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 1: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 1: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 1: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 1: it means the absolute world to have your support. What
Speaker 1: are you waiting for? Become a premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have
Speaker 1: an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have Crystal? Indeed,
Speaker 1: we do lots of interesting things to talk about this morning,
Speaker 1: including even more classified documents found at the Biden residents.
Speaker 1: We'll bring you all the latest there as the drip
Speaker 1: trip chip continues in a very wild story. We also
Speaker 1: have the debt sealing showdown has based arrived. We will
Speaker 1: technically hit the debt dealing this week. Now they will
Speaker 1: be able to sort of extend that through what they
Speaker 1: call extraordinary measures, but already a lot of political posturing
Speaker 1: going on. Will tell you what that means for you.
Speaker 1: Many more updates on the saga of George Santo's new
Speaker 1: video of him calling himself by another name, and also
Speaker 1: they found a clip of him bragging about his volleyball
Speaker 1: prowess and playing on the Baroke College Volleyball championship winning team.
Speaker 1: Of course you never he went to that college. And
Speaker 1: there are new revelations that may indicate where he got
Speaker 1: that money from to put in his campaign. He has
Speaker 1: now been tied to a proven Ponzi scheme that the
Speaker 1: SEC is going after. So got those details for you.
Speaker 1: We also have new warning signs that there is a
Speaker 1: recession on the way and quite a wild exchange between
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd and Senator Ron Johnson Saga and I will
Speaker 1: break it all down for you before we get to
Speaker 1: any of that live show, live show. Put it up
Speaker 1: there on the screen. Paramount Theater, February third, Go in
Speaker 1: and buy your tickets, guys. The date very fast approaching.
Speaker 1: We are very excited to come to Austin, Texas, and
Speaker 1: we have a great show plan for all of you.
Speaker 1: Very sparse number of tickets left, so go ahead and
Speaker 1: purchase yours while you have the chance. We are really
Speaker 1: excited to go down to Austin. Okay, let's start with
Speaker 1: the classified documents. Saga even more, we did a breaking
Speaker 1: news segment for everyone on Thursday recap for those who
Speaker 1: didn't hear it. Of course, Attorney General Meyrick Garland forced
Speaker 1: to appoint a special prosecutor to look at the classified
Speaker 1: documents found at two separate Biden locations. And yet over
Speaker 1: the weekend, we are finding even more classified documents at
Speaker 1: Biden's home. Let's go and put this up there on
Speaker 1: the screen. This we're saying more classified documents were found
Speaker 1: at the home by his lawyers in Wilmington, Delaware. Interestingly enough,
Speaker 1: Crystal President Biden was actually at his Wilmington, Delaware house
Speaker 1: over the weekend, with some questions also of what exactly
Speaker 1: was going on, whereas lawyer's searching it while he was there,
Speaker 1: was he oversing the exact search, so they say the
Speaker 1: White House lawyer is said that a total of six
Speaker 1: pages of classified documents were found during a search of
Speaker 1: Biden's private library. White House previously had said that only
Speaker 1: a single page was found. So now we have multiple documents,
Speaker 1: we don't know the exact number that were pulled out
Speaker 1: of the President's residence at Wilmington, Delaware, some of them
Speaker 1: which were literally found in his garage For those who
Speaker 1: missed the infamous exchange, he claims that they were safer
Speaker 1: because they were in a quote lock garage with this corvette.
Speaker 1: Here's that exchange from on Thursday, classified material next year, corvette,
Speaker 1: what were you thinking? Let me, We're gonna get a
Speaker 1: chance to speak on all this, God William soon. But
Speaker 1: as I said earlier this week, people, and by the way,
Speaker 1: my corvette's in a locked garage. Okay, so it's not
Speaker 1: like you're sitting down the street. But anyway, yes, as
Speaker 1: well as my corvette. Yes, as well as my corvette.
Speaker 1: As if that somehow makes it so much better. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have to assume since mar A Lago is under
Speaker 1: Secret Service protection, and as Biden's residence is, they're roughly
Speaker 1: equivalent in terms of the security of around surrounding all
Speaker 1: of these things. What I also find interesting is that
Speaker 1: all of the search right now Crystal is happening by
Speaker 1: Biden's own team. And of course we really cannot get
Speaker 1: away from the timeline here. The first set of documents
Speaker 1: the quote nearly ten, nearly ten, not eleven, not nine,
Speaker 1: nearly ten. Nobody knows exactly how many were found Exactly
Speaker 1: six days before the midterm elections. Nobody was notified, of course,
Speaker 1: until the month of January. Previous documents, actually the second
Speaker 1: pair that were found inside the lock garage, were found
Speaker 1: in December, very late December, after Christmas. All of this
Speaker 1: then breaking now apparently after they were forced to notify
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. By the way, the exact timeline
Speaker 1: on all of that also remains unclear. And this also
Speaker 1: opens up questions as to whether this new special prosecutor,
Speaker 1: a Trump appointed special prosecutor, will be one who will
Speaker 1: force to conduct other searches, possibly of the presidential residents
Speaker 1: and maybe even of the pen Biden Center where previous
Speaker 1: documents were found. Humiliating experience on super President Biden. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a disaster on every level. I have to think,
Speaker 1: with both this situation and the Trump classified document situation,
Speaker 1: this is basically what you get when you put doddering, incompetent,
Speaker 1: arrogant fools in positions of supreme power. There's a, I
Speaker 1: think a flawed impression at times of the Biden White
Speaker 1: House that they're much more competent, that they're much more organized.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has never been known as a man who
Speaker 1: is great as a manager, now, he may have other
Speaker 1: qualities that you recommend him to the American public. Certainly
Speaker 1: they saw enough in him to elect him president of
Speaker 1: the United States. But this is someone who has always
Speaker 1: been incredibly sort of disorganized and incompetent managerially. So the
Speaker 1: fact that he sloppily had these documents here and there
Speaker 1: and wherever, I mean, this is kind of par for
Speaker 1: the course for this man and ultimately not shocking given
Speaker 1: what we know about his sort of organizational skills within DC.
Speaker 1: From a political standpoint, this is a total catastrophe. There's
Speaker 1: just no doubt about it. The fact that you have
Speaker 1: also this drip, drip, drip, where ah, we found some
Speaker 1: we found some more. Oh whoops, we found some even
Speaker 1: more documents at this point, after they went so hard
Speaker 1: on the Trump document retrieval and raid and everything that
Speaker 1: happened there. Justifiably so, by the way, I mean, these
Speaker 1: are not things that you should be messing around with.
Speaker 1: I cannot understand why it is so hard just to
Speaker 1: keep classified documents where they are ultimately supposed to be.
Speaker 1: And yes, as far as we know, at least at
Speaker 1: this point, there was more of an effort to cover
Speaker 1: up et cetera, et cetera with Trump, But the core
Speaker 1: of the alleged crime here is effectively the same. So
Speaker 1: there's a lot of cope from Democrats right now about oh,
Speaker 1: this is totally there, doesn't guys. Listen, Yeah, the cover
Speaker 1: up might the flavor of the cover up might be
Speaker 1: a little bit different. And yes, ultimately that fe I
Speaker 1: had to raid Trump's house to get a hold of
Speaker 1: the documents that they wanted back. But again, the story
Speaker 1: is still developing and the core of the misdeeds are
Speaker 1: the same. This creates real political challenges for Biden looking
Speaker 1: forward to twenty twenty four too. How are you going
Speaker 1: to go after Trump for what he did with these
Speaker 1: documents when you did the same damn thing. Okay, so
Speaker 1: in terms of like electability and being able to secure
Speaker 1: your place in the White House for another four years,
Speaker 1: this is also total and complete disaster. It was supposed
Speaker 1: to be an open and shut thing, right. Trump took
Speaker 1: the documents, he covered it up. We didn't give it back.
Speaker 1: They had to raise his house. They had pretty much
Speaker 1: had an obstruction of justice case just ready to go,
Speaker 1: and it was all had to consider, Ye, the political
Speaker 1: ramifications now, I mean, if they indict Trump and they
Speaker 1: don't indict Biden, whether the whole obstruction thing is substantively
Speaker 1: different or not. From a political point of view, how
Speaker 1: can you prosecute the case against him? And you just
Speaker 1: know Trump would have a field day with this in
Speaker 1: the debate stage, I mean, effectively neutralizes one of the
Speaker 1: core things that they had on Trump in terms of
Speaker 1: the case they were going to prosecute against him. And
Speaker 1: you can also see this house is stumbling. I mean,
Speaker 1: they have no idea how to handle this. Are the
Speaker 1: already you know, not particularly articulate, kareein Jean Pierre is
Speaker 1: now just completely twisting ourselves in knots when question on this.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen. You had a closet with warriors
Speaker 1: again again again, he was surprised that the records were there.
Speaker 1: He spoke to this personally. He was surprised that the
Speaker 1: records were there. The first set of documents for found
Speaker 1: in November at the Pen Biden Center here in Washington.
Speaker 1: But why did it take until it yesterday and me
Speaker 1: until this morning? Apparently for whoever it was to inform
Speaker 1: Robert Lausch that that final document was found. Was that
Speaker 1: because there were press reports earlier this week? Again was
Speaker 1: that nobody would find out? Again, was it because there
Speaker 1: is a process, an ongoing process that is occurring. We
Speaker 1: did this by the book. By the book, apparently by
Speaker 1: the book means waiting until after the election to notify
Speaker 1: the American public. Now that guy has them dead to rights.
Speaker 1: They waited until the news broke to the press in
Speaker 1: order to notify anybody. They tried to sweep it under
Speaker 1: the rug. They hope that Merrit Garland and them could
Speaker 1: do it. No. Possibly. Also in terms of Garland, it
Speaker 1: seems clear he probably would have found himself in a
Speaker 1: situation where he's like, there is no way around it.
Speaker 1: This is highly classified information relating to Ukraine, the UK
Speaker 1: and Iran. This is going to leak. I have to
Speaker 1: address this from a substance point of view, given the
Speaker 1: fact that I'm currently having an ongoing investigation into the president,
Speaker 1: and it also again on a political point of view
Speaker 1: for Biden. Here's why it's humiliating. They ridiculed Trump for
Speaker 1: doing the exact same thing. Clip here from just four
Speaker 1: months ago of saying, how could somebody be so irresponsible?
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen. You saw the photograph of the
Speaker 1: top secret documents laid out on the floor at mar
Speaker 1: A Lago. What did you think to yourself looking at
Speaker 1: that image, how that could possibly happen? Anyone could be
Speaker 1: that irresponsible? And I thought, what data was in there
Speaker 1: that may compromise sources and methods? By that, I mean
Speaker 1: names of people will help Thursday, et cetera. And it's
Speaker 1: just totally irresponsible. That's a great question, mister president. What data,
Speaker 1: what names you had Ukraine Iran files in your locked
Speaker 1: garage next yearly are responsible? I mean, you know that's
Speaker 1: we could we could play the same game here, right
Speaker 1: in terms of putting things like literally in a garage
Speaker 1: as opposed to your private office. But apparently there was
Speaker 1: also stuff in his private office at home in Wilmington, Delaware.
Speaker 1: Political catastrophe for President Biden. There is just no wriggling
Speaker 1: out of it. Let me let me say one more thing,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna We've got a couple of clips here
Speaker 1: too to show you of the Democratic response where you
Speaker 1: know they're they're on their back foot and they're kind
Speaker 1: of struggling here to defend him. Republicans were in that
Speaker 1: place with Trump initially after the rate of mar A Lago,
Speaker 1: there was a real rallying around him. We covered how
Speaker 1: basically every potential rival to him bent the knee immediately,
Speaker 1: including Rond de Santas and a whole lot of others.
Speaker 1: But then as more information came out about just the
Speaker 1: level of classification and the attempts to hide them and
Speaker 1: everything that went on, the Republican side of the aisle
Speaker 1: kind of fell silent and they were less vociferous in
Speaker 1: their defense of the former president on this matter. Well,
Speaker 1: now they're feeling a lot more confident to basically come
Speaker 1: to his rescue, and they have a case they can
Speaker 1: make for him now. And so I think it's not
Speaker 1: just on the you know, this is a disaster for Biden.
Speaker 1: I also think this helps Trump in terms of sort
Speaker 1: of shoring up some of his Republican support and finding
Speaker 1: some defenders on this matter as well. Absolutely, it actually
Speaker 1: polarizes it now completely. Now we can turn this purely
Speaker 1: into partisan bloodsport again. Why it is such a huge
Speaker 1: problem for President Biden. So look last word on this,
Speaker 1: the special prosecutors there, it's humiliating for President Biden. The
Speaker 1: White House and has no idea how to respond, and
Speaker 1: now they're in there full By the way, the House
Speaker 1: you know, Republicans Peter McCarthy already saying I'm going to
Speaker 1: be investigating this. So we're going to have hearings, We're
Speaker 1: going to have you know, we're going to have subpoenas
Speaker 1: that go out. There's going to be a full scale review.
Speaker 1: And now we are going to have a laser focus
Speaker 1: on two separate investigations involving the former president, the current president,
Speaker 1: and then the probable nominee for president in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: And it's basically, you can pick whichever facts and all
Speaker 1: of that that you want and end up on the side,
Speaker 1: and the other side really won't be able to hit
Speaker 1: you over the head with any sort of knockout blow.
Speaker 1: Huge problem there for President Biden's White House, of course,
Speaker 1: it is a making entirely of his own. How could
Speaker 1: anyone be so responsible? You know, I think I told
Speaker 1: you just yesterday. I was like, it's the same story
Speaker 1: every time. These guys, they are so arrogant that they
Speaker 1: think that the law doesn't apply to them. Hillary Biden, Trump,
Speaker 1: all of them. They're like, these are my documents, They're
Speaker 1: not your documents. It's outrageous that these people think so
Speaker 1: highly themselves. You can put an email server in your
Speaker 1: freaking basement, or you can just take like whatever you
Speaker 1: think exonerates you in Trump's cases, to your private office,
Speaker 1: or apparently in the Vice president's case here that you know,
Speaker 1: just because you happen to handle Ukraine policy, you're allowed
Speaker 1: to take this stuff back to your house, completely outrageous.
Speaker 1: Let's move on now to the next part with Democratic
Speaker 1: lawmakers Ilhan Omar actually stunning MSNBC. Simone Sanders, former Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris staffer over on MSNBC saying she's actually glad that
Speaker 1: a special counsel was appointed. Let's take a lesson, Well one,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that there is a special prosecutor that's been
Speaker 1: appointed to you. Yes, tell me, because anytime there is
Speaker 1: a deviance in regards to security protocols that should be
Speaker 1: taken serious, it should be investigated. What I find interesting
Speaker 1: is that Republicans who have defended Trump after he literally
Speaker 1: stole classified documents refuse to turn them overlid about having them,
Speaker 1: made up some story about how he declassified them, had
Speaker 1: to have his how rated in order for those documents
Speaker 1: to be found, are now only interested in investigating Biden,
Speaker 1: who has cooperated, who his own staff and former staff
Speaker 1: have themselves turned these documents in. So you have to understand, right,
Speaker 1: Republicans aren't really interested in upholding the law, in following
Speaker 1: security protocols. What they're interested in is playing a political game.
Speaker 1: You could try with that cope on the back end,
Speaker 1: but having to at least say that you have to
Speaker 1: defend the special prosecutor Crystal, or at least say like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm happy that there is one. I mean, clearly, the
Speaker 1: White House, the Democrats, they don't have a uniform message
Speaker 1: on all of this. I think that's a huge problem. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think all our points are fair. It
Speaker 1: is true Republicans didn't care at all about the Donald
Speaker 1: Trump documents, and now that it's Biden, now they're you know, ah,
Speaker 1: this is reserves investigation, etc. Etc. And it was the
Speaker 1: same with Hiller. Clinton deeply about it, and then they
Speaker 1: switched and everybody's like flipping around how they feel about
Speaker 1: classified documents depending on their partisan affiliation, No doubt about that.
Speaker 1: But look, I think that Merrick Garland appointing a special
Speaker 1: council was undoubtedly the right move here. I mean, you
Speaker 1: almost had to do it when you have the facts
Speaker 1: that are so similar in both cases, How do you
Speaker 1: justify having a special counsel in one case and not
Speaker 1: ultimately the others. So to see Simone Sanders have that
Speaker 1: moment of being a little bit taken aback of like,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, why why would you say that? Is an
Speaker 1: interesting little moment. Oh yeah, absolutely. At the same time,
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff also reacting to this in the mainstream press,
Speaker 1: just shows you some of the democratic reaction. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen. Let's get the democratic response from Congressman Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: the outgoing chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Congressmanshif you
Speaker 1: were on this show just after Attorney General Garland appointed
Speaker 1: a special council in the case of the Trump documents,
Speaker 1: you said it was the right move. Do you feel
Speaker 1: the same way about this special council? I do think
Speaker 1: it's the right move. The Attorney General has to make
Speaker 1: sure that not only is justice evenly applied, but the
Speaker 1: appearances of justice are also satisfactory to the public. And
Speaker 1: here I don't think he had any choice but to
Speaker 1: point a special council. So look, what can you see
Speaker 1: right there? Both ilhan Omar and Adam Schiff, like, there's
Speaker 1: basically not any actual dissent from the Special Special Council,
Speaker 1: Special Investigation line because they are also and how already
Speaker 1: on the record having defended the Trump investigation. Crystal, I
Speaker 1: think that the fact that you know, even the wide
Speaker 1: gamut of all those people and yes they will try
Speaker 1: and defend Biden in terms of the cover up and all,
Speaker 1: that just shows you that the Dems are in a
Speaker 1: real bind here pointing exactly what we're talking about for
Speaker 1: the political catastrophe previously. Well, and even Adam Schiff, who
Speaker 1: was the biggest partisan hack you can possibly find, had
Speaker 1: to acknowledge in that interview too that there are real
Speaker 1: potential national security concerns with the Biden documents, and that's
Speaker 1: part of why he said you have to have a
Speaker 1: special counsel to investigate this. So yeah, I mean it
Speaker 1: shows you Democrats really are with this. They don't have
Speaker 1: a coherent response. And listen, any normal person looking at
Speaker 1: the situation is going to say, how is this different? Yes? Really,
Speaker 1: how is it different? Yes? Look, I get it. Trump
Speaker 1: went further to cover up the truth as far as
Speaker 1: we know this one, although again I just want to say,
Speaker 1: the facts continue to come out and we continue to
Speaker 1: learn more seemingly every single day. But okay, it appears
Speaker 1: Trump did more to cover it up. But again, the
Speaker 1: core of the mistyed the original sin here. I can't
Speaker 1: see the difference. I can't see the difference. Regular people
Speaker 1: are not going to see the difference. And if you're
Speaker 1: trying to spin in and you're trying to obsess over
Speaker 1: like well, nitpicking, Well he had a few more documents
Speaker 1: or he hit them law or whatever, I don't think
Speaker 1: that's going to work out too well for him. Good
Speaker 1: luck prosecuting that in the court of public opinion, ultimately
Speaker 1: the one that probably matters the most. Indeed, all right,
Speaker 1: at the same time, some drama, major significant I shouldn't
Speaker 1: even call it drama, because it really is an issue
Speaker 1: that could impact people across the country. You know, we
Speaker 1: have this, in my opinion, very silly protocol is something
Speaker 1: called the debt ceiling, where you have to go through
Speaker 1: the motions of lifting this thing once you hit a
Speaker 1: certain amount. And it's not like it's authorizing new spending.
Speaker 1: You're just saying, all right, we're gonna go ahead and
Speaker 1: do what we need to do to spend the money
Speaker 1: we have already appropriated. So it's sort of this like
Speaker 1: accounting gimmick, procedural thing relic that's put in place that
Speaker 1: everybody has to go through the motion sun Well, back
Speaker 1: in the Tea Party era, they started using this as
Speaker 1: a way on the Republican side to try to garner
Speaker 1: spending cuts that they wanted and to move towards their
Speaker 1: deficit reduction goals. Worked pretty well in terms of the
Speaker 1: hostage shaking. They were able to get some deals and
Speaker 1: get some things they wanted out of the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: And so now with Republicans back in control of the
Speaker 1: House majority, it appears that one of the key deals
Speaker 1: that was struck with the Republican hard right rebels was
Speaker 1: around using the debt ceiling again to extract spending cuts. Well,
Speaker 1: this week we officially technically hit that debt ceiling. Now
Speaker 1: that doesn't really mean anything yet because they can use
Speaker 1: what they call extraordinary measures to be able to continue
Speaker 1: to making all the make all the payments that the
Speaker 1: government ultimately owes. But this shows you this is the
Speaker 1: beginning of something that's going to be unfolding over the
Speaker 1: coming months and probably going to come to a head
Speaker 1: sometime this summer. Now, the White House's position here is
Speaker 1: pretty hard as far as what they are projecting publicly.
Speaker 1: They are saying, we will only accept a clean debt
Speaker 1: sealing increase. That means no combination with any sort of
Speaker 1: spending cuts, cuts to social security, such cuts to anything.
Speaker 1: We only want a clean debt sealing increase. We are
Speaker 1: not open to negotiations. Here's Korean John Pierre staking out
Speaker 1: that position. You'reciating you you'll not negotiate anything about expending.
Speaker 1: What we're saying is that there should be this should
Speaker 1: be done without conditions. It is one of the basic
Speaker 1: items that Congress has to deal with, and it should
Speaker 1: be done without conditions. So there is going to be
Speaker 1: There's going to be no negotiation over it. This is
Speaker 1: something that must get done. So this is something that
Speaker 1: must be done. We will not have any negotiations. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: you had other top House Republicans, including Jamie Comer, staking
Speaker 1: out a completely different position, completely at odds with what
Speaker 1: the White House is saying here, saying they are going
Speaker 1: to have to budge, and the Senate Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to have to realize they're going to have to budge
Speaker 1: because we are coming for those spending cuts. It's going
Speaker 1: to put this reporting up on the screen from CNBC
Speaker 1: about exactly what this means. So they say US will
Speaker 1: hit its debt limit Thursday, start taking steps to avoid default.
Speaker 1: Chargery Secretary Janet Yellen on Friday notified Congress officially the
Speaker 1: US will reach its statutory debt limit next Thursday. After that,
Speaker 1: they will take those extraordinary measures to prevent a default
Speaker 1: on our obligations. The Treasury, she says, is not currently
Speaker 1: able to estimate how long those emergency actions will allow
Speaker 1: the US to pay for government obligations, but it's unlikely
Speaker 1: those extraordinary measures will be exhausted before early June. She
Speaker 1: goes on to say failure to meet the government's obligations
Speaker 1: would cause a ruparable harm to the US economy, the
Speaker 1: livelihoods of all Americans, and global financial stability. So basically,
Speaker 1: she's saying, listen, we got some time now till June,
Speaker 1: and then after that it becomes dicey as to when
Speaker 1: exactly we will start to fail to pay some of
Speaker 1: our debt obligations. Yeah, that's right. And this probably the
Speaker 1: most important thing that we have seen now is reporting
Speaker 1: of a private deal by Republicans. Just go ahead and
Speaker 1: put this up there on the screen from the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: where this secret deal between effectively the McCarthy holdouts and
Speaker 1: the GOP leadership would call on the Biden administration to
Speaker 1: make only the most critical federal payments. If the Treasury
Speaker 1: Department does actually come up on the debt limit, the
Speaker 1: plan would call on the department to keep making interest
Speaker 1: payments on debt, which would maintain at least the credit
Speaker 1: on the international markets. House Republican prioritizations would stipulate that
Speaker 1: the Treasury continue to make payments on Social Security, Medicare,
Speaker 1: and veterans benefits, as well as funding the military, but
Speaker 1: it would also mean that they would have automatic cuts
Speaker 1: effectively on everything else, such as Medicaid, food safety inspections,
Speaker 1: border control, air traffic control like the FAA, as well
Speaker 1: as thousands of other quote unquote discretionary programs. Also, here's
Speaker 1: the real issue is that all of this is completely
Speaker 1: unprecedented territory. We never actually did run up to it
Speaker 1: in the Tea Party era. As far as how all
Speaker 1: this plays out, I'm just not entirely sure. I does
Speaker 1: honestly seem to me, Crystal, that the Republicans did prove
Speaker 1: their They proved that they would shoot the hostage, you know,
Speaker 1: during the mogar about that. So if I'm the White House,
Speaker 1: I actually like, look, you could say you're not going
Speaker 1: to negotiate. I think we all know we're going to
Speaker 1: negotiate personally, and I think for the rest of the
Speaker 1: US economy we would probably all sleep easier. You guys
Speaker 1: just came to a deal sometime in the next couple
Speaker 1: of months. But at the same time, like, I don't
Speaker 1: really know how this is all going to play out.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're very clear, like they're not going to
Speaker 1: vote for it unless you have some sort of spending cuts.
Speaker 1: I maybe could see an alternative where House because all
Speaker 1: so we should remember this, remember that McCarthy is a
Speaker 1: weakst speaker, that he doesn't actually control the floor all
Speaker 1: that much. There is a realm that I would see
Speaker 1: where maybe you would have like moderate Republicans team up
Speaker 1: with the Democrats to pass some sort of debt ceiling
Speaker 1: relief through the Congress in an extraordinary situation, and then
Speaker 1: then of course the Democratic Senate could then go ahead
Speaker 1: and lift the debt ceiling on their part. That's one
Speaker 1: possible way we could get out of this. But I
Speaker 1: think the most likely scenario is that the Republicans are
Speaker 1: going to force some sort of major discretionary cuts on
Speaker 1: social spending. Almost certainly not. Do I think that will
Speaker 1: be politically popular? No? It was it politically popular during
Speaker 1: the Tea Party era. No, it certainly wasn't. But I mean, look,
Speaker 1: what did we learn with these guys? Like they believe
Speaker 1: what they're saying, So we should take it seriously. Otherwise
Speaker 1: we genuinely could go into a default. Although we would
Speaker 1: be remiss if we didn't talk about hashtag min the coin. Wait, well,
Speaker 1: I was going to say, I mean, there is one
Speaker 1: weird trick to avoid this whole scenario. Truly. It's minting
Speaker 1: a trillion dollar coin. I know it sounds ridiculous, but
Speaker 1: the debt ceiling is ridiculous, So let's have a ridiculous
Speaker 1: solution to what's ultimately a ridiculous problem. Will the White
Speaker 1: House do that? I don't know, I really don't. But
Speaker 1: if they did, then you would basically diffuse this problem forever,
Speaker 1: and you wouldn't have the ability of people to take
Speaker 1: the whole government and the economy, our economy, world economy
Speaker 1: hostage in order to extract their ideological concessions that they
Speaker 1: are ultimately demanding. If you judge by history, I think
Speaker 1: you're right, Sager. Biden says he won't negotiate, But this
Speaker 1: is also a man who has very few actual, like
Speaker 1: principled beliefs, but he has this instinct towards comedy and bipartisanship.
Speaker 1: He likes to be seen as the guy who can
Speaker 1: make the deal across the aisle, even if it's a
Speaker 1: deal that you really shouldn't be making. And we saw
Speaker 1: this under the Obama Biden administration. They offered a deal
Speaker 1: to the Republican House Caucus at that point that was horrible.
Speaker 1: It included cuts to Social Security in particular, and fortunately,
Speaker 1: actually the Tea part wanted even more. They rejected the deal,
Speaker 1: and so we didn't end up with that terrible deal.
Speaker 1: You know. There, intransigence actually sort of saved us from
Speaker 1: what was a horrific grand bargain that would have been
Speaker 1: wildly unpopular and really bad for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: So do I think that Biden will ultimately decide he
Speaker 1: wants like come to the table and try to work
Speaker 1: together with these fools. Yeah, I think it's very possible.
Speaker 1: So we will see. There hasn't been any indication yet
Speaker 1: that the Biden that Joe Biden himself and the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is interested in pushing the sort of legal bounds
Speaker 1: of what they were able to do with executive power. Yes,
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of actually achieving like sort of
Speaker 1: left or progressive or just like mainstream working class goals.
Speaker 1: So I would I looking at his history and how
Speaker 1: he's operated in Washington, both as Vice president and also
Speaker 1: as senator, I think it's more likely that he looks
Speaker 1: to cut a terrible deal. Well, certainly just because look,
Speaker 1: we're already on the brink of recession, possibly might already
Speaker 1: be in a recession, depending on the textial definition in
Speaker 1: terms of how people are feeling in inflation is still
Speaker 1: you know, it's gone down slightly, but it's still not
Speaker 1: great for working people. A debt default would effectively, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: in terms of market crash, liquidity drives up. Banks wouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to make lens, people would not be able
Speaker 1: to have mortgages. You would have a massive crash of
Speaker 1: the stock market all across the board. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's not just rich people who would suffer a lot
Speaker 1: of people. The liquidity crunch would be similar to what
Speaker 1: happened possibly even in two thousand and eight on top
Speaker 1: of a downgrade, and basically not even a breakdown of
Speaker 1: the global financial system, but a frame of the global
Speaker 1: financial system which we be bad for the US dollar,
Speaker 1: which means it would have impacts on trade, and actually
Speaker 1: that would spiral into problems with oil markets in Russia, Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. There's all kinds of interesting implications. So it's
Speaker 1: not a joke for the United States to default on Instead,
Speaker 1: it does look like though that the Republicans are trying
Speaker 1: to have their cake and eat it too, where they
Speaker 1: wouldn't technically default, it would continue to make the interest
Speaker 1: payments when they would just force spending cuts in discretionary
Speaker 1: which look even then you're effectively in a so called
Speaker 1: government shutdown. Well, one of the lessons I think I
Speaker 1: really saw throughout all of the various government shutdowns we've
Speaker 1: now had since what the nineteen nineties is it never
Speaker 1: really came out on the side politically of the people
Speaker 1: who seemed to be holding the government hostage. So the
Speaker 1: New Gingrid shutdown did not work out to the benefit
Speaker 1: of New Gingrich. The Tea Party shutdowns absolutely worked to
Speaker 1: the benefit of Obama because they were like blaming the
Speaker 1: Tea part. They would go in like closed national parks
Speaker 1: or whatever, blame the Tea Party. The public really turned
Speaker 1: against him. Also, don't remember this, the Trump shutdown did
Speaker 1: not work out in Trump's favor at all, for the
Speaker 1: whole border wall situation, shut the government down for three weeks,
Speaker 1: didn't get what he wanted. Then he came. He totally
Speaker 1: capitulated because it was a disaster politic capitulated because the
Speaker 1: public was not that freaking out. So I just think
Speaker 1: very like any side which seems to be holding the
Speaker 1: government hostage for basic services and seniors really freak out
Speaker 1: about this stuff, they generally politically don't benefit. So that
Speaker 1: would be my one word of caution to the House Republicans.
Speaker 1: Two other pieces on this, because I do think it's
Speaker 1: important to understand some of the mcnamy here. First of all,
Speaker 1: what it reminds me of is the situation we cover
Speaker 1: pretty closely here with Liz Trust in the UK. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's true, where they floated this quote unquote mini budget
Speaker 1: which was this you know, return the same sort of
Speaker 1: politics as the Tea Party, same sort of ideology, this
Speaker 1: sort of like deficit hawk like fiscal austerity, and so
Speaker 1: she was going full steam ahead and they were going
Speaker 1: to institute this mini budget. And because our financial systems
Speaker 1: are so complex and so interconnected, there were all kinds
Speaker 1: of side effects of this budget and market crash that
Speaker 1: led to put like what looked like a real catastrophe
Speaker 1: for the British economy, with huge impacts on pensioners and
Speaker 1: all sorts of others that no one really foresaw in advance.
Speaker 1: But you had this cascading domino effect because all these
Speaker 1: pieces are interconnected in such a complex way that really
Speaker 1: no one has the full picture of how all these
Speaker 1: pieces fit together. And so I think you could have
Speaker 1: a similar dynamic here where even if they're able to
Speaker 1: come up with this prioritization schedule and know we're still
Speaker 1: going to pay the bondholders or whatever, the fact that
Speaker 1: you have the US government defaulting on its obligations, whether
Speaker 1: it's to bondholders or to seniors or to veterans or
Speaker 1: whoever it is, that can have massive cascading ripple effects
Speaker 1: that no one really understands how those impacts are all
Speaker 1: going to play out. That's number one. Number two, the
Speaker 1: whole concept of prioritizing our payments, so it's like, Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll pay the interest, so we don't technically default, but
Speaker 1: we're going to cut over here and not over there.
Speaker 1: You're talking about like ten million payments. Okay, incredibly complex situation.
Speaker 1: This has never been done before. They had an aid
Speaker 1: in that article that we had at from the Washington
Speaker 1: Post who was an aide to Center, Rob Portman of
Speaker 1: Ohio's Republican who studied this closely because they were trying
Speaker 1: to figure out how they could do this, and he said,
Speaker 1: after studying it closely, he realized huge numbers of people
Speaker 1: would be hurt immediately, with no good way to pick
Speaker 1: between options such as forcing hospitals to deal with the
Speaker 1: cessation of Medicare payments or depriving the Defense Department of funding.
Speaker 1: Studying this in twenty eleven convinced us this would be
Speaker 1: a really bad idea in something we really did not
Speaker 1: want to happen. This is we didn't end the exercise
Speaker 1: saying this is feasible and smart. We said, let's avoid
Speaker 1: this at all costs because it's going to be a disaster.
Speaker 1: So again, this is a Republican who studied this previously
Speaker 1: and came away thinking like we should not under any
Speaker 1: circumstances ultimately go there. And then you know, politically, you
Speaker 1: can see how this would be. This would be a
Speaker 1: field day for Democrats. Oh, you're going to pay bondholders
Speaker 1: their you know, wealthy financiers. You're going to pay them
Speaker 1: their interest payments. But you're going to cut people off
Speaker 1: of Medicaid and not allow them to have their like
Speaker 1: hospital bills paid. You're going to cut kids off of
Speaker 1: their children's health insurance or off of their free lunch program.
Speaker 1: But you're going to pay these wealthy financiers. Those are
Speaker 1: your priorities. So even you know, we're getting a little
Speaker 1: over our skis at this point. But this is what
Speaker 1: is reportedly in the deal that was struck with the
Speaker 1: McCarthy holdouts, and now Speaker McCarthy was to come up
Speaker 1: with how you would prioritize these payments effectively, effectively broadcasting
Speaker 1: that we are going to go to the wall, we
Speaker 1: are willing to go over the ledge, and this is
Speaker 1: our plan ultimately to deal with it. Yeah, no matter what,
Speaker 1: just pay very close attention. We'll cover it very closely. Yeah,
Speaker 1: for sure, just because the consequences the tail risk of
Speaker 1: something like this are just so high that we have
Speaker 1: no choice but to. At the same time, let's get
Speaker 1: back to my favorite story, my favorite congressman, George Santos.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's his name, maybe not. I've been saying that
Speaker 1: for a while, but now we actually have video of
Speaker 1: him introducing himself not as George Santos, but as Anthony
Speaker 1: de Volder. Let's take a listen. So my name is
Speaker 1: Anthony de Volder. I'm a New York City resident. I
Speaker 1: recently founded a group called United for Trump. So if
Speaker 1: you guys want to follow, that would be awesome. How
Speaker 1: do you think that as a trans woman and a
Speaker 1: conservative you can help educate other trans people from not
Speaker 1: having to follow the narrative that the media and the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Who is this man? Who are you? So here's the
Speaker 1: other question, isn't Anthony divald I later was reading he
Speaker 1: appears to be what he? That name was then linked
Speaker 1: to one of his phony businesses that he was involved in.
Speaker 1: But it's also the question like who. Also, there's actually
Speaker 1: another clip from twenty twenty where a GOP official introduces
Speaker 1: him and it's like, oh, George, he sayes I know
Speaker 1: him as Anthony divald, but I guess he's George Santos'
Speaker 1: just like who are you? Who have you been reptenting
Speaker 1: yourself as? Like everything about this man it's insanity. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean listen, if it was any one of these pieces,
Speaker 1: you might be able to go all right, but no,
Speaker 1: you can't say it. Like every part of his identity,
Speaker 1: including his name, is just like up for grabs depending
Speaker 1: on how he wants to present himself on that particular day. Also,
Speaker 1: I think the organization he references there like oh I
Speaker 1: started United for Trump or whatever, No, doesn't exist. Okay,
Speaker 1: I got another one for you though, because this one
Speaker 1: was also really hilarious to me. So it came out
Speaker 1: when those Republican officials in New York did their press
Speaker 1: conference and were like, you know, calling on him to
Speaker 1: resign and just really go again on him. One of
Speaker 1: the guys who was speaking was talking about, like, I
Speaker 1: expressed some interest in sport, and he held out to
Speaker 1: me that he was like a championship volleyball player at
Speaker 1: a college he didn't even ultimately go to. So someone
Speaker 1: unearthed a clip of him on a radio interview. I
Speaker 1: think this is with a similar line about how he
Speaker 1: was This great Championship volleyball player. Of course, all of
Speaker 1: this also completely fabricated. Take a listen. You know it's funny.
Speaker 1: I actually went to school on a volleyball scholarship. I
Speaker 1: did under what I did? Yeah, when I was in Beru,
Speaker 1: we were the number one volleyball Did you did you
Speaker 1: graduate from them? Yeah? So did I did? I did
Speaker 1: so did? I very cool. We went to play against
Speaker 1: Harvard Yale and we lay them. We were champions across
Speaker 1: the entire Northeast corridor. Every school that came up against us,
Speaker 1: they were shaking at the time. Look I sacrificed both
Speaker 1: my knees and got very nice k replacements, knee replacements
Speaker 1: from playing volleyball. That's how serious I took the game. Amazing.
Speaker 1: It's just amazing. And it's also a lot, I mean,
Speaker 1: just invented out of whole cloth. And the drama. The
Speaker 1: consistent theme here is whoever is in front of him
Speaker 1: at that moment, he's telling them whatever he thinks they
Speaker 1: want to hear. There's another part of that interview where
Speaker 1: the dudes like, this is so crazy. The two sports
Speaker 1: you're into are the same two sports I'm into. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: we both went to the same college. It's so crazy.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, he's just telling you exactly what he
Speaker 1: thinks you want to hear. That's what he did with
Speaker 1: republic donors, That's what he did with the voters. That's
Speaker 1: what he did with seemingly every single person that he
Speaker 1: encountered throughout this whole saga. More seriously, beyond the silly
Speaker 1: volleyball lies is we're getting maybe a bit more of
Speaker 1: a clear picture into how exactly he obtained the cash
Speaker 1: that he fronted in his own campaign. Number seven hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars that he personally contributed to his campaign, when
Speaker 1: no one really knows how did you get that money
Speaker 1: when you were just getting for clothes, not foreclothes on,
Speaker 1: you were just getting evicted from your apartments. You were
Speaker 1: just reporting that you have very low income. You're seemingly struggling.
Speaker 1: Apparently like stole his rommde scarf another designer. Anyway, it
Speaker 1: looks like he was involved with this with the s
Speaker 1: says was a blatant Ponzi scheme. Let's go and put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. George Santos raised money for
Speaker 1: a company the SEC says was a ponzi scheme he
Speaker 1: persuaded they found at least one person to make a
Speaker 1: six figure investment in a of course Florida based company
Speaker 1: that they have now said was a Ponzi scheme. Mister
Speaker 1: Santos was hired in twenty twenty to raise capital for
Speaker 1: the company, Harbor City Capital, landed at least one significant
Speaker 1: investment from a wealthy investor. When the investment failed to
Speaker 1: deliver on the promise returns, according to one of the people,
Speaker 1: mister Santos sought to reassure the investor by saying he
Speaker 1: had personally raised nearly one hundred million dollars and had
Speaker 1: invested his own family's money in Harbor City. Of course,
Speaker 1: none of that is true, but the fact that he
Speaker 1: was associated with this Ponzi scheme where basically the dude
Speaker 1: who started this last name is his names like JP Moroney.
Speaker 1: I read the whole SEC complaint because I'm like obsessed
Speaker 1: with this, not only Santos, but I only obsessed with
Speaker 1: frauds and schemes right now. Apparently, what they would do
Speaker 1: is they would tell people they had this ability to
Speaker 1: at low cost generate all these sales leads, so their
Speaker 1: cost per generating the sales lead was a dollar and
Speaker 1: that they could then sell them to other companies for
Speaker 1: five dollars. Well, that was all Piers pretty much made up.
Speaker 1: Maroney and his associates, including Santos all In were able
Speaker 1: to raise like seventeen point one million dollars, something like
Speaker 1: four million dollars if that went directly into Maroney's pockets,
Speaker 1: some of it went into his wife's pocket, some of
Speaker 1: it went into companies that he held, and other you know,
Speaker 1: paid off his credit card debt, bought him a waterfront
Speaker 1: home that by the way, they hosted a Trump fundraiser
Speaker 1: at with Don Junior appearing in Kimberly Gilfoyle and they
Speaker 1: then would use some of the proceeds to pay off
Speaker 1: some of the new proceeds to pay off the original investors,
Speaker 1: which is what ultimately makes it a Ponzi scheme. There's
Speaker 1: also in some of the reporting that Santos was notified.
Speaker 1: Some of the investors were like, dude, this is all
Speaker 1: fake and fraudulent. One of the things they would advertise
Speaker 1: is like, oh, this is all safe because we have
Speaker 1: this sort of like line of credit backup thing and
Speaker 1: a major bank, and here's the bank. It's I think
Speaker 1: it was Deutsche Bank, and he was notified of the
Speaker 1: fact that was all fake, So there's some indication that
Speaker 1: he knew there was something going on. Of course, he
Speaker 1: says that he had no idea that there was anything
Speaker 1: inappropriate straight fraud. And actually, if you read even more,
Speaker 1: you know he by raising money from investors and paid
Speaker 1: in a form he had to be a registered broker
Speaker 1: with the SEC and it's not so he actually might
Speaker 1: be even guilty of straight fraud and which none of
Speaker 1: this was included on his mandatory financial disclosure right he ceased.
Speaker 1: It looks like the timing is that he stopped working
Speaker 1: with Harbor City like a month before he filed for
Speaker 1: to run for Congress, and that's when he sets up
Speaker 1: his Devolter company. That and some of the people that
Speaker 1: he went into business with also came from the Harbor
Speaker 1: City Ponzi scheme. So one possibility that's being floated is
Speaker 1: that he, you know, had ill gotten games from this
Speaker 1: Harbor City Capital thing that he uses then and sort
Speaker 1: of launders through this Devolter organization and then ends up
Speaker 1: putting some of that money into his campaign. That's speculative.
Speaker 1: We don't know exactly the trail of money. But that's
Speaker 1: a little bit of what it is looking like. Let's
Speaker 1: go ahead to the next piece that we have here. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: go ahead and throw this up on the screen. So
Speaker 1: New York Times has some reporting that apparently these lies
Speaker 1: and you know, outright fabrications were in fact known to
Speaker 1: some Republicans, at least hard to say exactly who they said.
Speaker 1: George Santos inspired in a shortage of suspicion during twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two campaign, including the upper echelons of his own party.
Speaker 1: Yet many Republicans look to the other way, and effectively
Speaker 1: what happened here, sober is when you run for Congress,
Speaker 1: not only does your opponent do opposition research on you,
Speaker 1: it's also very common that you basically pay for opposition
Speaker 1: research on yourself, right to see what the other side
Speaker 1: is going to turn up and potentially use against you.
Speaker 1: So he authorized with his original campaign team, He's like,
Speaker 1: all right, let's go ahead and do that, And he
Speaker 1: authorized the spending to go ahead and research what they
Speaker 1: could use against him. And it turned up not everything,
Speaker 1: but it turned up some of these significant lies that
Speaker 1: he was telling about his resume, about his schooling, et cetera,
Speaker 1: and relatively easily, and his staff basically came to him
Speaker 1: and his consultants and were like, dude, you got to
Speaker 1: drop out, and you know, now's the time before this
Speaker 1: all comes out and you're humiliated and your life is destroyed.
Speaker 1: And he, you know, took some time thought about it,
Speaker 1: and he was like no, and he also told them like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'll produce the degree I got and whatever. Of course
Speaker 1: there is no degree, so he definitely didn't do that,
Speaker 1: and his campaign staff, much of them, resigned. The person
Speaker 1: who seems to have been key to resuscitating him and
Speaker 1: keeping him alive in terms of the Republican primary and
Speaker 1: finding him new consultants is people around at least Staphonic
Speaker 1: were able to get him new consultants, and he didn't
Speaker 1: come clean to them, apparently about all of the mistruths
Speaker 1: and all of the things that had been turned up
Speaker 1: in the previous opposition research. And then you also had
Speaker 1: this dynamic on the Democratic side where he ran twice.
Speaker 1: The first time he lost against this incumbent and then
Speaker 1: comment just basically decided like, it's not worth spending money
Speaker 1: against this guy. I'm gonna beat him anyway. Second time around,
Speaker 1: cash was tight on the Zimmerman was the Democratic opponent's name.
Speaker 1: The d Triple Seed did some basic opposition research on him,
Speaker 1: failed to turn up any of this somehow, I mean
Speaker 1: just utter incombinence there. They had some red flags of like, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe this is worth looking into, but it would have
Speaker 1: been expensive for Zimmerman, and he decided to spend the
Speaker 1: money on ads. Obviously, now I'm sure like really regrets
Speaker 1: not going forward with his own opposition research into Santos
Speaker 1: and so just kind of by happenstance, this guy skates through.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just so wild like whenever you consider it,
Speaker 1: because when you read more and more, just the very
Speaker 1: basics of it should have been able to be unearthed.
Speaker 1: But look, you know, I've been reading also about Ponzi schemes.
Speaker 1: I just read finished The Wizard of Lies, the Bernie
Speaker 1: made Off book, and these are he has all the classes,
Speaker 1: the same marks of the fraudster, where Billy McFarland also
Speaker 1: comes to mind. The Fire Festival guy like that ability
Speaker 1: to just slip into the I went to Brooke and
Speaker 1: establish rapport and be like oh well, I also you know,
Speaker 1: I shredded mind it. Just the level of detail It's
Speaker 1: one of those where somebody said, you know, the criminal
Speaker 1: can always have like a bigger imagination than people, because
Speaker 1: no one would ever conceive that a guy who's running
Speaker 1: for the United States Congress, like out there with the
Speaker 1: whole world, you know, looking upon you would ever say
Speaker 1: anything like this without being caught. So his like ability
Speaker 1: to just con so many people up and down the chain,
Speaker 1: he actually was a perfect person to raise money for
Speaker 1: a Ponzi's game. True about it. I think he's gonna
Speaker 1: be in serious trouble. I think, at the very least,
Speaker 1: think about this, if you're a victim of that Ponzi scheme,
Speaker 1: Giving the clawbacks precedents from the made off case, like
Speaker 1: very clearly they could go after him. He also could
Speaker 1: easily be guilty of wirefraud if he didn't register, or
Speaker 1: if he transferred ill gotten gains, and then he could
Speaker 1: also be guilty of campaign finance rod maybe he used
Speaker 1: ill gotten gains in order to circum or in order
Speaker 1: to fund a federal election commission run. So overall, I
Speaker 1: think the Feds are going to get him. I think
Speaker 1: I make sure that there's an investigation underway. I think
Speaker 1: so too, you know, right now, he's saying he's going
Speaker 1: to hang in there. He's not going to resign. McCarthy
Speaker 1: isn't pressuring him to resign, even though a lot of
Speaker 1: New York Republicans ultimately are. But I agree with you.
Speaker 1: I think this ends with him in prison. There's just
Speaker 1: too much here, too many potential crimes. The campaign finance
Speaker 1: stuff is funny because our campaign finance laws in some
Speaker 1: ways are so laxed. You can drive a back truck
Speaker 1: through the loopholes if you know how to do it
Speaker 1: in a sophisticated way, then you can basically get away
Speaker 1: with almost anything. But if you don't know how to
Speaker 1: do it in a sophisticated way, and you stumble over
Speaker 1: one of the many, many trip wires, they can and
Speaker 1: will throw the book at you. Yes, and he did
Speaker 1: not do this in a sophisticated way. There are a
Speaker 1: million red flags here that they're already picking up on
Speaker 1: multiple investigations. So to me, that seems like the clearest
Speaker 1: path to him ending up behind bars ultimately. And I
Speaker 1: just you know, I'm fixated on this, not even from
Speaker 1: the political perspective, although it is amazing one of the
Speaker 1: Metas stories that is kind of fascinating is the way
Speaker 1: both the Republican parties and the Democratic parties and the
Speaker 1: media establishment all just completely you know, crumbled and fell
Speaker 1: down on their job and the most basic level of
Speaker 1: vetting of this dude. So I think, I think that's
Speaker 1: an interesting storyline, but I just the psychology of it,
Speaker 1: I just can't run my head around. And then I
Speaker 1: asked myself, like, how many people are there like this
Speaker 1: out there? A lot, right, who will just invent an
Speaker 1: entire biography and narrative and not like as a joke
Speaker 1: at a bar, you know, but as to lean into
Speaker 1: for their whole life story. It's wild. It's wild to me.
Speaker 1: And this guy was so raisen and also so sloppy
Speaker 1: that it was easy to catch him. But I'm sure
Speaker 1: there are a lot more sophisticated con men and women
Speaker 1: out there who ultimately get away with it and probably
Speaker 1: end up with a lot of riches and powers. So
Speaker 1: a lot of people. That's the part that fascinates, hilar Yes,
Speaker 1: And there's so many of these where you're just like,
Speaker 1: what are you doing? You literally have a fake Spanish accent?
Speaker 1: Remember that clip when she's like, what's the word in English?
Speaker 1: I'm like, you literally aren't even Spanish, Like what are
Speaker 1: you doing? This is craziness, But it's a mind disease
Speaker 1: that affects people seemingly all at the very top. And I,
Speaker 1: you know, look, I think there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: out there. I was watching this interview, this interesting interview
Speaker 1: on the soft white underbelly channel of a con man,
Speaker 1: and like, when you get inside the mind of these guys,
Speaker 1: they're just they're vicious, just the way they'll rip you
Speaker 1: off there, No, the rules don't apply to them. And wow.
Speaker 1: What really comes across also is that even in the
Speaker 1: in the interview, you can't help but like the guy
Speaker 1: the whole time, like you know, he's he's got something
Speaker 1: to it, but he's like one of the biggest frosters
Speaker 1: in modern American history. It's like, wow, anyway, so Santos,
Speaker 1: I think he's going down. All right, let's go to
Speaker 1: the next one here, let's put it up there on
Speaker 1: the screen. A really interesting development, which is not a
Speaker 1: particularly good harbinger. So couple of things that headline there
Speaker 1: is rising interest rates are lifting profits at Bank of
Speaker 1: America and Wells Fargo. However, the subhead is what we
Speaker 1: really want to focus on that the the country's largest
Speaker 1: lenders are increasing their reserves to protect against deteriorating economic
Speaker 1: conditions after reporting the resilient profits for the end of
Speaker 1: last year. Effectively, after the banks booked pretty decent profits
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two, they are holding back a significant
Speaker 1: amount of capital on their balance sheets because they anticipate
Speaker 1: customers not paying back their loans. And this isn't just
Speaker 1: one back, it's multiple. JP Morgan Chase said that they
Speaker 1: have over a billion dollars in reserve, more than normal
Speaker 1: because they are predicting a quote mild recession to arrive
Speaker 1: later this year. The CEO of Bank of America said
Speaker 1: the exact same comments, quote mild recession prospect of the
Speaker 1: bank that is planning for Wells Fargo, even after it
Speaker 1: has been fined for defrauding customers and all that speaking
Speaker 1: of comment at a much much bigger level, basically pulling
Speaker 1: back some of the cash reserves even after having to
Speaker 1: pay their fines and holding them on the balance sheet.
Speaker 1: Why does that matter? Because all three of these big
Speaker 1: banks are saying that they are anticipating major loan losses
Speaker 1: across twenty twenty three, where people will effectively not have
Speaker 1: enough money or they're going to lose their job, or
Speaker 1: based by inflation, based on credit card debt. You know,
Speaker 1: basically the runway runs out and they're not going to
Speaker 1: be able to pay their mortgages. Of course, we all
Speaker 1: found out in two thousand and eight that can have
Speaker 1: a cascading runway effect, runaway effect on the entire US economy.
Speaker 1: But in a couple of ways, this is almost one
Speaker 1: of those things which is both a leading indicator but
Speaker 1: also which can have its own problems. Because whenever banks
Speaker 1: are not only anticipating the customers are not going to
Speaker 1: pay back their loans, but then they're also going to
Speaker 1: hold back some of their cash. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: It's even harder to get a loan than previously. You know,
Speaker 1: right now, good luck getting a mortgage out there. I
Speaker 1: don't even know why you would want one, because it's like,
Speaker 1: what seven percent or whatever. But let's say you're one
Speaker 1: of those people who you know, now is the time
Speaker 1: you're going to do this, maybe all refinance or whatever
Speaker 1: down the road, the cash reserves, the down payment that
Speaker 1: the bank may demand on your behalf is going to
Speaker 1: be probably much higher than it was previously. And risk
Speaker 1: assessment on top of that is going to be much
Speaker 1: more difficult. So I think that in general, getting a
Speaker 1: car loan, getting a mortgage loan, just the general loans
Speaker 1: that make our economy run, small business loans, the very basic,
Speaker 1: the basic architectures of consumer finance for a lot of people,
Speaker 1: which breed entrepreneurship, venture capital, all of that, and also
Speaker 1: which businesses can often use to make payroll. I think
Speaker 1: it's it's a bad sign of where things could go.
Speaker 1: Both the fact that they're doing it, but also by
Speaker 1: doing it itself is going to it can trigger, it
Speaker 1: can manifest exactly the oncome that you fear. And I mean,
Speaker 1: people are already in a tough position. There's all kinds
Speaker 1: of metrics about. You know, their bank accounts are being strained,
Speaker 1: they're having to rely on credit cards more and more,
Speaker 1: and you know, interest rates overall going up, so those
Speaker 1: credit card payments become more and more expensive as well.
Speaker 1: And then as you're pointing out, as banks pulled back,
Speaker 1: then it becomes harder to sort of like roll over
Speaker 1: and be able to keep that data float. So people
Speaker 1: are increasingly in a real bind. And you know, it's
Speaker 1: really clear, even as we get these good jobs numbers,
Speaker 1: and you have this really complicated and sort of mixed
Speaker 1: picture of the economy. Wages have not kept up with inflation,
Speaker 1: so the bottom line is for most workers, they are
Speaker 1: earning less and less and less, and that is going
Speaker 1: to take a hit on people's finances and take a
Speaker 1: hit on their ability to make purchases and all and
Speaker 1: do all the spending and all the things that keep
Speaker 1: the economy going at its current pace. And then you
Speaker 1: still have the fed out there saying, hey, we got
Speaker 1: to keep going forward with interest rate increases. So it
Speaker 1: continues to be a really dicey time in terms of
Speaker 1: the economy. Also thought it was noteworthy Jamie diamond head
Speaker 1: of Chase. We have been covering a lot of his comments.
Speaker 1: He had been very sort of outspoken about where he
Speaker 1: thought the economy was going, and now as Chase pulls
Speaker 1: back this billion dollars hoarding cash, a billion dollars in reserves,
Speaker 1: he is now being pretty quiet about what he thinks
Speaker 1: is going to happen, which I thought was also kind
Speaker 1: of interesting. I'm covering today all of these bankers, probably
Speaker 1: including Jamie Diamonds always there. Yeah, I think he's going
Speaker 1: to be there, are gathering for the World Economic Forum
Speaker 1: in Davos. Be interesting to see what was some of
Speaker 1: the comments that come out of there as the elites
Speaker 1: decide how they're going to run the world for this year. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the other thing to consider is that if you're
Speaker 1: already you're in a precarious situation. If there is debt
Speaker 1: default or there is even talk of debt default. I
Speaker 1: think this happened last timmer around, like our debt was
Speaker 1: degraded from like triple A plus or whatever triple a minus.
Speaker 1: That actually had a whole problem because the other thing
Speaker 1: is that there are all these automatic investment triggers for
Speaker 1: pension funds and others, where if something does get downgraded
Speaker 1: below a certain level, then you actually have to automatically
Speaker 1: sell it because they have deals and contracts. You'll only
Speaker 1: invest certain types of moneies and certain types of government
Speaker 1: in terms of rated funds, and if the government doesn't
Speaker 1: do that, it causes an entire mess. The point is
Speaker 1: that economic procarity is very much on the minds of
Speaker 1: the nation tops bankers, and because they run the country
Speaker 1: and especially run the way that people conduct business, I
Speaker 1: think that's a big problem. Yeah, that's a great point here.
Speaker 1: We are at a sort of precipice, potentially on edge
Speaker 1: and facing down these government crises and possible debt default.
Speaker 1: It's a scary situation, no doubt about it. Absolutely. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and move on here, Chuck Todd just
Speaker 1: an amazing showdown over on MSNBC. This reveals the brain
Speaker 1: worms I think of everybody on both sides. On the
Speaker 1: one hand, you have Chuck Todd here, who is completely
Speaker 1: unable to grapple with the idea that Hunter Biden the
Speaker 1: laptop itself, any investigation to it seems legitimate, even defending
Speaker 1: him saying it's not a crime to make money off
Speaker 1: of your last name actually really might be. Then you
Speaker 1: also have Senator Ron Johnson also just you know, spouting
Speaker 1: like the most basic stuff from the laptop itself. So
Speaker 1: I think this is a great This is a great showdown,
Speaker 1: a view into why are politics particularly suck and also
Speaker 1: why you can't actually emerge on the other side from
Speaker 1: truth if you want to. Let's take a listen. Well,
Speaker 1: I have skepticism of both parties, I say here with
Speaker 1: skepticism a lot of people's work, and I'm curious are
Speaker 1: you were you at all concerned your Senate Democrats want
Speaker 1: to investigate Jared Kushner's loan from the Cuttery government when
Speaker 1: he was working in the government negotiating many things in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. Are you not as concerned about Are
Speaker 1: you not concerned about that? And I say that because
Speaker 1: it seems to me, if you're concerned about what Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden did, you should be equally outraged about what Jared
Speaker 1: Kushner did. I'm concerned about being the truth. I don't
Speaker 1: talk individuals. Target individuals. You're targeting Hunter body Edator, You're
Speaker 1: targeting individual Chuck my You know, Chuck, you know. Part
Speaker 1: of the problem, And this is pretty obvious stating by
Speaker 1: watching this is you don't invite me on to interview me.
Speaker 1: You invite me on to argue with me. Now, I'm
Speaker 1: just trying to lay out the facts that certainly Center
Speaker 1: Grass and I uncovered, they were suppressed, they were censored,
Speaker 1: they interfered in the twenty twenty election. Conservatives understand that. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: liberals in the media don't. And that's part of the
Speaker 1: things that part part of the reasons our politics are
Speaker 1: inflames is we do not have an unbiased media. We don't.
Speaker 1: It's unfortunate I'm all for free press, the centered, more
Speaker 1: unbiased information, the satorship and center. Look, we're trying to
Speaker 1: do left partisan cable. Look, you can go back on
Speaker 1: your partisan cable cocoon and talk about media bias all
Speaker 1: you want. I understand it's part of your identity artisan
Speaker 1: cable cocoon. Yes, no one would know what that looks like,
Speaker 1: would it, Chuck? Whenever we're defending Uh. Also, you know,
Speaker 1: even the Jared thing, I agree with them one hundred percent,
Speaker 1: But the fact that they don't care about Hunter, it
Speaker 1: makes them just as full of it as Rod Johnson. Exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean you have two partisan hacks accusing one another
Speaker 1: of being partisan hacks, and it's like, actually, you're both right, yes,
Speaker 1: correct the situation. But yeah, Chuck Tasso, I'm skeptical of everybody.
Speaker 1: Oh really, I would love to see the breakdown of
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden coverage versus Jared Kushner coverage number one, number two.
Speaker 1: I mean, he is right about Ron Johnson being full
Speaker 1: of it and only caring about the things that are
Speaker 1: like good for his team. But the icing on the
Speaker 1: cake at the end there is Chuck Tad accusing him
Speaker 1: of only being in his partisan media bubble, and it's like, dude,
Speaker 1: maybe look in the mirror. You just said it's not
Speaker 1: a crime to make money off your last name. How
Speaker 1: can you say that you're not in enough Parson mediobubble. Oh,
Speaker 1: but at the same time, a Kushner, it's bad. Whenever
Speaker 1: he does no, it's all bad. And this is also
Speaker 1: why we never get to the bottom of a lot
Speaker 1: of these legitimate coruptions. Gal I would love, by the way,
Speaker 1: to see you an actual accounting of that Jared Kushner
Speaker 1: Katari loan, why he was in the World Cup in
Speaker 1: the first place, kissing the grass, you know, the Saudi deals,
Speaker 1: the NBS money that he immediately took, even though NBS,
Speaker 1: his own fund, was like, we shouldn't invest with this guy.
Speaker 1: He's not a particularly good investor, and he himself was like, nah,
Speaker 1: let's kick him a few billion because he was good
Speaker 1: to us in the White House. Straight corruption, if you
Speaker 1: ask me, it's also straight corruption. You know, the Ukraine
Speaker 1: thing we all seem to have forgotten about Barisma. I'm
Speaker 1: not really sure why. I think it's probably more relevant
Speaker 1: now more than ever. Biden was literally the point man
Speaker 1: on Ukraine in the Obama administration. That's why Ukrainian Energy
Speaker 1: Company was paying Hunter fifty grand a month. It wasn't
Speaker 1: just a potentially buy influences because it was the top
Speaker 1: foreign policy priority of Vice President Biden in the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: Then you add on the China discussion. By the way,
Speaker 1: Hunter continues to have multimillion dollars worth of interest in
Speaker 1: Chinese companies which he has resigned his up. He hasn't
Speaker 1: sold his shares, but he's like I no longer take
Speaker 1: in active controls. He still have a stake in these companies. Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, look Ron Johnson report. He may be Parson,
Speaker 1: but his report on the Hunter stuff is actually well
Speaker 1: worth reading. I encourage people to go read it simply
Speaker 1: because it literally is looking at bank statements and all
Speaker 1: of that. Actually President Biden called it a lie while
Speaker 1: it was happening, and yet no substantive facts have come
Speaker 1: out to this date that refute a single actual accusation
Speaker 1: in the Hunter Biden report that was put out by
Speaker 1: Ron Johnson's committee in this same interesting I mean, here's
Speaker 1: why this ultimately silly like little exchange matters because these
Speaker 1: issues that are at the cour or of it. Kushner's corruption,
Speaker 1: potential hunter Biden corruption and crimes. These things actually matter,
Speaker 1: and when it's clear that you only selectively care about it,
Speaker 1: you really undermine your position and your credibility with the
Speaker 1: American people. I mean, it's partly Ron Johnson's own fault
Speaker 1: that no one really took that report seriously, because, oh,
Speaker 1: you care so deeply about this, but you don't care
Speaker 1: about the Kushner piece. And it's the same thing with
Speaker 1: Chuck Toad in the mainstream press, like, oh, you care
Speaker 1: so deeply when it happens to be about Republicans, but
Speaker 1: you run cover for the Democratic Party consistently on an
Speaker 1: everyday basis. And oh, by the way, you know you
Speaker 1: concocted this whole elaborate like conspiracy theory of Russia gay
Speaker 1: that you've never still never acknowledged. You got wholly and
Speaker 1: completely wrong. So these people undermine their own credibility, and
Speaker 1: then they expect us to take them seriously when they
Speaker 1: report things that may actually matter, and no one should
Speaker 1: be surprised when everyone just sees them as complete hacks.
Speaker 1: So very fun exchange in raging exchange and ultimately kind
Speaker 1: of an important exchange to dig Ins. Yeah, when I
Speaker 1: saw it, I was like, man, there's so much there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: lots of layers as to what's happening. Okay, all right, Zager,
Speaker 1: what are you looking at? Well? Last week I did
Speaker 1: a monologue on the new guidance from the American Academy
Speaker 1: of Pediatrics for childhood obesity. It recommended using weight loss
Speaker 1: drugs and surgeries on miners more aggressively and earlier. While
Speaker 1: the Academy didn't include lifestyle intervention in its recommendations, there
Speaker 1: were also so called experts who created the guidance who
Speaker 1: I showed here saying that obesity was not a quote
Speaker 1: lifestyle disease. Whether you agree on that central premise or
Speaker 1: not is the entire question. Do you want to manipulate
Speaker 1: our environment, our food, or lifestyle to prevent obesity or
Speaker 1: do you want to just let big pharma companies sell
Speaker 1: us the solution. I know where I fall on that debate,
Speaker 1: but at a certain point, all of us critics do
Speaker 1: need to make peace with this fact. We have very
Speaker 1: little influence beyond the individual level on any of these decisions.
Speaker 1: They are made by multi billion dollar company these massive
Speaker 1: government bureaucracies like the National Institutes of Health, the CDC,
Speaker 1: the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Food and Drug
Speaker 1: Administration at least one of those. Though we may have
Speaker 1: a slight chance of actually having some reform, the FDA
Speaker 1: is under massive fire right now, especially during the last
Speaker 1: two years, for its incompetence. In his response to COVID,
Speaker 1: from rapid testing to its handling a vaccine approvals, suggest
Speaker 1: the blatant corruption revealed and revolving door with the pharming
Speaker 1: companies and taking their word for things, while we finally
Speaker 1: have a chance to actually make amends, not on the
Speaker 1: drug front just yet, but something possibly even more important
Speaker 1: than drugs. Food, the food that we put in our
Speaker 1: bodies and the regulations that govern that industry, subject of
Speaker 1: multi billion dollar lobbying efforts that shape everything that we
Speaker 1: see in our grocery stores. It all starts with the FDA,
Speaker 1: and even branch Coavidians who would probably defend the FDA's
Speaker 1: conductor and COVID, cannot deny they have failed at the
Speaker 1: basics of their food mission. Back up for a second.
Speaker 1: The FDA oversees approximately eighty percent of the entire US
Speaker 1: food supply. It has a basic missions number one, make
Speaker 1: sure food is safe, not poisoning US number two, provide
Speaker 1: nutrition guidance and facts for consumers. Three to conduct routine
Speaker 1: inspections of food safety to ensure the companies are not
Speaker 1: cutting corners and that Americans are eating. When companies claim
Speaker 1: that they are, they have failed categorically at all three
Speaker 1: parts of their mission. As Helena Botomiller avich at food
Speaker 1: Fix has noted since twenty eleven, despite getting more resources
Speaker 1: and a mandate from Congress to investigate food born illness outbreaks.
Speaker 1: Some one hundred and twenty eight thousand people are hospitalized
Speaker 1: a year from food born illness alone, and three thousand
Speaker 1: a year people actually die. Parents have been screaming now
Speaker 1: for years, finally heard during the baby formula crisis. How
Speaker 1: many times the agency has dropped the ball and missed
Speaker 1: deadly outbreaks in food and formula for infants, on top
Speaker 1: of multiple food born outbreaks in twenty twenty two alone.
Speaker 1: The nutrition side is also just insane. I'm sure many
Speaker 1: people saw these viral segments about NIH funded food compass
Speaker 1: studies at Tufts University which concludes that lucky charms or
Speaker 1: more nutritious than ground be or steak. It sparked rightful outrage.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, But the question is how do you
Speaker 1: even fix that. This is the key part the FDA's
Speaker 1: literal mission statement is to try and promote nutrition information
Speaker 1: and evaluate claims based on food to the general public.
Speaker 1: Take the word healthy for example, FDA has allowed the
Speaker 1: same definition of quote healthy to be slapped on consumer
Speaker 1: goods since nineteen ninety four, when I was a two
Speaker 1: year old. In that time, I think it's fair to
Speaker 1: say we've gotten a hell of a lot fatter as
Speaker 1: a country, unhealthier, and we've also learned a lot about nutrition.
Speaker 1: Yet in twenty and twenty two they have decided to
Speaker 1: propose updating the label. Just so you know, what did
Speaker 1: the previous label allow. It placed limits and guidance on
Speaker 1: several minerals and vitamins and food to be called quote healthy.
Speaker 1: But and this is the biggest butt, it placed no
Speaker 1: limit on the amount of added sugar in a product,
Speaker 1: and the ability to call it healthy is evaluated by
Speaker 1: the FDA. Imagine that you could literally make sure and
Speaker 1: gain the system by having some vitamins, add some fat content.
Speaker 1: You can have as much refined sugar though as you want,
Speaker 1: and still call it healthy in the grocery store and
Speaker 1: dupe parents and consumers. Anyone want to claim with a
Speaker 1: serious face, this was explicitly carved out, not explicitly carved
Speaker 1: out at the behest of the food and sugar industry.
Speaker 1: We all know the answer. I'm not going to sit
Speaker 1: here and I'm going to sit here and claim we
Speaker 1: wouldn't be fat if the FDA had proper healthy guidance
Speaker 1: in stores. Okay, I'm not. But it's a shiny example though,
Speaker 1: of how broken the system is. It also observes the
Speaker 1: fact that they can do something about it. Take sodium,
Speaker 1: for example, the exact same menu items in the United
Speaker 1: States actually have double the amount of sodium that they
Speaker 1: do in European counterparty foods like McDonald's. Our FDA has
Speaker 1: effectively refused to set mandatory sodium guidance, which nutrition advocates
Speaker 1: have been saying can save tens of thousands of lives
Speaker 1: per year just through reduced hypertension. After literally three decades
Speaker 1: of fighting the FDA, they still have refused to set
Speaker 1: long term as other developed nations on Earth have had
Speaker 1: in place for more than a decade. By some estimates,
Speaker 1: some quarter of a million lives actually could be saved
Speaker 1: just from doing this alone. All of this bears scrutiny
Speaker 1: at this moment for a simple reason. A major fight
Speaker 1: is brewing in Washington right now after an independent review
Speaker 1: of the FDA found that has completely failed at the
Speaker 1: food aspect of its job and should possibly be spun
Speaker 1: off into its own independent food agency. It's actually gaining
Speaker 1: steam in Washington. I want to add some fuel to
Speaker 1: that fire. Currently, the FDA is one of several agencies
Speaker 1: that actually looks at the entire US food supply. The
Speaker 1: system is designed not to help or look out for you,
Speaker 1: but to be as inept as possible and make it
Speaker 1: as penetrable as possible for lobbyists at big food and
Speaker 1: agricultural companies which want to make money. Our well being
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with this. Spinning the agency itself
Speaker 1: off will not fix everything, but it makes a single
Speaker 1: point of concentration more vulnerable to public scrutiny and the
Speaker 1: lack of incompetence. No more passing the buck. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: wake up, healthy food label doesn't mean it's healthy. Quote
Speaker 1: guidance from doctors is sometimes right and sometimes it's totally wrong.
Speaker 1: It's dangerous, and it's driven by money. Until we take
Speaker 1: back our system you need to look out for yourself
Speaker 1: because they sure as hell are not going to And
Speaker 1: that's a crazy thing. You know, that healthy the healthy food.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagre's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. Christol,
Speaker 1: what are you taking to look at? Well? Guys? Global
Speaker 1: elites are attending the annual World Economic Forum in Davos
Speaker 1: this week. This is actually the first time since COVID
Speaker 1: when the event will return to its full size scope
Speaker 1: and normal timing. But there's a sense that for the
Speaker 1: world's billionaire class, the gathering isn't quite what it used
Speaker 1: to be. The number of global leaders attending has thinned.
Speaker 1: Previously prevalent Russian oligarchs have been purged, Chinese billionaires dramatically
Speaker 1: reduced by COVID zero policies. In fact, many of the
Speaker 1: world's billionaires have seen their well take a hit from
Speaker 1: rising interest rates in a declining stock market. Back in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, six out of seven G seven leaders actually
Speaker 1: attended this annual confab. This year, only one will be
Speaker 1: in attendance. That's Germany's Olaf Schultz. He'll be the lonely
Speaker 1: head of state representing the world's wealthiest nations. But most importantly,
Speaker 1: the worldview that Davos elites had arrogantly espoused for years
Speaker 1: and years has taken a huge hit. Now. Listen, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of wild conspiracy theories about Davos, but the
Speaker 1: most devastating Davos conspiracy is right out in the open.
Speaker 1: A bunch of wealthy and powerful leads coming together to
Speaker 1: whitewash their own crimes with fake care for the world,
Speaker 1: while stitiously avoiding discussing anything that might actually implicate them
Speaker 1: in the problems they are pretending to care about, and
Speaker 1: carefully avoiding discussion of the way they could actually solve
Speaker 1: the problems they are pretending to care about. Dutch historian
Speaker 1: Rutger Bregman put it pretty succinctly back in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: This is my first time at DeVos, and I find
Speaker 1: it quite a bewildering experience, to be honest, I mean,
Speaker 1: fifteen hundred private yet's flown in there to hear Sara
Speaker 1: David etnbrough speak about how we're wrecking the planet, and
Speaker 1: I mean I hear people talk in the language of
Speaker 1: participation and justice and equality and transparency but then, I mean,
Speaker 1: almost no one raises the real issue of tax avoidance
Speaker 1: right and of the rich just not paying their fair share.
Speaker 1: I mean it feels like I'm me at a firefighter
Speaker 1: fighters conference and no one's allowed to speak about water.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not rocket science. I mean, we
Speaker 1: can talk for a very long time about all these
Speaker 1: stupid philanthropy schemes. We can invide bono once more. Come on,
Speaker 1: we got to be talking about Texas. That's it, Texas, Texas, Texas.
Speaker 1: All the rest is bullshit. In my opinion, that man
Speaker 1: is a hero. But let's be honest. Those panels, they're
Speaker 1: mostly for show. The real work happens on the side well.
Speaker 1: Billionaires and world leaders. They meet in secret to ink
Speaker 1: deals and plan how to continue hoarding resources and maintaining
Speaker 1: a status quo which just created hunger, homelessness, wars, and
Speaker 1: the very climate crisis that they concerntrol. Most over, just
Speaker 1: to be clear here, the crisis is real. They're concerned
Speaker 1: about it, decidedly not now. The Davos ideology is neoliberalism
Speaker 1: distilled to its purest essets markets are all good and
Speaker 1: all knowing. The elite class is wealthy and powerful because
Speaker 1: they won out in a grand competition we call the meritocracy. Therefore,
Speaker 1: they deserve to be dictating the conditions of the world
Speaker 1: from literally on high in the mountains. Government is the
Speaker 1: problem in rich philanthropists. They're the answer, at least for
Speaker 1: the problems of the masses. Government is great when it
Speaker 1: can be captured to subsidize the wealth of the oligar class.
Speaker 1: Perhaps never before has this worldview been more thoroughly repudiated.
Speaker 1: After all, twenty twenty two was the year that the
Speaker 1: McDonald's theory of peace at the core of neoliberal foreign policy,
Speaker 1: was shown conclusively to be complete bunk. This theory held
Speaker 1: that any nation incorporated enough into the global trading system
Speaker 1: to have a McDonald's would not want to go to
Speaker 1: war with other big mac consuming nations. Now I know
Speaker 1: it sounds ridiculous, people really believe this crap. And more
Speaker 1: to the point, the theory was that these nations would
Speaker 1: meld into the Western model of capitalism and liberal governance.
Speaker 1: This is a theory with Russia, and this was the
Speaker 1: theory with China. Wrong and wrong again. Russia invaded Ukraine
Speaker 1: and has now been largely cut off from that global
Speaker 1: trading system. McDonald's and all China used our trade liberals
Speaker 1: to gain the system for their own benefit and has
Speaker 1: forged their own model of state led capitalism and their
Speaker 1: own form of debt driven imperialism through the Belt and
Speaker 1: Road initiative. They surveyed the wreckage that American style capitalism
Speaker 1: brought to other nations and said, no thanks, We're going
Speaker 1: to go our own way. At the same time, the
Speaker 1: pandemic with its despair, unemployment, and death for millions, while
Speaker 1: billionaires floated safely on yachts and saw their unfathomable wealth
Speaker 1: balloon even further. That all served to will say, heighten
Speaker 1: the contradictions of the neoliberal system. When the economy was
Speaker 1: falling off a cliff and the stock market was reaching
Speaker 1: record heights, it was really laid bare just how fake
Speaker 1: and rigged this entire system really is. When taxpayers funded
Speaker 1: life saving vaccines only to see big farm of profit
Speaker 1: to the tune of billions, hoarde patents and price gouged
Speaker 1: the entire world. It exposed that free markets may not
Speaker 1: be the all knowing, marvelous forces we had been led
Speaker 1: to believe. When our supply chain seized up, leading to
Speaker 1: shortages of everything from gloves and masks to toilet paper
Speaker 1: to baby formula. We realized that globalization had funnel four
Speaker 1: into the pockets of the few, while creating an incredibly
Speaker 1: fragile system with shortages, price increases, and pain for all
Speaker 1: the rest. The inflation we're suffering through today is the
Speaker 1: continued devastating hangover from this particular hard lesson. So what
Speaker 1: does davos Man have to say about any of this? Well,
Speaker 1: this year, the number of Gulf billionaires attending has balloon
Speaker 1: thanks to record breaking oil profits. Are they going to
Speaker 1: welcome these new masters of the universe in for their
Speaker 1: feigned concern about the climate crisis? Are they going to
Speaker 1: voice deep concern for human rights violations by Russia even
Speaker 1: as they celebrate these tycoons who have made fortunes from
Speaker 1: some of the most repressive regimes in the entire world.
Speaker 1: Are the billionaire bankers that the us NS and droves
Speaker 1: going to tell us about how the only way to
Speaker 1: counter inflation is by forcing the masses into unemployment. This
Speaker 1: week we'll get to see how the global elite are
Speaker 1: spinning all of these developments and many more, and according
Speaker 1: to the absolute gruals over Etman cancy consulting a strategic
Speaker 1: partner of the World Economic Forum, because of course they are. Apparently,
Speaker 1: this year is actually said to be the biggest Davos attention,
Speaker 1: and it's in history, and this fact hints at another
Speaker 1: important lesson of our time. The DeVos Ethos might be vanquished,
Speaker 1: but somehow it still dominates the world. Always look forward
Speaker 1: to these little gathering saga see what the lords of
Speaker 1: the universe have to tell. And if you want to
Speaker 1: hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premum subscriber
Speaker 1: today at Breakingpoints dot com. Okay, guys, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for watching. We really appreciate it. We've got a
Speaker 1: great show for everybody tomorrow, Counterpoints obviously on Wednesday. All
Speaker 1: over this week. It's going to be a lot of fun,
Speaker 1: some fun stuff. Making plans right now for State of
Speaker 1: the Union live coverage and all that. You'll be able
Speaker 1: to join us here with the team at Breaking Points.
Speaker 1: Live show tickets obviously on sale all of that. But
Speaker 1: that's enough administrative. We'll see everybody, Tom guys enjoy and
Speaker 1: reflect on this Martin Luther King Junior Day and remember
Speaker 1: the way that they stood in solidarity and were too
Speaker 1: able to achieve so much when you were feeling down
Speaker 1: and depressed about our own political system. Change for the better,
Speaker 1: is Jenny, only possible? All Right, love y'all and see
Speaker 1: you tomorrow.