media,
Speaker 1: doesn't apply to these other platforms, that would be huge
Speaker 1: as well, because then any creator who feels like they
Speaker 1: have that pull with an audience, they can at any
Speaker 1: point that gives them a lot more power to say
Speaker 1: screwed you to their bosses when you know they want
Speaker 1: him to wear the sweater or whatever. It is and
Speaker 1: go and create their own product. So it could be
Speaker 1: quite significant if that is the case. Fox News clearly
Speaker 1: wants to keep him off the air through the election.
Speaker 1: I totally understand why. I mean, he was a huge
Speaker 1: ratings generator for them. They have not been able to
Speaker 1: even come close to filling his shoes in that slot
Speaker 1: just in terms of audience numbers and ratings. Now he
Speaker 1: had become somewhat of a liability for them with regard
Speaker 1: to advertisers. So, like the business piece of it is
Speaker 1: a little bit less clear cut, but there's no doubt
Speaker 1: they want him disappeared at least through the next presidential election.
Speaker 1: And I think it's going to be quite consequential what
Speaker 1: happens here.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Absolutely, So.
Speaker 2: Tucker is scheduled to interview Ron DeSantis at an event
Speaker 2: in the near future, interesting Turning Point USA conference where
Speaker 2: he was already scheduled to speak. I'm told that he
Speaker 2: will still likely be appearing there. He remains on the schedule.
Speaker 2: There's another event and conference, but put on by ISI,
Speaker 2: where he's also scheduled to continue to speak. So those comments,
Speaker 2: I think we'll all be watching close because that's the
Speaker 2: first time he'll have been speaking outside of a produced environment,
Speaker 2: especially the DeSantis one. He's going to be at a
Speaker 2: conference and be interviewing DeSantis there on the stage. I'm
Speaker 2: interested to see why DeSantis even agreed to be interviewed
Speaker 2: by Tucker because I'm hoping it gets him on Ukraine
Speaker 2: on the complete waffle that happened whenever he submitted an
Speaker 2: answer to Tucker and then changed his answer completely in
Speaker 2: an interview later on.
Speaker 3: So what do you believe? Man?
Speaker 2: You know, are you pro Ukraine AID or anti Ukraine AID? Like,
Speaker 2: give us a straightforward answer on what he believes on that.
Speaker 2: So overall, it's not like they are one silence him
Speaker 2: in certain terms of his show just yet, and he
Speaker 2: is still scheduled to have some sort of electoral impact,
Speaker 2: which I think is what they were scared of in
Speaker 2: the first place.
Speaker 1: I'm a little surprised DeSantis is doing that, to be
Speaker 1: honest with you, because he's very careful about his media appearances,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's unlikely that this will be entirely
Speaker 1: comfortable and one hundred percent softball.
Speaker 5: So that will be interesting to watch.
Speaker 1: With regard to Tucker on Twitter, you know, it does
Speaker 1: really beg the question, like what is the limiting principle
Speaker 1: of these non competes because even him, you know, live
Speaker 1: streaming and interview with Ron de Santis is that of
Speaker 1: breach of his contract? Is Fox News consider that to
Speaker 1: be in violation of non compete? I mean, just in
Speaker 1: the modern landscape, where does it end? Can you do
Speaker 1: a podcast? Can you send a tweet? Can you do
Speaker 1: an Instagram live? Can you post YouTube video? Can you
Speaker 1: go on Rumble? Can you go on somebody else's show
Speaker 1: on Rumble?
Speaker 5: Like? What is? What are the constraints?
Speaker 1: And it does give credence to his First Amendment argument
Speaker 1: that if they're saying basically no, no, all of that
Speaker 1: is off the table, then you are completely quashing someone's
Speaker 1: ability to speak. So I do think it's important. You know,
Speaker 1: I am far from a Tucker fan. I have a
Speaker 1: lot of issues with his politics and a lot of
Speaker 1: things that he says. But if you take him out
Speaker 1: of it and consider just what this means for independent media,
Speaker 1: what it means for the media landscape, it's actually a
Speaker 1: really important case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, we believe in free speech no matter what.
Speaker 2: We were personally impacted by these bs non competes and
Speaker 2: can't even imagine the level, the amount of bs that
Speaker 2: we had to go through just to be able to
Speaker 2: put this show on the air.
Speaker 5: We're basically hell yeah, there's yeah.
Speaker 2: You can't go into too many details, but there are
Speaker 2: a couple of guns to the old heads here of
Speaker 2: Crystal at Tager, who, by the way, were the crazy ones,
Speaker 2: because we were like, okay, we'll walk, you know, and
Speaker 2: it's like we're we we really kind of put it
Speaker 2: up to the edge and we're willing to basically be
Speaker 2: unemployed for a while, which is the only reason things
Speaker 2: worked out on our end. But you know, not a
Speaker 2: lot of people have the luxury of saying, okay, you know,
Speaker 2: we won't get paid and to take the big risk
Speaker 2: kind of that we did here. So anyway, that's actually
Speaker 2: always a good reminder. Thank you all so much. You
Speaker 2: show success because without it, you know, we'd be starving
Speaker 2: in the Yeah, it's.
Speaker 1: Easy to forget that was that when we're sitting here
Speaker 1: on our beautiful news right, But it took a lot
Speaker 1: to get here.
Speaker 5: Took you guys, You guys made it happen.
Speaker 3: Crystal, what do you take a look at.
Speaker 1: There is a huge fight brewing as we speak that
Speaker 1: you definitely have a stake in, but probably do not
Speaker 1: even know about.
Speaker 5: UPS.
Speaker 1: Workers organized by the Teamsters are voting right now on
Speaker 1: a strike authorization. We're talking about nearly three hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand workers casting ballots to indicate whether they are
Speaker 1: ready to walk if contract negotiations fail. By sheer numbers alone,
Speaker 1: if these workers were to actually hit the picket lines,
Speaker 1: it would be among the largest strikes in US history.
Speaker 1: And of course, these aren't just any workers. Especially post pandemic,
Speaker 1: our nation runs on package delivery. These are the men
Speaker 1: and women who do all the labor of getting those
Speaker 1: goods to your doorsteps. And they happen to work for
Speaker 1: a company that has been posting record breaking profits. Thanks
Speaker 1: to this new reality, UPS and their Wall Street owners,
Speaker 1: Vanguard Capital in Black Rock, they have been making money by.
Speaker 5: The billions in recent years.
Speaker 1: They brought in a record hall of thirteen point one
Speaker 1: billion in twenty twenty one, only to make even more
Speaker 1: money in twenty twenty two. But have the workers shared
Speaker 1: this stunning prosperity. Of course they haven't. Instead, the company
Speaker 1: has nickel and dimed them, denying them hazard pay during
Speaker 1: the pandemic, forcing them to work overtime squeezing part time
Speaker 1: workers like crazy, and to add insult to injury, the
Speaker 1: company refused to install air conditioning in their trucks, even
Speaker 1: as their workers suffered heat strokes from extreme temperatures and
Speaker 1: in some instances even died somehow however, UPS did find
Speaker 1: the money to install driver facing surveillance cameras to track
Speaker 1: their workers every move as.
Speaker 5: If they were criminals.
Speaker 1: Now, the roots of UPS worker discontent actually go back
Speaker 1: for years, as they have watched their middle class profession
Speaker 1: eroded into precarity by greedy bosses and unaccountable union leadership
Speaker 1: during a neoliberal era that saw union density collapse. As
Speaker 1: UPS package car driver Sean Or and Elliot Lewis write
Speaker 1: for Labor Notes quote, UPS jobs were once considered a
Speaker 1: yardstick of secure union jobs. Now sixty percent of the
Speaker 1: workforce is part time, making around the minimum wage in
Speaker 1: many regions. Drivers in many locations are forced to work
Speaker 1: six days a week and up to fourteen hours a
Speaker 1: day with forced overtime. Managers follow drivers in personal vehicles
Speaker 1: and relentlessly harassed workers to scare us into working faster.
Speaker 1: Many rank and file union members were outraged during the
Speaker 1: last contract negotiation when a concessionary contract that they had
Speaker 1: actually voted down was nonetheless forced upon them. Among other issues,
Speaker 1: that contract created a two tier system, a common tactic
Speaker 1: deployed by companies and agreed to by union bosses who
Speaker 1: were too cozy with the boss class, which allows new
Speaker 1: workers to be paid less and seeks to break the
Speaker 1: union's greatest strength, that would be solidarity. Now, this time around,
Speaker 1: workers just elected a new reformist union president, Sean O'Brien,
Speaker 1: who ran explicitly on taking a tough stance with UPS
Speaker 1: and striking if necessary. And with a tight labor market,
Speaker 1: the workers go into the negotiations with quite a bit
Speaker 1: of leverage. UPS and their Wall Street owners would be
Speaker 1: hammered by a strike, and at the moment, for many
Speaker 1: of their workers, the company actually needs them more than
Speaker 1: they need the company. The UPS teams to contract literally
Speaker 1: the largest private union contract in the entire country that
Speaker 1: is set to expire at the end of July. A
Speaker 1: yes vote on the strike or authorization, which is expected,
Speaker 1: would make it very likely that if that period passes
Speaker 1: with no contract, UPS package delivery will grind to a halt. Now,
Speaker 1: the mainstream process is starting to cover the negotiations and
Speaker 1: their framing should serve as a reminder of what these
Speaker 1: workers are actually up against. You'll recall that during the
Speaker 1: rail worker negotiation, corporate press articles routinely took the side
Speaker 1: of capital. The framing of nearly every article asserted that
Speaker 1: workers were risking economic calamity, rather than explaining how corporations
Speaker 1: were willing to risk a catastrophe in service of their
Speaker 1: greed and desire to prevent their workers from having basic
Speaker 1: rights like paid sick days. Here is CNN's coverage of
Speaker 1: the looming UPS strike with very similar framing. Their headline quote,
Speaker 1: a massive UPS strike could devastate the economy could be
Speaker 1: just eight weeks away. N lead with how workers have
Speaker 1: been screwed while UPS makes money hand over fist. Actually,
Speaker 1: they don't quote a single worker in the entire piece.
Speaker 1: They start their piece by lamenting the plight of retailers.
Speaker 1: The strike, if it happens, couldn't come at a worse time,
Speaker 1: they say, for retailers stocking up for back to school
Speaker 1: shopping season and preparing for the end of year holidays.
Speaker 1: You can bet there will be many more articles like this,
Speaker 1: and many that are even far worse, all designed to
Speaker 1: undercut the leverage workers have in the negotiation and to
Speaker 1: marshall public opinion on the side of UPS and their
Speaker 1: Wall Street owners.
Speaker 5: Don't forget the basic facts.
Speaker 1: UPS has made billions off the backs of these workers.
Speaker 1: They can afford easily to treat them with humanity, and
Speaker 1: it shouldn't even take the threat of a strike to
Speaker 1: achieve this basic level of fairness.
Speaker 5: We're going to be following this one.
Speaker 1: Really closely because the stakes are extremely high. They're high
Speaker 1: for these workers, of course, who are trying to earn
Speaker 1: a decent living without falling out from heat stroke in
Speaker 1: the middle of their shift. They are high for an
Speaker 1: economy which is fragile and just overcoming supply chain issues already,
Speaker 1: and the stakes are very high for all workers and
Speaker 1: the labor movement written large because the only reason these
Speaker 1: workers are in a position to push for war at
Speaker 1: all is their union, and if they succeed, it shows
Speaker 1: the power of organizing. When unions were at their height,
Speaker 1: they didn't just lift wages for their members, but for
Speaker 1: all workers, because even non union shops had to compete
Speaker 1: with them on wages and on benefits. Right now, there's
Speaker 1: lots of jobs, which keeps the labor market tight, but
Speaker 1: far too many are low paying jobs that are not
Speaker 1: even coming close to keeping up with inflation. This fight
Speaker 1: could point the way back to a healthy middle class.
Speaker 1: And this one is hanging out.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 5: All Right, Sager, what are you looking at?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 2: I've said it here many times before the most interesting
Speaker 2: part of the Epstein story had very little to do
Speaker 2: with him, or even with the paltry charges brought against
Speaker 2: his partner, Gallaine Maxwell. In many cases, it didn't even
Speaker 2: really have to do with his intimate relationships with high
Speaker 2: level billionaires like Bill Gates and Leon Black. It always
Speaker 2: had to do with two things. Who's he working for
Speaker 2: and who is he working with? The four part is
Speaker 2: one that we still don't know. Although there are many
Speaker 2: suspicions around his connections to Israeli or US intelligence, who
Speaker 2: he was working for with question is one where there
Speaker 2: seemed at least a small chance of potentially learning the truth.
Speaker 2: The most insight came into this question, largely from court
Speaker 2: documents and financial records relating to Epstein's financial dealings with
Speaker 2: two major US banks, How did he get all this
Speaker 2: money in the first place, and then also what was
Speaker 2: he using it for? We're getting a small glimpse into
Speaker 2: just how much was at stake with the latest news
Speaker 2: the JP Morgan has decided to pay nearly three hundred
Speaker 2: million dollars to settle Epstein accusers lawsuit against the largest
Speaker 2: bank in the US and one of the largest in
Speaker 2: the world. The details of the settlement are stunning. JP
Speaker 2: Morgan agreed to pay the historic sum for a sex
Speaker 2: assault case hours after a federal judge ruled that dozens
Speaker 2: of women abused by Epstein all had standing to join
Speaker 2: the lawsuit against JP Morgan. That ruling could have opened
Speaker 2: up JP Morgan to even more discovery evidence that has
Speaker 2: already been released about the relationship to Epstein, and it
Speaker 2: reveals just how deeply and mesh the bank was in
Speaker 2: his financi machinations, even after he became a convicted sex offender. Already,
Speaker 2: court documents show that JP Morgan was aware of shady
Speaker 2: stuff going on with Epstein, including compliance officers who said, quote,
Speaker 2: there's lots of smoke, lots of questions about Epstein, and
Speaker 2: another which referred to him as a quote sugar Daddy.
Speaker 2: Documents released so far also showed that the bank was
Speaker 2: fully aware of was a convicted sex offender and continued
Speaker 2: to do business with him. One of the most damning
Speaker 2: revelations was that the current head of JP Morgan's four
Speaker 2: trillion dollar asset and wealth management business visited Epstein properties
Speaker 2: in the past and was aware of problems around him
Speaker 2: in multiple meetings. Furthermore, internal documents show that lower level
Speaker 2: employees filed multiple suspicious activity reports on Epstein.
Speaker 3: That were ignored.
Speaker 2: The number of employees flagging suspicious activities numbers quote nearly
Speaker 2: four dozen, showing just how pervasive knowledge within the bank was.
Speaker 2: One of the real tells within the revelations was the
Speaker 2: two senior execsctives at the bank advocating for keeping Epstein's
Speaker 2: business despite his sex offender guilty plea because Epstein was
Speaker 2: seen as a conduit to other super rich clients that
Speaker 2: he could bring in. It's also no coincidence the settlement
Speaker 2: comes just two weeks after Jamie Diamond himself sat for
Speaker 2: seven hours of testimony over Epstein. All of this is
Speaker 2: even more twisted by the fact that JP Morgan is
Speaker 2: actually suing one of its own former employees, James Staley,
Speaker 2: who was for a time the CEO of Barclays, another
Speaker 2: massive financial institution. JP Morgan said that if the bank
Speaker 2: does have to pay, it should be Staley who pays,
Speaker 2: even though he doesn't even work there anymore. They alleged
Speaker 2: that he concealed all of the worst Epstein behavior from
Speaker 2: the bank and the compliance office will this doesn't exactly
Speaker 2: pass scrutiny. It's likely Staley is the fall guy. He was, though,
Speaker 2: caught exchanging very gross emails objectifying young women with Epstein.
Speaker 2: The email in question showed him emailing Epstein after visiting
Speaker 2: his private island, saying quote that was fun say hi
Speaker 2: to snow White. I'll let you decide how to interpret
Speaker 2: that one. The maddening part with this entire case, after
Speaker 2: covering it for four years, is that each one of
Speaker 2: these stories is another piece of the puzzle. One of
Speaker 2: the first clues into how vast the conspiracy was was
Speaker 2: the early twenty twenty Deutsche Bank fine by New York
Speaker 2: state authorities that, in a recent settlement by the bank
Speaker 2: showed that the victims showed a shame culpability a bank
Speaker 2: that knew he was a convicted sex offender and knew
Speaker 2: he was tripping all sorts of crazy compliance trip wires
Speaker 2: and continued to do business.
Speaker 3: So where do we.
Speaker 2: Even go from here? It's a good question. Maxwell's behind bars.
Speaker 2: No client list ever really came out. We get some
Speaker 2: dribble and dribble here and then a high level meeting
Speaker 2: with people like Bill Gates or Nom Chomski, but let's
Speaker 2: be honest, it never really goes anywhere. This JP Morgan
Speaker 2: lawsuit was a real opportunity to get things out there,
Speaker 2: so that it's no surprise that they're paying more than
Speaker 2: a quarter billion to keep it quiet. The next and
Speaker 2: perhaps only hope is the ongoing lawsuit between the US
Speaker 2: Virgin Islands and JP Morgan, which remains active. JP Morgan
Speaker 2: is fighting this case harder because it alleges that the
Speaker 2: US Virgin Islands, where many of these sex crimes took place,
Speaker 2: are actually the ones responsible because of their possible cozy
Speaker 2: relationship with Epstein by past government officials. Virgin Islands, on
Speaker 2: the other hand, they say JP Morgan is the financial
Speaker 2: nexus of Epstein's abuse empire and was the main conduit
Speaker 2: for much of the money that changed hands, which he
Speaker 2: used to fly women around and to himself to abuse
Speaker 2: and to then be abused by others who visited him.
Speaker 2: We'll see if either of them even make it to trial.
Speaker 2: We get even more information, but sadly it does feel
Speaker 2: like things could be winding down there too. The more
Speaker 2: that they settle, and the bigger the dollar amounts, the
Speaker 2: more of an admission, how explosive the truth is, and
Speaker 2: it shows us why we should keep pushing Somewhere on
Speaker 2: somewhere server somewhere, there is a lot of damning evidence
Speaker 2: for a lot.
Speaker 3: Of very rich and powerful people. All of us know
Speaker 3: it's true.
Speaker 2: We just need the confirmation and to not stop until
Speaker 2: any of it actually comes out for good.
Speaker 1: So there you go, Crystal, and if you want to
Speaker 1: hear my reaction to Sager's monologue, become a premium subscriber
Speaker 1: today at Breakingpoints dot Com. Very excited to be joined
Speaker 1: by actor James Vanderbeek. He is of Dawson's Creek fame,
Speaker 1: but has done a lot besides that. So great to
Speaker 1: have you, James, Welcome to the program.
Speaker 4: Good just you, thank you, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, so you came to our attention because
Speaker 1: you decided to speak out about something we've been talking about,
Speaker 1: which is the Democratic Party's refusal to host any primary debates.
Speaker 1: This in spite of the fact that you have majority
Speaker 1: of Democrats who say they would love to have those debates,
Speaker 1: who are interested in evaluating what alternatives are out there.
Speaker 1: So what made you feel compelled to speak out on
Speaker 1: this issue?
Speaker 4: You know, I rarely speak out on anything political on
Speaker 4: my Instagram pages, mostly like thoughts on parenting and homestead
Speaker 4: adventures and this my smartest sense of humor.
Speaker 7: But it was Memorial Day, and you know, I.
Speaker 4: Do tend to be pretty heartfelt on my platform, and
Speaker 4: I was just trying to think of what I could
Speaker 4: say too thank the families who have made that sacrifice.
Speaker 4: And I just was so pissed off by the fact
Speaker 4: that the DNC was willfully and arrogantly ignoring the will
Speaker 4: of the people and their people, you know, the people
Speaker 4: who voted for their guy last time. And so I
Speaker 4: just thought, man, the best thing I could do to
Speaker 4: thank the troops would be to speak out about the
Speaker 4: fact that they're deciding unilaterally to not hold a debate.
Speaker 7: I just I just think it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, James, I know that we talked a
Speaker 2: little bit about it. Just put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. The media, you know, kind of took this
Speaker 2: and almost ran it as some sort of right wing reaction.
Speaker 2: They were like, he becomes Fox News' favorite actor. I
Speaker 2: know that that wasn't what you intended at all. Yeah, well,
Speaker 2: that's part of the reason we wanted to talk is
Speaker 2: I know that's not what you think.
Speaker 3: Give it.
Speaker 2: Give us your reaction to that. And you know why
Speaker 2: they're casting you is right wing for wanting a debate.
Speaker 2: That's not really your intention at all.
Speaker 7: Not at all.
Speaker 4: And if they've gone through, you know, years of my
Speaker 4: Instagram feed, they would find a lot of things they
Speaker 4: disagree with over at Fox News.
Speaker 7: Yeah, to become a Fox News.
Speaker 4: Darling overnight over simply saying that we should have a debate,
Speaker 4: I mean clearly they're using it for their purposes, which is,
Speaker 4: you know, to make Biden look bad, to make the
Speaker 4: Democrats look crazy. But I mean, in fairness, the Democrats
Speaker 4: do look crazy. The DNC does look crazy right now
Speaker 4: for not for not listening, uh, you know, to to
Speaker 4: their voter base.
Speaker 7: I just and listen.
Speaker 4: I've just been pointed out that there's been a there's
Speaker 4: a precedent for not having a debate. Obama didn't debate.
Speaker 4: A lot of incumbents don't debate challengers. But I think
Speaker 4: that's a terrible precedent. And I really it was not
Speaker 4: in any way an anti anybody ran.
Speaker 7: It's a pro democratic process rant. And that's what I
Speaker 7: feel like we're we're being robbed of.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, if some of some of the
Speaker 4: responses were really strange, there are a lot of people
Speaker 4: who are just so in fear of who the perhaps
Speaker 4: inevitable Republican nominee is going to be that there seems
Speaker 4: to be this theory that everybody should just go easy
Speaker 4: on Biden. Yeah, let him, just put him up there
Speaker 4: and just by virtu of the fact that he's not
Speaker 4: the other guy that everybody then he'll win and everything
Speaker 4: will be okay. And I just think that's a terrible strategy,
Speaker 4: and I think the country really deserves better. And so,
Speaker 4: you know, if a debate where you stand up for
Speaker 4: your record and you hear ideas from within your own
Speaker 4: party and you talk about where we are and where
Speaker 4: you're going to take us in the future, if that's
Speaker 4: going to hurt your candidate, is that really the candidate
Speaker 4: you want to run.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it really betrays an actual lack of faith in
Speaker 1: the American people, an actual lack of faith in democracy.
Speaker 1: And that's from a party that has spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time talking about how important the values of democracy
Speaker 1: are and how you know, democracy is on the ballot
Speaker 1: and they're going to be the defenders of democracy. So
Speaker 1: I think it's really well said that they point all
Speaker 1: the time to, well, you know, there's this historical precedent
Speaker 1: where you know, Biden's just going to follow the historical present,
Speaker 1: and it's like, because you did something bad and anti
Speaker 1: democratic in the past, doesn't mean that we should continue
Speaker 1: along that trajectory. On the other hand, with regard to
Speaker 1: Fox News adoption of this, they're pretty silent on the
Speaker 1: fact that Trump has also said that he's not particularly
Speaker 1: he hasn't committed himself to debates either, And so James,
Speaker 1: to your point about you know, speaking out and trying
Speaker 1: to honor the troops, it just seems like we're in
Speaker 1: this really depressing situation where you've got two guys that
Speaker 1: the overwhelming majority of the country is like, we really
Speaker 1: don't want either one of these dudes, Like we really
Speaker 1: would like to have a whole variety of other options,
Speaker 1: and I think it shows a true decay of our
Speaker 1: democracy that there are basically that we're basically locked into
Speaker 1: this Trump versus Biden situation.
Speaker 5: Come to the fall.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think Trump should debate. I think everybody should.
Speaker 4: I think we probably pass something and guarantees us a
Speaker 4: primary debate. I agree, no matter what, because without that
Speaker 4: then people are they're also you know, designing the debate
Speaker 4: to suit themselves, and it's just ridiculous this, And it's
Speaker 4: been pointed out, yes, this is not a direct democracy,
Speaker 4: this is technically a republic. But still, I mean, the
Speaker 4: will of the people deserves to be deserves to be heard.
Speaker 4: I mean, and I am optimistic as well. I'm optimistic.
Speaker 4: I believe in the American people, I really do. I
Speaker 4: believe in that people, and my neighbors and people I
Speaker 4: meet at the Harbor Store.
Speaker 7: I believe in my friends.
Speaker 4: That you know back in LA that given all the information,
Speaker 4: given true information, we will all kind of eventually make
Speaker 4: good decisions. But within that optimism, man, the older I've gotten,
Speaker 4: the more I've come to see the virtue in seeing
Speaker 4: things as they are, not as we wish them to be.
Speaker 4: Not as we just know they could be given the
Speaker 4: perfect set of circumstances, but actually seeing things as they are.
Speaker 4: And I've yet to hear an argument that would convince
Speaker 4: me that a debate would allow us to see less
Speaker 4: of the truth that we're saying right.
Speaker 2: Now, that's really wise. You know, James, I'm curious. You
Speaker 2: know you still work in the business. I mean, have
Speaker 2: you had any repercussions as a result of this. I mean,
Speaker 2: to me, it was very courageous for you to come
Speaker 2: out and say this, and I'm curious to your thoughts
Speaker 2: as to how to navigate that process for as you
Speaker 2: reference all your friends in LA.
Speaker 7: Well, thank you.
Speaker 4: People say it's courageous, it kind of terrifies me. Yeah,
Speaker 4: to me, this is a no brainer. This is just
Speaker 4: to say, hey, I could be wrong. I'm not saying
Speaker 4: to vote for my guy. I'm not saying the other
Speaker 4: guy's terrible. I'm not coming out in favor of any
Speaker 4: candidate or against any candidate. I'm just saying, let's put
Speaker 4: them on a stage, and instead of making decisions and
Speaker 4: bringing ideas to some back room somewhere, let's put it
Speaker 4: in people's living rooms. That's really all that I'm saying,
Speaker 4: you know, I mean, right now, there's a writer strike,
Speaker 4: and I'm a writer, so I'm supporting my w.
Speaker 7: G A, my guilt good.
Speaker 4: So there's no work happening right now. But I have
Speaker 4: had a lot of friends on the left reach out
Speaker 4: to me privately and see, thank you, thank you for
Speaker 4: seeing what we've all been thinking.
Speaker 1: So it's this funny dynamic where what you're saying with
Speaker 1: any normal person in the entire country is wildly uncontroversial, right,
Speaker 1: I mean among Democrats, it's like eighty percent of Democrats
Speaker 1: are like, obviously we should have a debate. It's not
Speaker 1: really a controversial position except among these like small elite
Speaker 1: media circles. But you mentioned that you felt kind of
Speaker 1: like terrified by the reaction to it. Were you surprised
Speaker 1: that your comments went so viral, and has this encouraged
Speaker 1: or discouraged you from taking future political stances.
Speaker 4: You know, I was just speaking from the heart. I
Speaker 4: was pissed off, and I was being honest, and I
Speaker 4: was speaking from the heart. Had I anticipated that the
Speaker 4: audio alone would be played on radio, I probably would
Speaker 4: not have done it. While pulling a weight sled backwards
Speaker 4: down my driveway, it sounds a little angry and a
Speaker 4: little more breathless than.
Speaker 5: Have been optimal, but it added dramatic effect.
Speaker 7: Yeah, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 4: I'm really much more interested in in the way I
Speaker 4: mean as a creative, you know, in the ways in
Speaker 4: which we're all similar, in the triumphs and the challenges
Speaker 4: that we go through. It's then as an actress, but
Speaker 4: then as a writer. But you know, sometimes the truth
Speaker 4: is just so obvious that it needs to be said.
Speaker 4: And the reason I spoke out about this was that
Speaker 4: a lot of friends of mine didn't even know that
Speaker 4: it was happening. You know, you guys are one of
Speaker 4: the few people that I've seen report on it, but
Speaker 4: it never comes up in my regular news feed on
Speaker 4: my phone. Right, but that there's not a debate, and
Speaker 4: I don't see any outcry. There won't be a debate,
Speaker 4: despite the desire for it.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Finally, James, I did want to ask you about the
Speaker 1: writer strike. You said, you know you're standing with solidarity
Speaker 1: with your brothers and sisters. What do you what do
Speaker 1: you personally see as some of the key issues that
Speaker 1: need to be resolved there.
Speaker 4: It's a little bit of insight baseball, but they're really
Speaker 4: they're really reasonable.
Speaker 7: I mean writers want to be able to write a
Speaker 7: multiple shows.
Speaker 4: Used to be a writer would write on a staff
Speaker 4: for twenty four episodes in a season, so there really
Speaker 4: was no time to write for another show. Now episode
Speaker 4: the shooting eight episode season six episode seasons, so writers
Speaker 4: need to be able to write a multiple shows throughout
Speaker 4: the year as long as there's no time. Conflict. AI
Speaker 4: has also come up in a big way.
Speaker 7: And so what do you mean by that.
Speaker 4: Let's see, I'm not really qualified to get into all
Speaker 4: the nitty gritty, but essentially the writers guild the same
Speaker 4: to the studios.
Speaker 7: You can't use AI to write a script and then.
Speaker 4: Ask us to rewrite it because it rewrite costs way
Speaker 4: less than an original draft. And just that amount of
Speaker 4: taking the human out of the creative process I think
Speaker 4: is going to be devastating for the entertainment industry, devastating
Speaker 4: for writers. It's something that we really need to win
Speaker 4: if we want entertainment that reflects humanity and that can
Speaker 4: reflect the truth and the heart of what people are
Speaker 4: actually going through. If it's to be a true expression,
Speaker 4: a human expression that you're going to see reflected on
Speaker 4: the screen, it's an issue that we really need to
Speaker 4: get right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I could not agree with you more.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, these AI models, they're not capable
Speaker 1: of generating creativity, of creating new products. They're fed all
Speaker 1: the cultural products of the past. They can recombine them
Speaker 1: and regurgitate them. But I agree with you that I
Speaker 1: think it's a real threat to creativity, not to mention,
Speaker 1: of course, the livelihoods of many people. So James, super
Speaker 1: grateful for your time. So great to chat with you today.
Speaker 1: Thank you for speaking out, and you know, thank you
Speaker 1: for answering our questions.
Speaker 3: We stand with you, James, and we appreciate you man.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Oh, thank you guys. Thanks for the work you're doing.
Speaker 7: I really appreciate you.
Speaker 5: It's our pleasure. Sure, thank you.
Speaker 2: All right, thank you guys so much for watching Day two.
Speaker 2: We're still experimenting changing the angles, all this other stuff
Speaker 2: going on.
Speaker 3: Over here, and then I get it.
Speaker 5: Absolutely we're going to nail it.
Speaker 3: So just bear with us.
Speaker 2: We're going to be experimenting over the next couple of
Speaker 2: weeks of what we feel comfortable, what we think looks
Speaker 2: the best way, you decide, giving your feedback on all that.
Speaker 3: We love you.
Speaker 2: We appreciate counterpoints as tomorrow, and do not forget we'll
Speaker 2: be interviewing RFK Junior later on today and we will
Speaker 2: post that interview as soon as it is available. Premium
Speaker 2: suscribers check your inboxes. Everybody else, just stay tuned on
Speaker 2: our YouTube feed or on our podcast feed, otherwise we
Speaker 2: will see you all on Thursday