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 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: So one thing that we've been paying close attention to
Speaker 1: and reading into it whatever you can is the early
Speaker 1: vote results. And no state have they been more striking
Speaker 1: than the Sun belt state of Nevada. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. And Nevada also benefits from the
Speaker 1: fact you got John Ralston, who everyone agrees is like
Speaker 1: legit in analyzing.
Speaker 3: The early vote.
Speaker 1: So he updates every day his early voting blog, and
Speaker 1: at this point, shocking given previous historical trends, Republicans actually
Speaker 1: have an advantage in terms.
Speaker 3: Of the early vote.
Speaker 1: So they have successfully convinced their voters to vote early.
Speaker 1: There's been a huge surge in terms of the rural
Speaker 1: areas in particular. In fact, he's describing this time he
Speaker 1: normally talks about a Clark County, which is Las Vegas
Speaker 1: firewall for Democrats. He's talking now about a rural firewall,
Speaker 1: a massive Republican advantage where there's been extremely high turnout
Speaker 1: in those rural, heavily conservative areas. In Washoe County, which
Speaker 1: I believe is where Reno is, it's a swing urban county.
Speaker 1: Republicans have a four point lead that's just above their
Speaker 1: registration average in Clark County. The firewall is that just
Speaker 1: five thousand votes, just two and a half points in
Speaker 1: a place where Democrats have a nearly seven percent registration edge.
Speaker 1: So so far, and again it's early days. None of
Speaker 1: this reads into which way the large number of independents
Speaker 1: are going to vote. None of this reads in too
Speaker 1: obviously what's going to happen on election day. But the
Speaker 1: early indications for Republicans are quite strong. I think Nevada
Speaker 1: is stronger than in any of the other states where
Speaker 1: we have significant early vote to take a look at.
Speaker 1: And one of the theories for why Republicans could be
Speaker 1: outperforming in Nevada in particular comes down to the issue
Speaker 1: of housing. Let's put this up on the screen. Obviously,
Speaker 1: this is something We've been focused on for a long time,
Speaker 1: just how much of a pain point the unaffordable housing
Speaker 1: market has become for so many voters.
Speaker 3: New York Times did a great ride up here.
Speaker 1: They said, as Harris courts, the Sunbelt housing costs stand
Speaker 1: in her way, and they compare the skyrocketing housing costs
Speaker 1: not just you know, to buy a home, but also rents,
Speaker 1: which is driven and fueled by a number of factors.
Speaker 1: They compare that to a similar political earthquake as the
Speaker 1: exodus of steel companies or auto manufacturings manufacturers that left
Speaker 1: workers reeling in industrial Midwestern So I do think if
Speaker 1: you see a big divergence between the type of results
Speaker 1: that come out in the sun Belt states Nevada in particular,
Speaker 1: versus those quote unquote blue wall states in the industrial Midwest,
Speaker 1: I do think housing is going to be a big
Speaker 1: part of that.
Speaker 2: I love a story is super interesting. A couple of takeaways.
Speaker 2: Number one is actually inside the story they court and
Speaker 2: talk about people who are specifically pissed off in Vegas
Speaker 2: about California implants, and it made me think about this
Speaker 2: kind of blue influx theory and whether the people are like, oh,
Speaker 2: these states are all going to turn blue. But they
Speaker 2: could actually have like an interesting net effect where you
Speaker 2: have a blue voter come in, but that makes people
Speaker 2: really hate them and get angry and then vote Republican.
Speaker 2: And if you think about it, it's actually a real
Speaker 2: like elite versus non elite dynamic where you have people
Speaker 2: who are predominant at least a lot more rich than
Speaker 2: the average citizen in Nevada, Texas wherever, coming in, driving
Speaker 2: up housing prices, and then those people feel a lot
Speaker 2: of the displacement, the anger, and they could very much
Speaker 2: respond in the same way that the blue Wall voters
Speaker 2: did whenever they voted against Democrats on NAFTA, on trade policy, immigration,
Speaker 2: et cetera. I actually really could see a similar dynamic there.
Speaker 2: What would probably change things is you still have enough
Speaker 2: traditional blue voters and others who could offset that. But
Speaker 2: the tension means that it's a real like class dynamic
Speaker 2: that comes down to the most fundamental question of housing.
Speaker 2: I also found the trouble for Harris here was when
Speaker 2: voters were presented by this New York Times reporter about
Speaker 2: Harris's housing proposal. There's a deep cynicism where they're like,
Speaker 2: I don't think any of that's going to happen. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, and look are they wrong, especially if there's
Speaker 2: divided government. You know, I'm going to do a home
Speaker 2: monologue about this. You need an Act of Congress to
Speaker 2: have that. What do you think is going to use?
Speaker 2: The US Senate full of Republican is going to pass that. No,
Speaker 2: it's not going to happen, right. The best you could
Speaker 2: hope for is some Fannie Mae Freddie Mack whatever, like
Speaker 2: loosening of regulations and maybe some stuff through the Housing
Speaker 2: and Urban Development Agency. But that's about it, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, if we're comparing just the policy landscape,
Speaker 1: Harris has talked about Real Page. The Biden administration is
Speaker 1: going after Real Page, which is the cartel that has
Speaker 1: helped you spike rents in places like Las Vegas and
Speaker 1: other places around the country. She has, you know, talked
Speaker 1: a lot about this plan to help people with that
Speaker 1: down payment, which has become a major stumbling block for
Speaker 1: people who don't have like intergenerational wealth to be able
Speaker 1: to go to mommy and daddy and be like, hey,
Speaker 1: help me with my down payment. You know.
Speaker 3: So she does have specific plans, but I think.
Speaker 1: The deeper problem for her is just like people are
Speaker 1: unhappy now with how things are and the Democrats are
Speaker 1: in power.
Speaker 3: Like, it doesn't go deeper than that.
Speaker 1: And you know, I guess the flip side of this
Speaker 1: is we did just look at polling that says that
Speaker 1: voters in general trust her more on housing and the
Speaker 1: type of working class voter that you have overwhelmingly in
Speaker 1: Las Vegas and Nevada in general, tends to be the
Speaker 1: service sector workers who that's like the as Matt Carr
Speaker 1: called them, the quote unquote like democratic working class versus
Speaker 1: the like industrial and manufacturing hard hat type of workers,
Speaker 1: which is why Nevada has stayed in the Democratic camp
Speaker 1: for all these years, even as a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: the working class has realigned. So those would be some
Speaker 1: of the things that they're helpful about. But you know,
Speaker 1: I when you think about housing and how much the
Speaker 1: escalating prices have squeezed people, there is maybe no place
Speaker 1: in the country that has been harder hat hit then
Speaker 1: Las Vegas because they I don't know, if you guys
Speaker 1: remember after the Great Recession, massive housing bus there, you know,
Speaker 1: just utter devastation. Then you had all of this permanent
Speaker 1: capital come in and buy up a bunch of these homes,
Speaker 1: turn them into rentals, you know, jack up the prices.
Speaker 1: Then you had the brutal hit that they took or
Speaker 1: in particular during the pandemic, which meant that people's incomes
Speaker 1: were lower than they were before. Many of those people
Speaker 1: feel like they really never recovered from the hit the
Speaker 1: service sector took during the pandemic. So you have a
Speaker 1: lot of economic turmoil concentrated.
Speaker 3: Specifically in this state.
Speaker 1: And again, you know, you could talk about like and
Speaker 1: I did interview someone here who was like struggling with
Speaker 1: all of these things, but was like, I think Kamala
Speaker 1: is the person that would be better positioned turn these
Speaker 1: things around. So I'm sure that sentiment does exist among some.
Speaker 1: But if you've been dealt a rough hand over these
Speaker 1: past four years and it was Democrats in charge, you
Speaker 1: can see how that's a compelling argument on the Trump
Speaker 1: CACHEMPST A side.
Speaker 2: It gets to people. You know, when people are like, well, Calmo,
Speaker 2: when people took Comma more in housing, very few people
Speaker 2: are like I'm going to the ballot box because my
Speaker 2: ass is too expensive. They're like, well, housing makes me
Speaker 2: pissed off, and I'm pissed off, And that makes me
Speaker 2: distrust the party in power, right, So they don't think
Speaker 2: directly in terms of that, and that is you know,
Speaker 2: that's really comes down to the whole like vibe conversation,
Speaker 2: I do understand it, I really do, you know, for
Speaker 2: in terms of the frustration, especially in Nevada and in
Speaker 2: North Carolina too. We've talked here about Asheville and the
Speaker 2: explosion there. But you know, I always say Raleigh and
Speaker 2: Charlotte are two of the most booming cities in the
Speaker 2: United States. Atlanta, you know, Georgia today is a battleground. Atlanta.
Speaker 2: The amount of influx they've had from New York and
Speaker 2: from a lot of the East Coast is astounding in
Speaker 2: terms of the population change in Georgia, in the entire Sunbelt,
Speaker 2: you know, Florida included, we're talking about some of the
Speaker 2: biggest internal migration since World War Two that we've seen.
Speaker 2: So these places have changed dramatically in the last five years.
Speaker 2: Where I'm from Texas, you don't even recognize it. Austin
Speaker 2: in particular.
Speaker 1: So you know, there's almost like a reverse dynamic in
Speaker 1: the Montana Senate race, which is John Tester is the
Speaker 1: Democratic incomment and the most endangered Democratic incomment, most of
Speaker 1: the Poles seem to indicate like he's not going to
Speaker 1: hang out, but you never know his opponent. What's his name, Tim?
Speaker 2: She he yeah, she first name Tim.
Speaker 1: I'm making that up anyway, She Yeah, he got caught.
Speaker 3: We talked about this before. This has been on the
Speaker 3: record before.
Speaker 1: He claimed he had sustained like a war wound and
Speaker 1: been like shot in battle in Afghanistan, I think. And
Speaker 1: it turns out he shot himself accidentally in a national park,
Speaker 1: which we know because they had to file an incident
Speaker 1: report because you're not allowed to discharge a firearm in
Speaker 1: a national park. And the park ranger just came out
Speaker 1: and went on the record to be like, yeah, I
Speaker 1: was there, this is what happened. Like he did not,
Speaker 1: he was not wounded in battle. He shot himself when
Speaker 1: he was in a national park. So anyway, you never
Speaker 1: know what's gonna happen in that race. At the bottom line,
Speaker 1: But to get back to my original point about housing,
Speaker 1: Montana has seen.
Speaker 2: Oh huge, bows huge they call it bos Angelists or whatever.
Speaker 1: Huge influx, but it's largely conservatives who have moved into
Speaker 1: the state. And she he is one of those people
Speaker 1: who was part of the influx into the state. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, he frames this as like, listen, I wish
Speaker 1: I was born in Montana because I love Montana, but
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a business owner and creating job in
Speaker 1: the state blah blah blah. And Tester is who's you know,
Speaker 1: a long time born and raised as a Farmer's the
Speaker 1: big boys got you know, several fingers that he lost
Speaker 1: in like a farming accent.
Speaker 3: You know, he's legit.
Speaker 1: He's a legit Montana, which is why he is able
Speaker 1: to hand ont hang onto the state as long as
Speaker 1: he has. He's making the case of like these outsiders,
Speaker 1: like people who are from Montana really understand Montana, like
Speaker 1: they trust me, and that's why, you know, I'm going
Speaker 1: to represent your interests, and he represents all these people
Speaker 1: who are coming in and changing your way of life.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of an interesting like reverse dynamic going
Speaker 1: out there's interest.
Speaker 2: Yeah. By the way, I love Montana too.
Speaker 3: Never it's the only states I've never been to.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, I would like to go with Donovan. Beautiful.
Speaker 2: It is natural. Beauty wise, it's all up there with California.
Speaker 2: They have so many incredible national parks.
Speaker 1: I highly recommend it, but yeah, they don't shoot yourself
Speaker 1: at one of them.
Speaker 2: Sure. And the people there, though, I think they make
Speaker 2: it known they're like, stop coming here from California, We're
Speaker 2: sick of you. And they don't have like a million
Speaker 2: people who live there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it's like it's like because a lot of
Speaker 1: the people who transplant it there are like right wing
Speaker 1: California who are disgusted with the like liberal direction of this.
Speaker 2: So if I were them too, i'd be mad. You know,
Speaker 2: you live in this pristine wilderness and such great and
Speaker 2: you have all these rich people who come in and
Speaker 2: buy all the land. I know there's a lot of
Speaker 2: beef between like private landowners and hunters because it's long
Speaker 2: time been like.
Speaker 3: A big wells which I do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, exactly, And actually, if you look at the
Speaker 2: most desirable places in Montana, it has some of the
Speaker 2: most expensive real estate in the entire country. For those
Speaker 2: of you who also like trolls, Zillow and dream Book.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go and move on to this story
Speaker 1: that we just wanted to put on your radar because
Speaker 1: there are new charges that just dropped against three individuals
Speaker 1: associated with Abercrombie and Fitch. But the former CEO in particular,
Speaker 1: Michael Jeffries, has been charged along with his longtime partner
Speaker 1: Matthew Smith, and they're sort of enabler James Jacobson. Let's
Speaker 1: go and put this up on the screen from the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, they say in the headline, former CEO
Speaker 1: of Abercromie and Fitch and two others charged with sex
Speaker 1: traffic an interstate prostitution. Let me tell you the details
Speaker 1: here are as horrifying as you can imagine I'm going
Speaker 1: to summarize, but effectively, the allegations are that over decades
Speaker 1: these three ran a sex trafficking ring where effectively they
Speaker 1: would lure in these young, aspiring male models and promised them,
Speaker 1: you know, jobs with modeling with Abercrombie and Fitch, which
Speaker 1: is a big deal, you know for a model who's
Speaker 1: struggling and trying to make it. But they would hold
Speaker 1: out to them that in order to have all of
Speaker 1: these career prospects, they would need to engage in a
Speaker 1: variety of sex acts. Even beyond that, they would threaten
Speaker 1: them with ruining their career if they didn't comply. They
Speaker 1: required all of them to sign non disclosure agreements so
Speaker 1: that they felt like they couldn't possibly come forward saying anything.
Speaker 1: According to the indictment, on more than one occasion when
Speaker 1: men did not or could not consent, these men violated
Speaker 1: their bodily integrity by subjecting them or continuing to subject
Speaker 1: them to invasive, sexual and violent contact by body parts
Speaker 1: and other objects. Some of the other details here are
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just it's exactly what you imagine. These
Speaker 1: young men who are desperate, who are trying to make it,
Speaker 1: who are often financially incredibly stressed. This is the they think,
Speaker 1: this is like the make or break moment for them,
Speaker 1: and the first person they meet is this guy Jacobson,
Speaker 1: who apparently and a number of the men in a
Speaker 1: BBC investigation told a very similar story. Their first meeting
Speaker 1: would be with him and he would coerce them into
Speaker 1: oral sex and they would think, Okay, well that was horrible,
Speaker 1: but that's like it's probably just this one creep and
Speaker 1: I got past that. Now I have my opportunity to
Speaker 1: meet with the CEO. This is going to be where
Speaker 1: my modeling aspirations come to fruition. And then they go
Speaker 1: to one of these events and it's even what they're
Speaker 1: subjected to and forced into is even worse. And you know, Sager,
Speaker 1: is this an iconic brand, iconic brant. And we've been
Speaker 1: hearing some you know, like rumors about what was really
Speaker 1: going on there because I don't know. I'm obviously I'm
Speaker 1: significantly older than Saga. I remember when, like the catalog
Speaker 1: would come out for Abercrombie and Fitch, and even at
Speaker 1: the time, you'd be looking at it and are like,
Speaker 1: these people are not even wearing clothes like this all
Speaker 1: like naked men.
Speaker 3: What's going on here? How are they even?
Speaker 1: And that was their whole thing, and obviously from a
Speaker 1: financial perspective, they made a huge impact on the culture.
Speaker 1: There were a lot of allegations already about discrimination in
Speaker 1: terms of basically they wanted a specific like white, preppy
Speaker 1: look even for their sales associates in the stores.
Speaker 3: If you had if you were.
Speaker 1: Black or brown or you know, Muslim and wearing headscarf,
Speaker 1: that was not allowed at all. You weren't allowed to
Speaker 1: have dreadlocks like. They were very particular about and discriminatory
Speaker 1: and wanting this very specific look. But obviously the allegations
Speaker 1: here go far beyond what we had learned specifically from
Speaker 1: this like Abercrombie and Fitch documentary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, previously, the documentary gave a lot of this stuff
Speaker 2: away and the like you read from some of the indictment.
Speaker 2: We have it there. You should go read it for yourself.
Speaker 2: It is horrifying and honestly, the only thing I'm surprised
Speaker 2: is that it took a long time. And I do
Speaker 2: think it's important because what it does is it highlights
Speaker 2: like so much of the you know, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of nostalgia these days for the old days and like, oh,
Speaker 2: things were better in the nineties and the two thousands.
Speaker 2: By and large, I do mostly agree with that, but
Speaker 2: there was a dark side to the culture and to
Speaker 2: all of that. We actually have some of the testimony
Speaker 2: from some of these people. Let's go ahead and play
Speaker 2: D three please. You know that you're getting close. When
Speaker 2: the Dire hit with the smell of agricamy.
Speaker 1: Think that club beat and their chested guys.
Speaker 3: It was such a pop culture phenomenon.
Speaker 2: It was an all American look. I think he's I
Speaker 2: think he's a predator, and I don't think that's what
Speaker 2: the public has seen.
Speaker 4: I was overwhelmed, Like I mean, I've never seen anything
Speaker 4: like this what I'd.
Speaker 2: Like to talk about is being lied to, tricked and
Speaker 2: traded like a commodity.
Speaker 4: Me too has empowered women to speak out about sexual abuse.
Speaker 4: Now these men say they want to be heard too.
Speaker 2: I think it's rarely considered that men could be a
Speaker 2: victim of anything.
Speaker 4: They face a double stigma, and I don't think that
Speaker 4: men have quite had their me too movement.
Speaker 2: So you can see, you know, in terms of the
Speaker 2: testiment is terrible in terms of the way that they
Speaker 2: were treated, and there was definitely a lot of different
Speaker 2: way of discussion. I'm sure everybody's been seen on Netflix.
Speaker 2: This has all comes to light again from the Menendez case,
Speaker 2: you know, all the discussion around sexual assault and how
Speaker 2: it involves men in the way that cultural attitudes have
Speaker 2: shifted and changed around them. Because it does say something
Speaker 2: that this wasn't even taken seriously or investigated or thought
Speaker 2: about at the times. And I mean this was just
Speaker 2: the two thousands that earned nineteen nineties. They were obviously
Speaker 2: tried in the nineteen eighties, So it is certainly it's
Speaker 2: really sad. And what it does show us too was
Speaker 2: the way that they got away with that for so
Speaker 2: long inside the industry. And it was such an open secret.
Speaker 2: Were talked about Ditty yesterday, We've talked about Weinstein, and
Speaker 2: I think that's the part that really gets me, is
Speaker 2: about how open of the knowledge is and it's still
Speaker 2: allowed to perpetuate and worse, you know, there's just more victims. People.
Speaker 2: These are eighteen nineteen year old guys and you know,
Speaker 2: you don't even reason really awful stuff. But they also
Speaker 2: had to go through like it was they were getting
Speaker 2: forcibly injected, you know at some.
Speaker 3: Point exactly exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: One who was interview, who can put this BBC investigation
Speaker 1: up on the screen, said the experience, I think it
Speaker 1: broke me. I think this stole any ounce of innocence
Speaker 1: I had left. It mentally messed me up. But with
Speaker 1: the language I now have today, I can sit here
Speaker 1: and tell you I was taken advantage of it. And
Speaker 1: I think even today, yeah, it takes a lot of
Speaker 1: courage to come forward against Actually I think as a
Speaker 1: man and say, you know, I was raped, I was assaulted,
Speaker 1: I was taken advantage of And I.
Speaker 3: Was thinking the same as you.
Speaker 1: Sagur like Diddy ran that allegedly ran this criminal enterprise
Speaker 1: where you know, similar levels of threats, coercion, similar promises
Speaker 1: of like, hey baby, this is going to make your career.
Speaker 1: My friend Torre reported on R and B singer Cassie
Speaker 1: who was in that horrible video being beaten and dragged
Speaker 1: in a hotel hallway. He put on Ice her album
Speaker 1: for like a decade just to sort of string her
Speaker 1: along of like, oh, you know, of course it's coming.
Speaker 1: Of course it's going to be great, and stole from
Speaker 1: her so much. Obviously, you know, the abuse is horrifying,
Speaker 1: but also he stole from her the prime years of
Speaker 1: her career. And you see a similar dynamic here where
Speaker 1: you've got these three men who were saying to these
Speaker 1: young guys like I hold the keys to the kingdom
Speaker 1: and just do what I want you to do and
Speaker 1: it's all going to be fine, and using that position
Speaker 1: power to enable.
Speaker 3: Decades and decades of abuse.
Speaker 1: Very similar thing with Harvey Weinstein, right, very similar thing
Speaker 1: where you know, yeah, the casting couch, right, you come in,
Speaker 1: you do what I want you to do, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to put you in a movie. And if you don't,
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm going to ruin your life. And
Speaker 1: I have the level of power that can make that
Speaker 1: happen also say, did you watch the Nickelodeon documentary.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, I will come of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah they didn't.
Speaker 1: They alluded to and there were some specific things that
Speaker 1: happened there in terms of like sexual abuse of these kids.
Speaker 1: But again it's like, hey, this is kid Central. Your
Speaker 1: kid is going to be a star, they're going to
Speaker 1: be famous, your family's going to be fine using that
Speaker 1: position of power, and also reminded me, of course of
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, who part of how he would more in
Speaker 1: young girls is through his association with Les Wexner, who
Speaker 1: was with Victoria's Secret, and he held himself out as
Speaker 1: I'm a modeling agent, and you know, I'm scouting these girls,
Speaker 1: and that was part of how they were. The modeling
Speaker 1: industry just seems to be an absolute cesspool. But so
Speaker 1: many of these industries where you have a massive disparity
Speaker 1: between the power, the people the top and the aspirants
Speaker 1: who want to get who are so desperate to get
Speaker 1: in this industry, so desperate to make it, et cetera,
Speaker 1: it just makes it rife, rife for abuse. And that's
Speaker 1: really the portrait that emerges here. Certainly, we wanted to
Speaker 1: highlight for you, some of the latest horrors coming out
Speaker 1: of the Middle East. So this was actually a video
Speaker 1: that was highlighted by a Congressman, Thomas mass So you
Speaker 1: could put this up on the screen. This is an
Speaker 1: apartment building being just completely demolished by Israel in Beirut,
Speaker 1: in Lebanon, and Massey said, along with this video, who's
Speaker 1: a Republican, Who's like the only Republican who said anything
Speaker 1: reasonable on this conflict in my view in terms.
Speaker 3: Of elected officials.
Speaker 1: Quote, if Israel insists on destroying civilian targets in Lebanon,
Speaker 1: let them buy and build their own weapons. American taxpayer
Speaker 1: shouldn't be funding this. So this is not in Gaza.
Speaker 1: This is in Lebanon, in a major city where they
Speaker 1: are just utterly destroying a massive apartment building there. At
Speaker 1: the same time, you know, the IDEAF had put out
Speaker 1: this propaganda video we talked about before, which alleged that
Speaker 1: Hasbela had a bunch of their financial assets that were
Speaker 1: hidden under a hospital. It's very, eaerily reminiscent of some
Speaker 1: of the propaganda videos that they had put out in
Speaker 1: advance of attacking hospitals in Gaza.
Speaker 3: So we were all, well, here we go again.
Speaker 1: You know, this is just their attempt to justify yet
Speaker 1: another assault on another country's medical system. But one thing
Speaker 1: that's different in Lebanon, unlike Gaza, is that you have access.
Speaker 1: Journalists have access to be able to actually go to
Speaker 1: the hospital and look around and say, Okay, well is
Speaker 1: it true what they're saying and TLDR No, it was.
Speaker 3: A total lie.
Speaker 1: Here is the BBC underneath said hospital where supposedly the
Speaker 1: evil layer existed. Finding absolutely nothing.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look at that.
Speaker 5: Well, we're on level minus two in the Al Sahell Hospital.
Speaker 5: The area just behind me is where medical waste is stored.
Speaker 5: Even that was opened up for us to have a look.
Speaker 5: The morgue was opened up, all of the drawers were
Speaker 5: opened to show us there was nothing inside. Doctors have
Speaker 5: been opening piles of surgical scrubs, boxes of equipment, very
Speaker 5: very keen to show us everything there is to see
Speaker 5: and to prove that there is nothing here. Well, I'm
Speaker 5: just coming now from the basement on minus two up
Speaker 5: to minus one. We've been brought around the hospital by doctors.
Speaker 2: We've also been.
Speaker 5: Allowed to move around on our own. Doors have been
Speaker 5: opened for us in every area. Copboards we've been allowed
Speaker 5: to see what there is to see now. The hospital
Speaker 5: staff are adamant that there is no hidden bonker here
Speaker 5: containing millions of dollars of cash or gold, as the
Speaker 5: Israelis have claimed. They say, this is just a hospital
Speaker 5: where patients were being treated last night and where they
Speaker 5: had to be evacuated from the emergency area at great
Speaker 5: speed because doctors were worried for the lives of the
Speaker 5: patients and also worried for the staff.
Speaker 1: So, in addition to obviously the significance of just exposing
Speaker 1: this was not shockingly a total incomplete fabrication and lie,
Speaker 1: I think Sara also shows something that Israel has known
Speaker 1: because they have launched all that assault on journalists and
Speaker 1: journalism since the post October seventh. Then many would say
Speaker 1: even before it really matters to have journalists have access
Speaker 1: to the war zone to be able to adjudicate, like, Okay,
Speaker 1: they're saying this, let's go check it out. And in
Speaker 1: Gaza access has been almost completely closed off. Any sort
Speaker 1: of Western outlet that wants to go in has to
Speaker 1: abide by all of the IDF's rules. They have to
Speaker 1: be invited in. Yeah, they have to be subject to
Speaker 1: that censorship. They get taken on basically like a guided
Speaker 1: tour of the things the IDF wants them to see.
Speaker 1: And the only outfit that you know, outsider outfit that
Speaker 1: has been able to have any access is Al Jazeera,
Speaker 1: which Israel has accused of being hamas has stripped their
Speaker 1: broadcast licenses, you know, seized their equipment and raided their
Speaker 1: office and shut them down. And I think, you know,
Speaker 1: this little piece of journalism from the BBC exposes why
Speaker 1: they have seen that independent that journalism as such a
Speaker 1: threat to the project of annihilation that they're engaged in.
Speaker 2: The journalism piece is really important and that's actually it's
Speaker 2: funny because in the idea they like, go look at
Speaker 2: it for yourself, and then they did and they're like, well,
Speaker 2: that's kind of an issue for you. But I mean
Speaker 2: part of the issue is also that even though they
Speaker 2: have the access, that our outlets are still not going there.
Speaker 2: It's coming from the BBC, right, But I haven't seen
Speaker 2: any of this in art. I mean, I get it,
Speaker 2: we're twelve days from election. You know, there's a lot,
Speaker 2: but it is important if you're gonna check these ts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, And to the point about the all one
Speaker 1: assault on journalism. Their latest effort, that Israeli's latest effort.
Speaker 1: We can put E four up on the screen. They've
Speaker 1: accused these six Al Jazeera journalists of being hamas terrorists.
Speaker 1: Put E five up on the screen. Of course, Al
Speaker 1: Jazeera strenuously denies this, and this comes in the context
Speaker 1: of you know, I don't even know how many journalists
Speaker 1: they've killed in Gaza at this point. As I said,
Speaker 1: Al Jazeera says this was fabricated evidence.
Speaker 3: As I said before, you.
Speaker 1: Know, Al Jazeera's they're really the only outlet that has
Speaker 1: been able to operate, So they're the only ones who
Speaker 1: have been able to you know, go into hospitals, to
Speaker 1: go to the site of these massacres, to really report
Speaker 1: on the ground what is happening. And a number of
Speaker 1: their reporters have already been killed by Israel in the
Speaker 1: context of trying to report on this war. So New
Speaker 1: York Times Rights the channel's correspondence are some of the
Speaker 1: few remaining reporters on the ground in Gaza to document
Speaker 1: the devastating impact of Israel's operations there. Israel has largely
Speaker 1: barred the international press. Again, this is from the New
Speaker 1: York Times from entering the enclave except on closely monitored
Speaker 1: tours accompanied by the Israeli military. Al Jazeera called the
Speaker 1: accusations a blatant attempt to silence the few remaining journalists
Speaker 1: in the region, there by obscuring the harsh realities of
Speaker 1: the war from audiences worldwide. And I would just say, listen, obviously,
Speaker 1: I think these charges are total, incomplete.
Speaker 3: Bullshit, completely made up.
Speaker 1: You know, they've offered they made up the whole unra
Speaker 1: these are terrorist thing. They never provided the evidence that
Speaker 1: they said that we're going to back up those claims,
Speaker 1: that there's no reason whatsoever to take the Israeli government
Speaker 1: at face value with this. But I would also say, hey,
Speaker 1: if you don't like these journalists, open it up so
Speaker 1: that any outlet can go in and report. If it's
Speaker 1: going to be so validating to you of how what
Speaker 1: a moral army you are and how great the situation
Speaker 1: is on the ground, why don't you let in more
Speaker 1: journalists to be able to actually report on the war
Speaker 1: and your efforts as it exists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point. Can we go to the
Speaker 2: next part you found this? I found it so interesting
Speaker 2: about the realignment that's currently happening. Iran is saying that
Speaker 2: it's planning to hold its first joint military drills with
Speaker 2: Saudi's in the Red Sea. And this really goes counter
Speaker 2: to the entire theory of the Middle East that the
Speaker 2: Trump administration had going into the Abraham Accords, which was
Speaker 2: to consolidate the Emirates and the Gulf powers against Iran,
Speaker 2: but through normalization of relations with Israel. But what's happened
Speaker 2: instead is that now the Palestinian question has been forced
Speaker 2: so much to the front, especially with the Arab populations,
Speaker 2: that they're finding themselves aligned against Israel and obviously also
Speaker 2: against the United States, which is this predominant backer. So
Speaker 2: the first time here, I mean to see two armies
Speaker 2: first military drills. Somebody showed me this. The Ayatola when
Speaker 2: he died, in his last rule and testament, included this
Speaker 2: whole thing about how the House of Saud was evil
Speaker 2: and how it needs to be regime changed. I mean,
Speaker 2: these were you know, blood, This is a true blood feud,
Speaker 2: not to mention the entire religious dynamic of Sunni and Shia.
Speaker 2: So to see this happening is absolutely extraordinary, and it's
Speaker 2: one of those where you know, look the entire region
Speaker 2: is really aligning against us, and you should ask yourself
Speaker 2: for what you know. This isn't even for Iraq war.
Speaker 2: This is for our conflict that we're not even in. But
Speaker 2: we're funding the entire thing and it's causing a huge
Speaker 2: amount of blowbacks, so I think we are going to
Speaker 2: pay for it sometimes.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, this is literally the first time this has ever happened,
Speaker 1: and it should also go not go unnoted that this
Speaker 1: was a deal brokered by China. So you know, as
Speaker 1: the region is aligning around the Palestinian question against US
Speaker 1: and Israel, it's you know, China that is serving the
Speaker 1: rule as diplomats and peacemakers amongst these longtime enemies. So
Speaker 1: definitely extraordinary development worth keeping an eye on. At the
Speaker 1: same time, we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: You had, I mean, this is just too perfect. So
Speaker 1: you had Tony Blincoln questioning bb net Naho about this
Speaker 1: quote unquote general's plan, which is basically, we're going to
Speaker 1: seal off northern Gaza, We're to starve everybody that's inside,
Speaker 1: and we're just going to assume that they're all Hamas militants.
Speaker 3: Blincoln question that Nawho about this, US.
Speaker 1: Officials told Bibe, there is a perception that Israel's pursuing
Speaker 1: a strategy of isolating the North, telling people that if
Speaker 1: they don't leave their effectively targets and denying food to
Speaker 1: go in Bib in his Top eight ron. Drmer responded
Speaker 1: that this was absolutely not our policy, and the fact
Speaker 1: that this perception exists has been deeply damaging to US.
Speaker 1: US officials then said, okay, so why don't you go
Speaker 1: out and say that publicly, But the Israelis refused to
Speaker 1: make such a commitment.
Speaker 3: Which you know, it just shows you behind closed doors. Oh,
Speaker 3: of course not.
Speaker 1: We would never do that. We can all see the
Speaker 1: reports that are coming out. They are literally executing exactly
Speaker 1: what is described in the General's plan, and so privately
Speaker 1: they'll reassure you us, no, no, we're not doing that whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Of course not, we would never do that. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: we'll go out and say that publicly. Yeah, not going
Speaker 1: to do that, because number one, we actually that is
Speaker 1: actually our plan, and number two, this is popular with
Speaker 1: our political base in particular, and so no, we're not
Speaker 1: going to go out and tell our political base that
Speaker 1: we're not doing the thing that they want us to do,
Speaker 1: you know, just to as an indication of the reality
Speaker 1: of this plan being implemented in Northern Gaza. We can
Speaker 1: put this scene up on the screen.
Speaker 5: This is a.
Speaker 1: Breadline people desperately, desperately scrapping to try to get a
Speaker 1: loaf of bread. Such as the level of desperation that
Speaker 1: has taken hold around Kaza, but in Northern Gaza in particular,
Speaker 1: where now I just saw this morning. Even the Israelis
Speaker 1: are acknowledging that no food aid, no aid entered Northern
Speaker 1: Gaza for weeks in early October. They are acknowledging basically
Speaker 1: that they, you know, have blocked aid, something that our
Speaker 1: administration has pretended to not be able to figure out
Speaker 1: whether or not they're doing. We also know that there's
Speaker 1: been we played for you in the last show, the
Speaker 1: forced you might call it a death march, evacuation of
Speaker 1: Northern Gaza.
Speaker 3: Once again.
Speaker 1: We also know that some of the people who have
Speaker 1: tried to evacuate Northern Gaza have been shot at and
Speaker 1: times killed. So you know, this is the reality of
Speaker 1: the policy that our government is funding and supporting and
Speaker 1: pretending to have no idea.
Speaker 3: What's going on? Yeah, all right, Sager? What are you
Speaker 3: looking at.
Speaker 2: One of the weird parts about doing this job is
Speaker 2: every once in a while someone will come up to
Speaker 2: me and ask how should I vote. I usually answer
Speaker 2: it in the same way, well what do you care
Speaker 2: the most about? Sometimes the answer is staying out of war.
Speaker 2: Sometimes it's a rich person they say, I don't want
Speaker 2: to pay any taxes. Sometimes as a service worker wants healthcare.
Speaker 2: Based on that, I interrogated a bit more, and I go, well,
Speaker 2: can you with what can't you what are the best
Speaker 2: chances of actually happening that you do care about. It's
Speaker 2: a very useful exercise. I noticed a lot of people
Speaker 2: don't actually do it. For example, we recently played a
Speaker 2: clip of someone asking Trump how he was going to
Speaker 2: improve the quality of his kids' school in New York City. Now,
Speaker 2: I understand it was probably bigger than that, but many
Speaker 2: people just appear not to know about ninety five percent
Speaker 2: of that control is state and local. Or you're going
Speaker 2: to see other voters quote on the cost of groceries
Speaker 2: with a very vague understanding how can the president even
Speaker 2: affect that? So I thought I would do a monologue
Speaker 2: here about my theories of the American presidency. The varying
Speaker 2: degrees of things that actually they control. Let's start with
Speaker 2: arguably the most important issue, least often considered, war and peace.
Speaker 2: The president's commander in chief has near absolute power to
Speaker 2: decide the fate of our nation through his or her
Speaker 2: conduct of foreign policy. While they cannot declare war, the
Speaker 2: imperial presidency has evolved since the time of LBJ and
Speaker 2: George W. Bush gives them the authority to launch literal
Speaker 2: missile strikes on foreign nations even without a declared war
Speaker 2: by Congress. When Trump says it is okay, for example,
Speaker 2: for Israel to launch missile strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities,
Speaker 2: or Kamala says Ukrainian victory is a necessity for US security,
Speaker 2: you should very clearly understand they are one hundred percent
Speaker 2: ability to follow through and directly impact your life. Now,
Speaker 2: outside of foreign policy, it's very different, especially on the economy.
Speaker 2: We can divide economic impact of the presidency into two areas,
Speaker 2: those that require agencies and those that require legislation. Most
Speaker 2: of the high profile things that you hear from Trump
Speaker 2: and from Kamala, like no tax on tips or housing subsidies,
Speaker 2: would not be something they can do on their own.
Speaker 2: It would require Congress, which we will return to. In reality,
Speaker 2: especially if there is a divided government, you should look
Speaker 2: to agency power. This is where both can have tremendous impact.
Speaker 2: For example, through the EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the FTC,
Speaker 2: as we've seen under Lena Khan, the Anti Trust Division
Speaker 2: of the Department of Justice, they make rulings that massively
Speaker 2: impact the US economy, but only within the scope of
Speaker 2: defined responsibility. Ironically, their power has actually been lessened for
Speaker 2: both presidents, especially Trump after the repeal of the Chevron
Speaker 2: doctrine by the Supreme Court. But nonetheless, through agency power
Speaker 2: they can affect the price of oil, whether new things
Speaker 2: get approved for building, perhaps most importantly, tariffs within a
Speaker 2: very defined scope. It would take Congress for Trump or
Speaker 2: Kamala to have an across the board tariff as he's proposed,
Speaker 2: but Commerce Department, under National Security designations can implement some
Speaker 2: tariff to the tune of hundreds of billions on select
Speaker 2: items without Congressional input. But I want to point out
Speaker 2: there are still some major limits to this. Back in
Speaker 2: the Trump years when I covered the White House, he
Speaker 2: tried very different things to try and divert from from
Speaker 2: the Pentagon to build the border wall. It had huge
Speaker 2: legal hurdles it had to jump through. In the end,
Speaker 2: it mostly just didn't work. At one point, it set
Speaker 2: up a showdown between Trump and Congress. They ended up
Speaker 2: losing to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Now on the
Speaker 2: congressional front, it's actually pretty simple. The likelihood of some
Speaker 2: major flagship items touted by Trump and Kamala have very
Speaker 2: little chance of passage. If Kamala actually did win, she
Speaker 2: would almost certainly have at least one Chamber of Congress
Speaker 2: that was Republican, meaning that when the tax cuts and
Speaker 2: jobzax expires in twenty twenty five, what they would have
Speaker 2: a say over what replaces it. From Democrats that I've
Speaker 2: spoken to, the bargain that will most likely happen is
Speaker 2: this Republicans would get an extension of corporate and income
Speaker 2: tax bracket reductions, while Democrats would get some version of
Speaker 2: a child tax credit that in and of itself, of course,
Speaker 2: would be a big bardain, But most of the rest
Speaker 2: of her so called plan is probably just dead on
Speaker 2: arrival for Trump, even if he had United government, I
Speaker 2: do not see a world where a majority of the
Speaker 2: Republicans would back no tax on tips, and certainly not
Speaker 2: no tax on social security benefits. In all likelihood, what
Speaker 2: would pass is an extension of the tax cuts from
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen, in addition to probably some big business friendly
Speaker 2: tax cruts and perhaps some deficit offset by repealing environmental
Speaker 2: tax credits passed by the Biden administration. So if you
Speaker 2: were majorly affected by any of those policies, and they're
Speaker 2: the most important for you, you need to very heavily
Speaker 2: consider that when you're voting. Turning to immigration, this is
Speaker 2: another area where the president both has major control and
Speaker 2: is also very limited. Now, as we saw under Biden,
Speaker 2: interpretation of executive authority can allow literally millions of illegals
Speaker 2: to come into the country. At the same time, under
Speaker 2: Trump we saw very similar problems with border crossings, and
Speaker 2: it was only quelled by a remain in Mexico which
Speaker 2: did not address the underlying problem of asylum law and
Speaker 2: processing issues that border patrol has. The only way I
Speaker 2: see the immigration question majorly affected under Trump or Kamm
Speaker 2: Law is again with congressional action of literally rewriting laws,
Speaker 2: which can only happen with the United Government otherwise when
Speaker 2: it's divided. The likelihood of a grand compromise is very
Speaker 2: low because of a theory called thermostatic public opinion. This
Speaker 2: theory basically says that when the left is in power,
Speaker 2: the country moves right. When the right is in power,
Speaker 2: the country moves left. In other words, on immigration, you
Speaker 2: should understand the likelihood of what you were voting for
Speaker 2: is interpretation of today's immigration laws, not some pie in
Speaker 2: the sky vision that people are selling you. And finally,
Speaker 2: and potentially, the biggest impact outside of war the president
Speaker 2: has control over is the Supreme Court. Trump of course,
Speaker 2: appointed three justices on the US Supreme Court while he
Speaker 2: was in office. If he were to assume office again,
Speaker 2: it is a safe bet Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas
Speaker 2: would resign, giving the Conservatives a decades long solid majority
Speaker 2: on the Court. This would have impacts of interpretations from
Speaker 2: law in social to economic. Conversely, if Kamala won, the
Speaker 2: actuarial tables tell us she'll probably have at least one
Speaker 2: appointment right, and thus could change the makeup of the
Speaker 2: court in the long run. It's not a sexy thing
Speaker 2: to think about, but the impact is gigantic, and it
Speaker 2: is worth considering both of these. If you are going
Speaker 2: to vote. So I will end with this general heuristic
Speaker 2: of whatever issue that you care about, be real with yourself.
Speaker 2: Ask yourself, does the president actually have the ability to
Speaker 2: control this? And then what judgment you think that they
Speaker 2: would use for it If they can't control it, Ask
Speaker 2: yourself with the likelihood of what you want happening will
Speaker 2: get through Congress. Yeah, I know it's depressing, but it's
Speaker 2: better you should be clear eyed about what you're voting
Speaker 2: for rather than to vote and then get disappointed. Finally,
Speaker 2: I'll just say this, it doesn't have to be this way.
Speaker 2: My favorite presidents are these who have transcended the dynamic
Speaker 2: I just laid out. They actually forced Washington in the
Speaker 2: country to really move with them. FDR is one of
Speaker 2: the best presents, specifically because he harnessed the power of
Speaker 2: the executive and public popularity to force Congress to radically
Speaker 2: shift America's relationship with government. Teddy Roosevelt was the very
Speaker 2: first to do so. He took a job that mostly
Speaker 2: only had power over foreign affairs and war and turned
Speaker 2: himself into a real public advocate changed the country forever.
Speaker 2: LBJ inherited a job that, again it was stuck almost
Speaker 2: entirely in the realm of just the Cold War used
Speaker 2: the force of power at expertise to push through massive
Speaker 2: social legislation that had not been seen in one hundred years.
Speaker 2: In both cases, I'm sorry to tell you I don't
Speaker 2: see much of that on the ballot today. My expectations
Speaker 2: are set very much accordingly. I hope this helps you
Speaker 2: if you're considering how to vote. I do hoop. Do
Speaker 2: hope that you will still participate, because if you don't,
Speaker 2: the likelihood of things getting even better they're still not
Speaker 2: that high. So there you go, Crystal. That's my heuristic,
Speaker 2: the guy asked, And if
Speaker 1: You want to hear my reaction to Sagres's monologue, become
Speaker 1: a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.