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 3: Everything.
Speaker 4: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 4: for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do.
Speaker 1: We have the very latest everything we know about that
Speaker 1: crazy situation in Russia that we covered with breaking news
Speaker 1: over the weekends. We'll break that down for you. We
Speaker 1: also have the White House getting pressed on new revelations
Speaker 1: about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden potentially involved in business
Speaker 1: deals that as something that he swore had never happened,
Speaker 1: So we'll tell you all about that. We've got some
Speaker 1: new polling, both in the Republican primary and also for
Speaker 1: the general election, both of which are very interesting. As
Speaker 1: Trump and Christie a bunch of others went to this
Speaker 1: Faith and Freedom conference that was here in DC. So
Speaker 1: we've got some highlights from that, a horrific training realment.
Speaker 1: It looks like what happened in Yellowstone is that a
Speaker 1: bridge actually collapsed, spilling a bunch of toxic chemicals into
Speaker 1: a river there. So we'll break down for you everything
Speaker 1: we know there. And this one we had to give
Speaker 1: you the final update on this, the submersible that apparently imploded,
Speaker 1: killing everyone on board. Well turns out that the Navy
Speaker 1: knew that it had imploded from the beginning, didn't bother
Speaker 1: to share with anyone, didn't tell the family either.
Speaker 5: So we have those details for you.
Speaker 1: Also excited to get a report from the ground in
Speaker 1: Moscow about exactly what it was like to live through this.
Speaker 1: You aborted coup over the weekend where there were the
Speaker 1: Wagner group was marching towards Moscow, got with it in
Speaker 1: two hundred kilometers. So we're going to have our friend
Speaker 1: Yegor Kotkin on to talk about all of that.
Speaker 5: But before we get.
Speaker 1: To any of that, Sager, Yes, we have a situation
Speaker 1: unfolding here for breaking points, which is that Sager is
Speaker 1: leaving after tomorrow's show for India for the first of
Speaker 1: two wedding ceremonies with your grandparents and relatives there first
Speaker 1: one and we are tantalizingly close to a million subs.
Speaker 1: Do you have the official count this morning?
Speaker 4: Go ahead and pull out.
Speaker 2: The official count as of right now is nine hundred
Speaker 2: and ninety seven, seven hundred and twenty eight at the
Speaker 2: exact moment of this reading.
Speaker 1: So now, my friend, it is my understanding that you
Speaker 1: have made an ill advised deal.
Speaker 4: I've decided.
Speaker 1: I decided if we get to a million subs before
Speaker 1: you leave for the first.
Speaker 2: Of several wedding initial impassioned wedding gift. You know, the
Speaker 2: good natured plea did not work. So here's what I've
Speaker 2: decided to do. If if we hit one million by
Speaker 2: tomorrow Tuesday, at the end of the day, I'll cut
Speaker 2: it off. I'll even be generous and say I cut
Speaker 2: it off at the end of Tuesday it's only two
Speaker 2: thousand some subs. I will do the show in full
Speaker 2: Indian dress garb, which I will purchase specially in India
Speaker 2: while I am over there, the full regalia, and I
Speaker 2: will wear sneakers. So that's the deal that I'm willing
Speaker 2: to do.
Speaker 5: I sort of feel like it should be by tomorrow end.
Speaker 2: Of show maybe, because what do you.
Speaker 5: Think, because you're going to be like on a plane.
Speaker 4: That's true over the Atlantic, it's a night flight.
Speaker 2: All that time.
Speaker 5: Okay, so you're not leaving till the evening.
Speaker 2: I think it's like a ten o'clock no, maybe a
Speaker 2: nine o'clock flight something like that.
Speaker 4: So I'll know by the time I take off whether
Speaker 4: we hit it.
Speaker 1: All right, I think we should make the deadline before
Speaker 1: your nine o'clock flights, while you're still in country.
Speaker 5: We have to hit a million.
Speaker 4: Sucks there you go, all right? I feel like touching Americans.
Speaker 1: I feel like Emily would kind of low key enjoy
Speaker 1: being in your spot, and you're like still in valor moment.
Speaker 4: You know, we're in a beneficial position.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'll save some of the sappiness, but you know,
Speaker 2: we are in a very unique and amazing position, Crystal
Speaker 2: of We already built one channel to a million, and
Speaker 2: this is the second one, which is not something a
Speaker 2: lot of people can say that they've done, and not
Speaker 2: something that people a lot of people will get the
Speaker 2: satisfaction of hitting twice. So the fact that we are
Speaker 2: even getting close to hitting it twice is something that
Speaker 2: I'm very proud of the two of us are our
Speaker 2: entire team for you and.
Speaker 1: Pulling that off, well, I have to say, yeah, we'll
Speaker 1: save the roses until we won't count our chickens here
Speaker 1: until they're hatch because you never know, its could still
Speaker 1: go sideways. But it'll mean a lot more this plaque
Speaker 1: than the last one because you know that was with
Speaker 1: the help of a whole corporate entity and being on
Speaker 1: like the corporate algorithm and all that stuff.
Speaker 5: This one to build from.
Speaker 1: Scratch, from literally subscriber zero on our own'll that'll be
Speaker 1: really special.
Speaker 5: So absolutely excited. Help us get their guys.
Speaker 1: Hit the subscribe button and you know, send Sager off,
Speaker 1: hit subscribe away.
Speaker 2: Some people are getting their family members to do it.
Speaker 4: I'm not encouraging that.
Speaker 5: I'm just saying I'm encouraging it.
Speaker 2: Some people are also creating fake Gmail accounts.
Speaker 4: It is what it is.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to sit here and violate terms of service.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying that's what I have heard of others
Speaker 2: are doing. Anyway, we love you premium subs in particular.
Speaker 2: I know a lot of you aren't even sub because
Speaker 2: we send you the show.
Speaker 4: So just hit the subscribe button for us.
Speaker 5: That's a good point.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, let's go ahead and get to the
Speaker 2: actual news, of which you know, we both didn't sleep
Speaker 2: very much over the weekend, captivated by this ongoing short
Speaker 2: aborted coup in Russia.
Speaker 4: Let's gohea and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: We want to give everybody the final details, or at
Speaker 2: least the interim details of what we know so far
Speaker 2: as why you have Getty progoes in the head of
Speaker 2: the Wagner group decided to abort his crew after coming
Speaker 2: so close to Moscow and seemingly facing very little resistance.
Speaker 2: The Kremlin spokesperson Dmitri Peskov says, quote, there have been
Speaker 2: charges now dropped against Pregosen.
Speaker 4: He will now leave Russia for Belarus.
Speaker 2: Wagner fighters who did not take part in the uprising
Speaker 2: will have to sign contracts with the Ministry of Defense
Speaker 2: and transfer their authority over to the Russian military. Wagner
Speaker 2: fighters who did take part will not be charged criminally.
Speaker 2: There is not currently any word on potential mood leadership changes.
Speaker 2: What he means by that, Crystal is that the initial
Speaker 2: claim of if getting Progosen was that they have to
Speaker 2: have changes at the top of the Defense ministry and
Speaker 2: that Sergei Shogu, who is the Defense Minister himself, needed
Speaker 2: to resign and be kicked out. Well, there has already
Speaker 2: been now a show of strength from Shogu and from
Speaker 2: Moscow since the beginning and the end of this aborded coup.
Speaker 2: Shogu made his very first public appearance actually last night
Speaker 2: inside of occupied Ukraine. So that was a message is
Speaker 2: not getting fired yet. He is living, to tell you know,
Speaker 2: lives another day for now. Asked for Progozen, well, we
Speaker 2: don't really know where the hell he is. We had
Speaker 2: some video. This is the last public sighting. Guys, let's
Speaker 2: go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is actually Pregosian leaving to cheers and an adulating
Speaker 2: crowd giving high fives and more of the city of
Speaker 2: rostov on Don. Rostov on Don is the city of
Speaker 2: one million, the logistical hub for the Russian military and
Speaker 2: his very close to the Ukrainian border. One of the
Speaker 2: most strategic and important towns, which Progosian was able to
Speaker 2: take with no resistance, barely any shots fired. The total
Speaker 2: death toll, look, you know, nobody knows the exact count,
Speaker 2: but The official count, at least for now, is only
Speaker 2: fifteen people. That's actually less than the twenty sixteen coup
Speaker 2: against Erdowan in Turkey, and makes this, you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: for a coup that captivated the world, had nuclear weapons
Speaker 2: and all that at stake, fifteen people dying is extraordinarily low.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, it's less than us probably a
Speaker 2: single hour or whatever on the front line inside of Ukraine.
Speaker 2: And so we were left in this very bizarre situation.
Speaker 2: What was ye of getting Progosian doing? Were his complaints
Speaker 2: against the Russian Ministry of Defense even legitimate? It doesn't
Speaker 2: appear that some of them were. It appears that some
Speaker 2: of them were, some of them were lies, some of
Speaker 2: them were.
Speaker 4: Why did he call.
Speaker 2: It off so close in twenty four hours? It seems,
Speaker 2: you know, in the update that you gave that the
Speaker 2: belo Russian president Lukashenko appears to be the guy who
Speaker 2: was able to brok her this deal. What does this
Speaker 2: mean for Putin and his strength? So we're left with
Speaker 2: just tons of questions. Yeah, we're an extremely bizarre event.
Speaker 1: We are starting to get more of a picture too
Speaker 1: of what precipitated this, you know, stunning turn of events.
Speaker 1: Part of what happened just before this is the Ministry
Speaker 1: of Defense was already putting pressure on the Wagner Group
Speaker 1: to try to rein them in forcing new recruits to
Speaker 1: sign contracts with the Ministry of Defense directly, so that
Speaker 1: was going to deny the Wagner Group new recruits. You know,
Speaker 1: to read the tea leaves a little bit, and so
Speaker 1: much of this is conjecture, and you know, none of
Speaker 1: it is it's.
Speaker 5: Very there's very little you can actually really rely on.
Speaker 1: But the expectation is that's part of what precipitated this
Speaker 1: and sort of pushed Pregosin to the edge because he
Speaker 1: was having his base of power undercut.
Speaker 5: So it was like kind of an hour and never moment.
Speaker 1: Also very hard to say what led to him then
Speaker 1: coming so close to Moscow and then backing down. There
Speaker 1: are some rumors that his family was being threatened and
Speaker 1: that was part of what pressure was being put to
Speaker 1: bear on him to come to some sort of a deal.
Speaker 5: And then the other.
Speaker 1: Piece of this is yeah, Shoygu you know, still in
Speaker 1: place as of today. It would have been just far
Speaker 1: too humiliating, I think for Putin to just bend to
Speaker 1: the whims and desires of this rogue head of a
Speaker 1: mercenary army. The big question everyone has is, if you're Progsion,
Speaker 1: how can you trust the assurances that your life is
Speaker 1: going to be fine, that family's life is going to
Speaker 1: be fine, that you're not going to be arrested, that
Speaker 1: you're going to be able to live out the rest
Speaker 1: of your days, all of that. You know, I'm sure
Speaker 1: he probably has a lot of question marks in his
Speaker 1: mind about that.
Speaker 6: Jogu.
Speaker 2: You should start planting a garden, and you should start
Speaker 2: an only eating out of that, and you should avoid windows.
Speaker 2: You should only stay in first story buildings. And if
Speaker 2: I were you, I would get my ass on a
Speaker 2: plane and go to Switzerland, so literally anywhere else on
Speaker 2: Earth outside of the Russian orbit, on top of everybody
Speaker 2: who you have ever known and worked for, including like
Speaker 2: your dog walker or whatever, because they will kill them
Speaker 2: as evidence.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: The issue I think that they have right now is
Speaker 2: that in terms of putin, there is just no getting
Speaker 2: around how humiliating with this is. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. These are images which you know
Speaker 2: you just simply can't get away from inside of Russia.
Speaker 2: On the right, you know, for those who are watching,
Speaker 2: we have literally like aircraft that were set on fire,
Speaker 2: and you know, the chairman of the Committee of the
Speaker 2: Russian Defense says, oh, well, they didn't offend anyone, and
Speaker 2: they didn't break anything. Is complete lies, and everyone inside
Speaker 2: of Russia knows it's a lie, because at this point,
Speaker 2: even inside Russia, the social media is circulating in.
Speaker 4: Terms of the roads that were dug up.
Speaker 2: Crystal. When you have to dig up your own road
Speaker 2: to protect the capital, you have to bomb your own infrastructure,
Speaker 2: you are not strong. That is the ultimate sign of weakness,
Speaker 2: and it also highlights Putin's greatest fear. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there. This has long been reported around Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 2: He literally has sat by himself now for years apparently,
Speaker 2: and just watches on repeat the images of Moamar Gaddafi
Speaker 2: being sodomized and killed in public in Bengazi after the
Speaker 2: Libyan Civil War. He says, quote, Putin is in fear
Speaker 2: of being killed like Kadafi in a new Russian revolution,
Speaker 2: as protests raised. Literally, the man's greatest fear is domestic
Speaker 2: instability and his personal losing power. This gets to some
Speaker 2: of the comments that he's made in the past Crystal,
Speaker 2: where he has said things like the growing of the
Speaker 2: greatest tragedies in the history of Russia was the dissolution
Speaker 2: of the Soviet Union.
Speaker 4: It was very sad.
Speaker 2: Many of us gave our lives for this. You know,
Speaker 2: this was a humiliation event for Russia. That was fully
Speaker 2: then on display in the initial speech that everyone should
Speaker 2: recall the speech that justified the historical speech in justifying
Speaker 2: the invasion of Ukraine, saying Ukraine is a fake nation,
Speaker 2: all the Baltics are a fake nation. This was the
Speaker 2: Bolshevik you know, stab in the back from the Treaty
Speaker 2: of brets Latovsk and all of this him putting himself
Speaker 2: in the context of history. His greatest fear is being
Speaker 2: Zar Nicholas the second, And you know, for a variety
Speaker 2: of reasons, he seems to have recreated the exact same conditions.
Speaker 2: Zar Nicholas famously initially almost lost grip on power during
Speaker 2: the Russo Japanese War, and then it ultimately was taken
Speaker 2: out in the Revolution of nineteen seventeen. So he, by
Speaker 2: trying to avoid the fate of some of his predecessors,
Speaker 2: apparently recreated very very similar conditions. And of course, you know,
Speaker 2: a zar Nicholas didn't have nukes. Putin does and so
Speaker 2: that's what makes the situation even more insane and complex.
Speaker 4: And this is I don't think.
Speaker 2: This is the end of instability in Russia now, very
Speaker 2: much like this Ray much could be the beginning.
Speaker 1: Unlikely that it's the end of instability. I mean, strong
Speaker 1: men depend on an aura of invincibility for their power.
Speaker 1: And even though this pus has been put down before
Speaker 1: they even got to got to Moscow, and even as
Speaker 1: we have to say, we don't really have any idea
Speaker 1: how the Russian public feels about any of this overall,
Speaker 1: Like if you were to do an accurate poll, do
Speaker 1: they view Progrosion as a trader? How do they feel
Speaker 1: about him? How do they feel about all of this?
Speaker 1: But there's no doubt that the cloak of invincibility has
Speaker 1: been pierced, and you can see that there was at
Speaker 1: least some sentiment in favor of this attempted coup. Put
Speaker 1: this next piece up on the screen. This is the
Speaker 1: telegram reactions from the first message on top. You can
Speaker 1: see that's the Wagner leader Progosion announcing his mutiny. Got
Speaker 1: thirty two thousand heart emojis almost fourteen thousand thumbs up,
Speaker 1: thirteen thousand with the little like smiley face with the
Speaker 1: hearts around it, nine thousand of the applauding forty three
Speaker 1: hundred of the fire emoji. You know, you have to
Speaker 1: get down to twenty four hundred only gave the clown emoji,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and forty four gave the cursing angry emoji.
Speaker 1: The second piece is when he announced like all right,
Speaker 1: just kidding, going back to the bases, withdrawing from the
Speaker 1: outskirts of Moscow.
Speaker 5: That's on the bottom, and the.
Speaker 1: Overwhelming reaction three hundred forty one thousand clown emojis, one
Speaker 1: hundred two thousand thumbs down. So you know, again it's telegram.
Speaker 1: Is this reflective of overall public sentiment? Should we read
Speaker 1: too much into this? Absolutely not, But it's clear there
Speaker 1: was much more positive sentiment on telegram in favor of
Speaker 1: the attempted coup than there was for the withdrawal. We
Speaker 1: did see some videos, one of which we showed you
Speaker 1: a little bit a little bit earlier, of him receiving
Speaker 1: sort of like adoring support from some amount of locals,
Speaker 1: and to me, Sagar, the very fact that he was
Speaker 1: able to say the unspeakable thing, which is that the
Speaker 1: war is built on lies, that Ukraine was not an
Speaker 1: imminent threat to us whatsoever, That these generals are out,
Speaker 1: you know, they're lying, and they're out for their own glory,
Speaker 1: They're not.
Speaker 5: Here for the good of the Russian people.
Speaker 1: That he was able to say that and survive and
Speaker 1: sort of get away with it, I mean that is
Speaker 1: you know, you can't that's a bridge, you can't, or
Speaker 1: that you can't put that toothpaste back of the two.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm trying to say. Now, I want to
Speaker 1: be clear. Does this mean like Putin's regime is going
Speaker 1: to crumble and it's going to fall, He's going to
Speaker 1: withdraw from Ukraine.
Speaker 5: No, we're not saying any of that.
Speaker 1: But this is the dawn of a new era, and
Speaker 1: where we go from here impossible to say exactly.
Speaker 2: I mean, we can look at a lot of parallels
Speaker 2: in Russian history. There's been a lot of failed coups
Speaker 2: in the history of Russia. In terms of the one
Speaker 2: I was talking about in nineteen seventeen, there was the
Speaker 2: Russo Japanese revolt after the Russians lost the Russian Japanese War.
Speaker 2: There was a huge amount of instability inside of Russia
Speaker 2: against the regime, and democratic reforms were attempted. Unfortunately, Zar
Speaker 2: Nicholas decided to reneg on all of those and then
Speaker 2: launch the country into another disastrous war, which became more
Speaker 2: of a dictator and it launched against him. So this
Speaker 2: is where though the actual conditions of Putin and his
Speaker 2: regime and what's actually going to happen, we really have
Speaker 2: no idea. But he very likely is going to take
Speaker 2: the same course. This is not a man who is
Speaker 2: going to buckle under pressure and say, you know what,
Speaker 2: it's obvious the invasion of Ukraine is the original sin here.
Speaker 2: There would be no problem if there was no Ukraine.
Speaker 2: So if he were smart, he'd be like, all right,
Speaker 2: let's call it, let's call it peace conference, let's try
Speaker 2: let's do something. Let's get our asses out of here,
Speaker 2: and let me focus on actually notsolidating. Yeah, which you
Speaker 2: know any reasonable person looking at this would do. But
Speaker 2: he's got too much in the game now because that
Speaker 2: would be humiliating for him, and now he's a pariah.
Speaker 2: So what's he going to do. He could double down,
Speaker 2: and in fact, you know, if we look back through
Speaker 2: Russian history.
Speaker 4: Some of the.
Speaker 2: Most autocratic periods in all of Russian history came after
Speaker 2: immediate coup attempts or after assassination campaigns on the Czar
Speaker 2: or the leaders of those of the regime. And the
Speaker 2: problem is that, of course, you know, it may fall
Speaker 2: in the long run, but in the short term, that's
Speaker 2: still a lot of suffering, and that still actually means
Speaker 2: that Putin could technically, in the short term become stronger
Speaker 2: inside of Russia and stronger in terms of his battlefield control.
Speaker 2: Do you think they will ever allow a pregotion to
Speaker 2: rise again in the military or some sort of Wagner
Speaker 2: group element, never, you know at this point. So if anything,
Speaker 2: his his like operatricks in the military and all of
Speaker 2: that will become even more emboldened. And for anybody who
Speaker 2: thinks that a aperatic filled political, Soviet or Russian military
Speaker 2: can't stand, well, they beat the army of Hitler. So
Speaker 2: it's not like it's not like without manpower and a
Speaker 2: lot of the inherent strengths to Russia, their ability frankly
Speaker 2: to just like throw as many people away as possible,
Speaker 2: they still can militarily prevail, you know.
Speaker 4: In a conflict.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I do think it's worth reiterating something we
Speaker 1: talked about over the weekend, which is that the whole
Speaker 1: build up to this attempted coup, insurrection, rebell, whatever you
Speaker 1: want to call it, is the fact that the Russian
Speaker 1: military was itself weak and so they sort of had
Speaker 1: to rely on Wagner or Wagner became one of their
Speaker 1: most effective fighting forces, and that's what allowed Progosion to
Speaker 1: rise in power. And even long before you know, this
Speaker 1: all unfolded, he was incredibly routinely critical ta of the
Speaker 1: Ministry of Defense and Joigu and other top leaders and
Speaker 1: was allowed to say it because they needed him. And so,
Speaker 1: as I said before, this action came at the same
Speaker 1: time that they were actually trying to reign in his
Speaker 1: power because they had recognized that this had sort of
Speaker 1: gotten out of control. But it all starts with the
Speaker 1: you know, strong man leader, any really world leader, giving
Speaker 1: up the monopoly on violence. That creates a very dangerous
Speaker 1: and chaotic situation. And because they needed him so much,
Speaker 1: because they had this weakness to begin with, that's how
Speaker 1: he's able to rise to this position where he was,
Speaker 1: you know, marching basically unimpeded towards Moscow before getting cold
Speaker 1: feet and taking this deal that was crafted by Belarus
Speaker 1: and Lucashank.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well said, let's go to the next part here
Speaker 2: about our own interest. I guess in what was going on.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. Turns out
Speaker 2: the US actually quote suspected Pregosian was preparing to take
Speaker 2: military action against Russia. The intelligence community leaked this to
Speaker 2: their favorite publication, The New York Times. They say the
Speaker 2: information was considered both solid and alarming because of the
Speaker 2: possibility a major nuclear armed rival of the US could
Speaker 2: descend into chaos.
Speaker 4: Yeah you think so.
Speaker 2: American intelligence officials briefed senior military officials on Wednesday that
Speaker 2: they believed he was preparing to take military action against
Speaker 2: Senior Russian defense officials. US by agencies had indication days
Speaker 2: earlier Progosian was planning something and worked to refine that
Speaker 2: material into a finished ressessment. Unlike with the initial invasion,
Speaker 2: US officials declassify the intelligence and then released it. To
Speaker 2: try to deter mister Putin from invading. Intel officials kept
Speaker 2: silent about mister Progosian's plans. Officials felt if they said anything,
Speaker 2: Putin could accuse them of orchestrating a coup, and they
Speaker 2: clearly had little interest in helping Putin avoid a major
Speaker 2: embarrassing fracture in his support. Let's put the next one
Speaker 2: up there, please on the screen. Also, INTEL people leaking
Speaker 2: their favorite thing over to CNN.
Speaker 4: We've got that paragraph there.
Speaker 2: INTEL officials actually had briefed congressional leaders known as the
Speaker 2: Gang of Eight earlier this week concerning Wagner movements and
Speaker 2: equipment build ups near Russia. Crystal, I'm curious what you
Speaker 2: think about this. I actually believe it was very irresponsible
Speaker 2: for them not to do the exact same thing that
Speaker 2: they did during the Russian invasion. I'll tell everyone why
Speaker 2: this will sound bad, but Pregosian versus Putin, so we
Speaker 2: kind of have to pick and guess.
Speaker 4: What we have to prefer Putin.
Speaker 2: Pregosion is a bloodthirsty, war criminal, insane person, egomaniac. All
Speaker 2: of that applies to Putin too, but a little bit less.
Speaker 2: And whenever we look, I mean, look, you've said that before.
Speaker 2: You know, whenever you and I say we oppose the
Speaker 2: invasion of Iraq, let's be real, what are we saying?
Speaker 2: We believe a genocidal dictator, a brutal man should have
Speaker 2: remained in power.
Speaker 4: I'm like, yeah, I think so.
Speaker 2: I think that honestly would have been better off than
Speaker 2: the horrific chaos that ensued. You know, this is not
Speaker 2: a rosy and a nice choice that we have to make.
Speaker 2: And actually some friends and I were talking in the
Speaker 2: middle of the coup and we were thinking about prospective action. Realistically,
Speaker 2: what would have happened if Wagner got close enough to
Speaker 2: Moscow to gain control of the nuclear arsenal. Almost certainly
Speaker 2: crystal we would have had to do. If anybody doesn't
Speaker 2: know about the brox Or rebellion inside of China, the
Speaker 2: Western Powers actually interfered and invaded or inserted themselves in
Speaker 2: this situation in that Boxer rebellion, specifically to prop up
Speaker 2: the regime that was more friendly to its trading relationship.
Speaker 2: My point being that there almost certainly would have been
Speaker 2: some international action should Pregosian have actually gotten close enough
Speaker 2: to gain control of the Russian nuclear arsenal, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: probably would have been Beijing. Beijing probably would have come
Speaker 2: in and just been like, we're taken over, We're in
Speaker 2: control now. In terms of putin, they would have propped
Speaker 2: them up like some Mussolini type figure.
Speaker 4: But it could have been the West.
Speaker 2: You know, almost certainly these are disaster scenarios that we
Speaker 2: should have looked at. So look, I mean, instability in
Speaker 2: Russia is good to a point, but when we get
Speaker 2: to the point where somebody is two hundred kilometers away, yeah,
Speaker 2: from taking over, I thought nuclear arsenal. Then I think
Speaker 2: it was very irresponsible for them to let this happen
Speaker 2: if they knew that it was going to For the
Speaker 2: very reason that you know this what's going on in
Speaker 2: Ukraine is a side show in terms of our interests.
Speaker 2: Russian nukes in the hands of a genuine madman, yes,
Speaker 2: that is a whole other level.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, I agree. Even the Podsave bros Were like,
Speaker 1: you can't cheer for this brutal war criminal, mercenary psychopath
Speaker 1: to take control. The first in the last thought has
Speaker 1: to be what about the nukes? I mean, that's it.
Speaker 1: Like I wish that we could take into account a
Speaker 1: variety of other factors related to human life and what
Speaker 1: the Russian people deserve and what Ukrainian people deserve, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But when you're talking about a nuclear arm superpower, the
Speaker 1: first and last consideration has to be what about the nukes?
Speaker 2: And we know with.
Speaker 1: Putin for all his many flaws, and not to say
Speaker 1: that this is any guarantee of what's going to happen
Speaker 1: in the future.
Speaker 2: We have not had a nuclear war, hasn't used him yet,
Speaker 2: which you know, pregosion better.
Speaker 1: Off wild card. Yeah, we don't know, right, we have
Speaker 1: no idea. So I one hundred percent agree with you.
Speaker 1: And the thing is, it's not like they would have
Speaker 1: had to So you referenced they should have done what
Speaker 1: they did before the Ukraine War invasion, where they announced publicly,
Speaker 1: here's our intelligence, and here's our understanding of what's going
Speaker 1: to happen, trying to forestall these events or at least
Speaker 1: trying to prepare everyone to muster some sort of defense
Speaker 1: for Ukraine.
Speaker 5: You wouldn't have had to do that.
Speaker 1: I mean, they could have bat channeled to the Russians, right,
Speaker 1: the intelligence that we had. Now, it's possible that Putin
Speaker 1: actually knew what was in the works, you know, it
Speaker 1: is possible that he'd be.
Speaker 2: An idiot to know. Right, We've been looking at this
Speaker 2: guy for months, right, well.
Speaker 1: And you know in those leaked documents, the discord leaks.
Speaker 1: They showed the US had intercepted communications between senior Russian
Speaker 1: military leaders debating how to handle progotions constant demands for
Speaker 1: more ammunition. They knew they were pushing him to the
Speaker 1: edge by basically putting Wagner under shoygu which one analyst
Speaker 1: described as an absolute no go for pregosion. So it's
Speaker 1: not like they were blind to the tensions here. It's
Speaker 1: not like they were blind to the risks here. So
Speaker 1: it is actually possible that they knew something like this
Speaker 1: was in the works, they just were unable to figure
Speaker 1: out how to mobilize against it. But yes, the fact
Speaker 1: that the US decided to take this incredible gamble and
Speaker 1: cross their fingers and hope that you don't end up
Speaker 1: with this absolute madman and total chaos and Russia devolving
Speaker 1: into complete civil war, that they decided to just let
Speaker 1: this all unfold and let the chips fall.
Speaker 5: Where they may.
Speaker 1: I think it's wildly, wildly irresponsible. And look, the gamble
Speaker 1: worked out for him, right, Your hand is stronger, Ukrainian
Speaker 1: hand is strong.
Speaker 5: They're no doubt about it.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, the way that this went down with Putin being
Speaker 1: humiliated and weakened but still in power. Is exactly the
Speaker 1: best case scenario for the you know, the Western Alliance
Speaker 1: and Ukraine, who now faces a weakened opponent with some
Speaker 1: of their most hardened battle adversaries basically taken out of play.
Speaker 1: But there was no guarantee that this was going to
Speaker 1: be how this all shook out.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I think you're right, and you know, look, I
Speaker 2: get it. It's actually a very tough situation if you're
Speaker 2: in that because you know they're not wrong, which is
Speaker 2: that the Putin would have said, oh, like this is
Speaker 2: being orchestrated or whatever by the West. They're saying that anyway, Yeah,
Speaker 2: but exactly guess what immediately when it launched, they were like,
Speaker 2: this is the puppet of the West and all that.
Speaker 2: It Also, you know, it does raise kind of an
Speaker 2: interesting question is like, well, has the US intelligence community
Speaker 2: ever had any communications with Pregosian. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to rule it out or put it
Speaker 2: outside the realm of possibility. And that's another very interesting
Speaker 2: one as to like what's going on here kind of
Speaker 2: reminds me the assassination plot around President DM and South Vietnam.
Speaker 2: But the point is is that the results could have
Speaker 2: been horrific and disastrous, and it was, even though it
Speaker 2: was a tough situation, and it is genuinely a tough call.
Speaker 2: If they knew about it and just did nothing, that
Speaker 2: was a choice by the US administration. We shouldn't forget that.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The last thing I do want to say on that point,
Speaker 1: because I think this is important, is do I put
Speaker 1: it out of the realm of possibility that the US
Speaker 1: had some hand behind the scenes. Of course not, of
Speaker 1: course I don't put that on the realm of possibility.
Speaker 1: But I see people very confidently asserting that that's what
Speaker 1: happened here. And you can't just like you can't just
Speaker 1: look at who benefits and say, oh, there must have
Speaker 1: been a role. There must not everything is about us, right,
Speaker 1: Russia is perfectly capable of having their own internal strife
Speaker 1: and conflict that is separate and apart from whatever our
Speaker 1: wishes and desires are. So again, I would just wait
Speaker 1: and see if there is any evidence of such plots
Speaker 1: that emerge before you just sort of, you know, fly
Speaker 1: off down a rabbit hole and accept this as fact
Speaker 1: when there's nothing that indicates it thus far.
Speaker 4: Yeah, are you suggesting that we should be responsible and
Speaker 4: wait for facts.
Speaker 2: I mean, I thought we were in the takes business.
Speaker 5: Crazy idea, Yeah, just put that matter wild.
Speaker 2: Anyway, let's go to the next one here. This was
Speaker 2: a huge story actually broke open on Thursday. We were
Speaker 2: going to do a breaking segment on it, and that
Speaker 2: coup happened. It's on our Russia, what do you know?
Speaker 2: And so we're getting the details fully and took the
Speaker 2: time to actually read through all the documents here with
Speaker 2: respect to the allegations of an IRS whistleblower and Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden whether he should have been criminally charged in that
Speaker 2: case after he was offered a plea by US prosecutors.
Speaker 4: Now, the White.
Speaker 2: House was actually asked repeatedly about this on Friday by
Speaker 2: multiple mainstream reporters who appear to have broken there. Even
Speaker 2: they had to admit that this looked bad and had
Speaker 2: to press the White House on it. And the White
Speaker 2: House response is stunning in their silence and really in
Speaker 2: their obfuscation. Here's what happened.
Speaker 4: The President invited his son Hunter to the state dinner
Speaker 4: last night.
Speaker 2: I'm wondering if you could take us into the thinking
Speaker 2: and decision making of why.
Speaker 7: The I'm just not going to get into family discussion,
Speaker 7: personal family discussion, as you know, Hunter's son. I'm just
Speaker 7: not going to get.
Speaker 6: Into it this.
Speaker 1: If Hunter Biden wasn't the president's son, would he have
Speaker 1: invited someone who had just reached the plea agreement with
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors?
Speaker 8: Well, a couple of things.
Speaker 7: Again, that's his son, He's a family member. It is
Speaker 7: not uncommon for family members to attend events at the
Speaker 7: White House.
Speaker 9: Curlywood answered James's question, though, are you going to answer
Speaker 9: the question of incun not a reasonable question to ask for.
Speaker 6: The as the United States?
Speaker 9: Who was involved, as this message seems to suggest in
Speaker 9: some sort of coercive.
Speaker 6: Conversation for business dealings by a son, is that something?
Speaker 2: If he wasn't, then maybe you should tell us so
Speaker 2: he can.
Speaker 7: Just remind us what your colleague said from the White
Speaker 7: House Council, so we have it. Would I would refer
Speaker 7: you to them and they will share their statement with
Speaker 7: you all lot.
Speaker 10: Yeah, you've stated that the President stands by his comment
Speaker 10: from the twenty twenty campaign that he never once discussed
Speaker 10: his son's overseas business dealings with his son, And you
Speaker 10: stood at that podium and you reaffirmed.
Speaker 2: That is there anything that you can say with regard to.
Speaker 10: This text message and what the president's son was alleging.
Speaker 2: Was the President there or not?
Speaker 11: Have you spoken to the president about this? Have you
Speaker 11: asked him whether he was there with his son on
Speaker 11: July thirty? And there was a recording earlier in the
Speaker 11: week that after the plea agreement was reached by Hunter
Speaker 11: Biden that the President felt relieved that that part of
Speaker 11: it was behind him.
Speaker 2: Is that true.
Speaker 6: I can't speak to that.
Speaker 7: I cannot speak to the presents mindset.
Speaker 2: Can't speak to it. Never asked him about it? Oh
Speaker 2: why wouldn't you ask him about it? And for those
Speaker 2: who need a refresher, this text message is insane. Put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. This is a direct
Speaker 2: text from Hunter Biden. So not mean disputed quote. I
Speaker 2: am sitting here with my father. We would like to
Speaker 2: understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell
Speaker 2: the director I would like to resolve this now before
Speaker 2: it gets out of hand, and now means tonight.
Speaker 4: Zee.
Speaker 2: If I get a call or a text from anyone
Speaker 2: involved in this other than you, Xang or the chairman,
Speaker 2: I will make certain between the man sitting next to
Speaker 2: me and every person. He knows my ability to forever
Speaker 2: hold a grudge that you will not regret not following
Speaker 2: my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call
Speaker 2: with my father.
Speaker 1: I love the way at the end, he just like
Speaker 1: strips any plausible to liability.
Speaker 4: I am sitting here.
Speaker 5: Just to be clear, it's my father I'm referring to.
Speaker 2: This is Megan McCain level my father in terms of joke.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: My friends over the Freebeacon personal friends of mine, Chuck Ross,
Speaker 2: Joseph Simonson, and Andrew Kerr put together a fantastic piece
Speaker 2: here called the sixteen Bombshells on the Hunter Biden from
Speaker 2: the IRS laptop. First and foremost was linking his father
Speaker 2: to this Chinese deal. People aren't actually as familiar with
Speaker 2: the CEFC China Energy deal that Hunter was trying to finance,
Speaker 2: but that's actually what all of this entails. The CEFC
Speaker 2: China Energy deal into a multi billion dollar investment. And
Speaker 2: told Rosewood Seneca Partners, of which Hunter was part of
Speaker 2: also with John Carrey step Son, everybody's get involved. The
Speaker 2: next thing that they pointed to is that Biden tended
Speaker 2: other business meetings allegedly with Hunter and with his Chinese
Speaker 2: business partners. What he said repeatedly is that they were
Speaker 2: at the Four Seasons hotel. People had were having lunch
Speaker 2: and stopped in. Hunter said, quote, I may be trying
Speaker 2: to start a company or try to do something with
Speaker 2: these guys, and could you And he says if I'm around,
Speaker 2: and he'd show up, referencing directly his father. Furthermore, the
Speaker 2: FBI had authenticated Hunter Biden's laptop a year before you
Speaker 2: and I even knew it existed, after it had been
Speaker 2: turned into the computer repells.
Speaker 4: Yeah, not only did it have the hallmarks.
Speaker 2: Of Russian disinformation, they knew it was true before even
Speaker 2: the press knew about it, and still did not ever
Speaker 2: offer any proof or any of that my other personal
Speaker 2: favorites and some of the tawdry details. Hunter actually deducted
Speaker 2: hooker and sex club payments from his taxes. Classy thing
Speaker 2: to do. Obviously, the FBI division that investigated foreign spies
Speaker 2: directly was involved in the Biden probe. The investigation into
Speaker 2: Biden actually had some porn related origins because of some
Speaker 2: of the content that was on his laptop. Prosecutors wanted
Speaker 2: to charge Hunter with felonies, but he ended up with misdemeanors,
Speaker 2: so they specifically noted that per the level of tax
Speaker 2: evation that he conducted his business dealings, the text messages
Speaker 2: and more, it was very clear that he had willfully
Speaker 2: went out of his way not to pay his taxes,
Speaker 2: as evidence by the prostitution ride offs. The Biden Department
Speaker 2: of Justice specifically actually blocked that investigation at multiple turns
Speaker 2: according to the irs whistleblower, and that the whistleblower's boss
Speaker 2: actually corroborated all multiple other claims that were made. Hunter
Speaker 2: also currently does not have to, under the terms of
Speaker 2: his deal, pay taxes on four hundred thousand dollars of
Speaker 2: income that he received from Bearisma Holdings. Who out there
Speaker 2: in this world doesn't have to pay tax on four
Speaker 2: hundred grand?
Speaker 4: Can you imagine that? Imagine being in such a sweet deal.
Speaker 2: You could trade off of your dad's name, get four
Speaker 2: hundred grand, get a sweetheart deal, and then still not
Speaker 2: have to pay taxes on it, and then finally crystled.
Speaker 2: My personal favorite agents wanted to search Hunter Biden's family homes,
Speaker 2: but were shot down due to the optics of the situation.
Speaker 2: According to these whistleblowers. So I mean, look at every turn,
Speaker 2: we're seeing political interference here. And Hunter, you know, look,
Speaker 2: his defense is quite literally I was a crack addict,
Speaker 2: and that's what he say said. My father had no
Speaker 2: interest in this at the time, and I was in
Speaker 2: the midst of dealing with addiction. But Biden, at this point,
Speaker 2: he's got to prove it. There's this clear allegation here
Speaker 2: made in these texts and through authenticated whistleblowers that have
Speaker 2: come before under oath, before Congress, multiple parts of this
Speaker 2: have been have been verified. The Biden family continues to
Speaker 2: brush this aside and say that this isn't even worth
Speaker 2: looking into. They literally invited the guy to the freaking
Speaker 2: state dinner with the Indian prime minister. The day after that,
Speaker 2: he gets a plea deal before Congress, and all of
Speaker 2: these text messages are plea deal before prosecutors, and this
Speaker 2: all comes out.
Speaker 5: So this is you were worried about optics, you mightn't
Speaker 5: want to.
Speaker 4: This is think that.
Speaker 2: One some of the most disgusting federal corruption that we
Speaker 2: have seen yet, just because of how naked it is
Speaker 2: and how much he actually just got off most of
Speaker 2: the time. Just don't even investigated.
Speaker 4: Here, they investigated and gave him a little sweetheart deal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, listen, to be clear, this is coming
Speaker 1: from Republicans who had nothing to say when it was
Speaker 1: Jared Kushner. So hypocrisy, etcetera, etcetera, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: But you know, sometimes political attacks are also real, and
Speaker 1: clearly the press feels like they have been humiliated. They
Speaker 1: were willing to cover for him to a point, and
Speaker 1: now when you have these kind of details they have
Speaker 1: to ask him about. That's why in that clip we played,
Speaker 1: I mean, we were going through the list of It
Speaker 1: was CNN, it was New York Times, it was NBC,
Speaker 1: it was CBS, it was every mainstream outlet that felt
Speaker 1: like for their own sake of credibility they had to
Speaker 1: ask something on this. Now, listen, what do we know
Speaker 1: with regard to the text message. We know that Hunter
Speaker 1: was blatantly brazenly using his name and his proximity to
Speaker 1: power that would be his dad to try to score
Speaker 1: lucrative business deals. Now, the claim in the text is
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden was sitting right there. Biden has maintained
Speaker 1: he never even had a conversation with Hunter about any
Speaker 1: of his business deals. Now that claim, his spokespeople have
Speaker 1: been remarkably unwilling to reiterate.
Speaker 5: At this point.
Speaker 1: They now will say like he wasn't involved, but they
Speaker 1: haven't gone so far to say once again that he
Speaker 1: didn't even speak to Hunter about those business deals.
Speaker 5: So the President has a lot of questions to answer.
Speaker 5: You know, is that still true?
Speaker 1: Do you still maintain you had no conversations with him
Speaker 1: about it? Where were you on that day? Is it
Speaker 1: true that you were sitting next to him? Now listen,
Speaker 1: it's also true possible he was sitting there. I had
Speaker 1: no idea, you know what his son, in the throes
Speaker 1: of addiction, was texting to this Chinese businessman. But this
Speaker 1: is way past the point that you can just brush
Speaker 1: it off, because even if you accept the best case
Speaker 1: scenario that Joe Biden had nothing to do with this,
Speaker 1: this level of discusting, trading on your father's name to secure,
Speaker 1: you know, deals for yourself is grotesque, even if it's
Speaker 1: not unfortunately, even if it's not illegal.
Speaker 2: Of course, yeah, Look to be clear, I mean, unfortunately,
Speaker 2: it's not illegal to say my father, my father, my father,
Speaker 2: and then shake down a foreign guy for millions of
Speaker 2: dollars guess what is illegal? Not paying your taxes. He
Speaker 2: didn't even pay his taxes. I didn't even mention this
Speaker 2: that I have in previous segments. Remember this, Crystal. He
Speaker 2: owed two point two million dollars in taxes, in back
Speaker 2: taxes that he was not able to pay and did
Speaker 2: not have financially. He had to go to a Democratic
Speaker 2: mega don or Hollywood lawyer to pay his taxes for him,
Speaker 2: and the guy gave it to him as a loan
Speaker 2: or whatever to avoid the federal gift tax. I mean,
Speaker 2: who amongst us has forgotten to pay our taxes, not
Speaker 2: had the money about it, then gone to a rich
Speaker 2: friend of our dads to bail our asses out. And that's,
Speaker 2: by the way, one of the ways that he's able
Speaker 2: to circumvent and go towards the misdemeanor charge is it's
Speaker 2: not like it's unpaid. It got paid. Yeah, Now, I
Speaker 2: paid you guys what you needed. That was part of
Speaker 2: the cover up. Well, the fact that he had access
Speaker 2: to that money in the first place is it self
Speaker 2: evidence of political corruption. So you know, I'm hopped up
Speaker 2: about this one just because it's so brazen, the level
Speaker 2: of shakedown that's happening here. I mean, look at that
Speaker 2: text message. He reads like a thug.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 2: He's like, my dad is gonna come and screen on.
Speaker 2: My dad's gonna come and beat up with your dad
Speaker 2: if you don't pay me millions of dollars. And that's
Speaker 2: the craziest thing is all of this worked. He actually
Speaker 2: did get paid one hundred thousand dollars from Barisma. He
Speaker 2: actually did raise tons of money through Roseman Seneca Partners,
Speaker 2: then his BHG Holdings Group inside of inside of China.
Speaker 2: He remember this, He says that he's no longer on
Speaker 2: the board of the holdings group inside of China, he
Speaker 2: still has a vested financial interest to this day millions
Speaker 2: of dollars inside of China. The GOP report that came
Speaker 2: out in twenty twenty detailed multiple wire transfers up to
Speaker 2: the tunes of hundred thousands of dollars, of which Biden,
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden and James Biden, Biden's brother. We're literally using
Speaker 2: one hundred grand as a slush fund to buy MacBook
Speaker 2: pros for themselves and their relatives. I mean it is
Speaker 2: as and then the audacity to then write off some
Speaker 2: of your ilicit you know, like sex capades, effectively on
Speaker 2: your taxes.
Speaker 4: On top of all of that.
Speaker 2: So you can blame addiction and all of that all
Speaker 2: you want, but here's the truth. And you've always made
Speaker 2: this point. Most addicts they get caught, you know, whenever
Speaker 2: they boost like a radio out of a car, and
Speaker 2: they get their ass thrown in jail, and they don't
Speaker 2: get second, third, fifteenth chances. They don't get the daddy
Speaker 2: bailing them out of prison.
Speaker 1: Well, there's the proximity to power, peace and knowing the
Speaker 1: right people, and there's the you know, two tier system
Speaker 1: of justice that oftentimes lets the wealthy off the hook.
Speaker 1: I mean, how many tax dodgers, how many wealthy tax
Speaker 1: dodgers never get any sort of enforcement action, And it
Speaker 1: is wrong. I am much more in favor of a
Speaker 1: law and order, white collar, tough on crime approach because
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly who the IRS goes after is the poor and
Speaker 1: the working poor and the working class. So unfortunately, the
Speaker 1: way that Hunter got away with this, like you said,
Speaker 1: like mischaracterizing these loans, these payments as loans, all of
Speaker 1: this sort of shenanigans. Unfortunately, it is quite common and
Speaker 1: people do routinely get away with it, even when their
Speaker 1: daddy isn't the Vice president. But you know, in those instances,
Speaker 1: it's an attack on the integrity of our sort of
Speaker 1: like system of fairness and justice. In this instance, it's
Speaker 1: also an attack on just the integrity of the office
Speaker 1: of the President of the United States and raises a
Speaker 1: lot of questions about you know, potential malign influences and
Speaker 1: how this would impact his governments, which is incredibly serious.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's Look, that's all we can say
Speaker 2: about it in terms of the further investigation. The GOP
Speaker 2: is going to be holding hearings. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. As I said, you know, Hunter
Speaker 2: appeared at the state dinner and his father maintains the
Speaker 2: only reaction he has to the whole thing is quote
Speaker 2: that he loves his son. And then you would know, Crystal,
Speaker 2: as we will recall from the debate stage in twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: he said he did nothing wrong and I love my son.
Speaker 4: Now it's just I love my son after he's.
Speaker 5: Gotten it, and drop that first part real quick.
Speaker 2: That part really bothers me too. It's basically emotional blackmail.
Speaker 2: Nobody doubts a parent doesn't love their child. Actually, the
Speaker 2: problem is you loved him so much you let him
Speaker 2: get away with all this stuff under your norse. Oh
Speaker 2: maybe you helped him out about it with a little
Speaker 2: bit of the ten percent for the big guy, and
Speaker 2: in fact, if you were able to prove that you
Speaker 2: had nothing to do with it, and that at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, this was basically parental malfeasance, where
Speaker 2: you're like, I loved him too much to say anything.
Speaker 4: I think a lot of people could empathize with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but he refuses to tell us the truth about
Speaker 2: the very basics of the situation.
Speaker 1: Well, and I think this has gotten past the point
Speaker 1: now where he can just dodge questions on it forever.
Speaker 1: You know, if he ever does another mainstream interview again,
Speaker 1: if he ever subjects himself to any sort of a
Speaker 1: debate situation, whether it's in the Democratic primary or in
Speaker 1: the general election, he's going to have to answer difficult
Speaker 1: questions about this. I think it's gone past the point
Speaker 1: of him just being able to ignore it and get
Speaker 1: away with an answer like I love my son.
Speaker 6: Yep.
Speaker 2: Absolutely right.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, we have some new polling that we
Speaker 1: can share with you this morning about where the Republican
Speaker 1: primary race stands, and also where the general election potential
Speaker 1: general election matchup. Stan put this first piece up on
Speaker 1: the screen. This is a new NBC News poll that
Speaker 1: shows Donald Trump gaining pretty significantly from their last poll,
Speaker 1: which was done in April, So this was pre the
Speaker 1: last poll was done pre indictment, documents indictment. This one
Speaker 1: has done post documents indictment. It shows Trump surging six
Speaker 1: points to take fifty one percent, so a bear outright
Speaker 1: majority there, and perhaps even more difficult for Ron DeSantis.
Speaker 1: He actually dropped in the polls more than Trump rose.
Speaker 1: So you've got Trump at fifty one, you now have
Speaker 1: DeSantis at twenty two percent. That is a nine point
Speaker 1: drop from April. And it really demonstrates Sager something that
Speaker 1: we have been theorizing, which is it's the more candidates
Speaker 1: that get.
Speaker 5: In this race, the more difficult it is for DeSantis.
Speaker 1: You had Mike Pence go up a point, You have
Speaker 1: Chris Christy actually grabbing five percent of a vote at
Speaker 1: this point, out polling, at least in this particular poll,
Speaker 1: individuals like Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, but every one
Speaker 1: of those little low A point up for Vivekaramaswamio, a
Speaker 1: point up for Nicki halee O five points for Chris Christy.
Speaker 1: That's not coming out of Trump, that's coming directly out
Speaker 1: of Ron DeSantis, which is why he has fallen off
Speaker 1: nine points and is now sitting at twenty two percent
Speaker 1: in this NBC News pole. Now, all caveats you know
Speaker 1: included here important to remember. I would take all of
Speaker 1: this polling with a grain of salt. But I always
Speaker 1: think the direction of the polls is actually more instructive
Speaker 1: than the absolute numbers. And so the fact that this
Speaker 1: poll confirms what most but not all, other polls have
Speaker 1: shown that Trump within the Republican primary has you know,
Speaker 1: at least maintained and probably expanded his lead, is you know,
Speaker 1: another sort of dire warning for DeSantis and the other hopefuls.
Speaker 2: Oh, you're absolutely right. I mean, I think the issue
Speaker 2: mainly is that people try to focus on one poll,
Speaker 2: but then they don't go into the direction.
Speaker 4: The direction is a disaster.
Speaker 2: And the thing is is that if it's one, okay,
Speaker 2: but every single one that we have gotten post indictment
Speaker 2: shows a bump for Trump. Every single one that we
Speaker 2: have shown Dysantis announcement shows either a slight increase or
Speaker 2: an overall drop as he continues to campaign, and in fact,
Speaker 2: this was part of the issue with his overall launch.
Speaker 2: What you and I were saying, it's very rare that
Speaker 2: you're the center of the attention. You better make sure
Speaker 2: that it goes super well and that you dominate the airwaves.
Speaker 2: And the problem for DeSantis is he's not the former president,
Speaker 2: he's not the one getting indicted, and he's got nothing
Speaker 2: to do with what's going on in Russia. So he's
Speaker 2: basically a side show as all other other campaigners are.
Speaker 2: Now though we should note, let's put this up there
Speaker 2: please on the screen the general election matchup, that in
Speaker 2: this it's not like things are going all that way
Speaker 2: well for Trump. It still shows Joe Biden at forty
Speaker 2: nine percent and Trump at forty five. But if you
Speaker 2: apply previous polling misses for Trump, that would basically have
Speaker 2: him virtually tied. The original Crystal and sager Ul was
Speaker 2: add four or four to five for any poll that
Speaker 2: involved the name Donald Trump, specifically in a general election,
Speaker 2: and if you do, they basically would show the two
Speaker 2: of them in a virtual tie, especially whenever you consider
Speaker 2: the razor thin margins in the electoral college. So by
Speaker 2: many accounts like Trump, he may be weaker, you know,
Speaker 2: maybe although we haven't seen all of the evidence just
Speaker 2: yet that at least enough for me to convince that
Speaker 2: he's done. I don't think you can ever really get
Speaker 2: to that point. And then for DeSantis, I mean, the
Speaker 2: poll after poll after poll after pole that we have
Speaker 2: with likely GOP primary voters doesn't seem to be good
Speaker 2: for him overall since this his campaign started, and indictment
Speaker 2: for Trump has just been the greatest political boon he
Speaker 2: could ever ask for.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And just to give people a sense of how
Speaker 1: much things have shifted away from DeSantis back in January
Speaker 1: was actually January February was kind of the peak of
Speaker 1: his polling before he even got in the race. His average,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at real clear politics, DeSantis's average was about
Speaker 1: thirty percent, and Trump was down under fifty percent. And
Speaker 1: when you're keeping Trump under fifty percent, you got a
Speaker 1: case you can make there. You know, if I consolidate
Speaker 1: all of you know, all these other people fall by
Speaker 1: the wayside, and I consolidate all of their six and
Speaker 1: seven point percentages that they're garnering here, then I can
Speaker 1: overtake him. The problem is now DeSantis's average sits at
Speaker 1: about twenty one percent, So that's a nine point drop
Speaker 1: from where he was before he even got in the race.
Speaker 1: And you know, since he got in, he's been more
Speaker 1: or less flat. He's a little bit down from where
Speaker 1: he was when he first jumped in the race, but
Speaker 1: not much.
Speaker 5: It's more or less even.
Speaker 1: But the case that the Dysantis people were making, you
Speaker 1: guys might recall, is before he got in the race,
Speaker 1: they were like, well, sure, he's only at thirty percent now.
Speaker 1: But once we get in and we start making the case,
Speaker 1: we haven't even tried to start campaigning yet, so that
Speaker 1: obviously hasn't come to fruition, at least not yet.
Speaker 5: And in fact, the more people.
Speaker 1: Jump in the race, and we had a few more
Speaker 1: entrants last week, I think we had a Will Hurd,
Speaker 1: former congressman, jump into the race as well.
Speaker 5: Is he going to garner a lot of percentage points?
Speaker 1: No, But every one of these people, if they're even
Speaker 1: taking a single point, that's coming out of DeSantis's hide,
Speaker 1: not out of Trump. And so actually the longer this
Speaker 1: goes on, the more the field fills out, the more
Speaker 1: people consolidate around Trump, the more these indictments, sort of
Speaker 1: hard Republican GOP base support around him, and the more
Speaker 1: and more difficult this becomes, you know, on the general
Speaker 1: election piece. One of DeSantis's arguments is that he's more electable,
Speaker 1: and right now the polls bear that out. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know if that holds. There's no guarantees, etc.
Speaker 1: But he has a case he can make here. But
Speaker 1: it's not clear that the Republican base a really cares
Speaker 1: about that. It's not clear that they really believe it,
Speaker 1: because they've seen the way that poles have been wildly
Speaker 1: off before. Trump was at this this confab of religious
Speaker 1: conservatives that was here in DC. He gave a speech
Speaker 1: to what everyone is describing as basically like a rapturous crowd. Now,
Speaker 1: remember this is these are this is the religious right.
Speaker 1: This is the group that supposedly he should be having
Speaker 1: some issues with because he's moderated a bit on abortion
Speaker 1: vis a vi Ron DeSantis, Let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: how he handled that, uh, that issue in particular at
Speaker 1: this conference.
Speaker 9: As you're president, I will continue to stand proudly for
Speaker 9: pro life policies, just as I did for four strong years.
Speaker 9: That's why when I'm reelected, I will continue to fight
Speaker 9: against the demented late term abortionists and the Democratic Party
Speaker 9: who believe in unlimited abortion on demand and even executing
Speaker 9: babies after birth.
Speaker 1: So sounds to me like he's given the crowd there
Speaker 1: is again a religious right crowd. Sounds to me like
Speaker 1: he's given them everything that they want and they are
Speaker 1: complete letely on board.
Speaker 5: So a lot of the critique of his abortion.
Speaker 1: Position is unwillingness to backs, for example, a national ban,
Speaker 1: something that Mike Pence has got on board with, or
Speaker 1: even calling what was the word he used Ronda Santis'
Speaker 1: six week band. I think he said it was brutal,
Speaker 1: something like that. They don't seem to harsh, that's it.
Speaker 1: They don't seem too concerned about that. He seems to
Speaker 1: have found a way to message, at least to the grassroots,
Speaker 1: maybe not the grass tops that they are responding to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's put this one up on the screen too,
Speaker 2: just to evidence even more of what you're talking about, Cristel,
Speaker 2: which is that the faith in Trump dominated the religious
Speaker 2: conservative gathering, and specifically it was Chris Christie who said
Speaker 2: he was trying to run for president and Trump's political
Speaker 2: career who was booed. Actually on the stage, Christy said, quote,
Speaker 2: you can boo all you want, but that just shows you,
Speaker 2: ultimately that the case of Pence, of DeSantis, well a
Speaker 2: Pence in particular. Yeah, I'm the real religious conservative. Guess what, dude,
Speaker 2: they like.
Speaker 4: Trump more than they like you.
Speaker 2: And this is something where religious conservatives, I think right
Speaker 2: can say, at the end of the day, he is
Speaker 2: the one who got Row versus Way done, and yeah, Pence,
Speaker 2: you're the one who wants to go further all of that,
Speaker 2: but you don't have the same proven track record. So
Speaker 2: you know that case that a lot of these people
Speaker 2: were making against him, I just don't see it right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean Christy is at least in this poll,
Speaker 1: is actually nipping at Pence's heels, which is interesting. I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: I think it speaks to the fact that is Christy
Speaker 1: going to get much higher than like the five percent
Speaker 1: he's at right now?
Speaker 5: Maybe don't.
Speaker 1: I think he's probably got a max of like ten percent.
Speaker 1: But it does show you that there is something to
Speaker 1: just being totally unabashed. I mean, Christy has been I've
Speaker 1: always thought just on sheer political talent. I think Chris
Speaker 1: Christy is a very talented political actor and always has been.
Speaker 5: And so the fact that he's.
Speaker 1: Willing to go in front of what is clearly a
Speaker 1: hostile crowd and just say what he thinks and put
Speaker 1: it out there like that, there is some small percentage
Speaker 1: of the GOP base that is responding to that show
Speaker 1: of strength right now, and maybe ultimately it's an enough
Speaker 1: to weaken Trump, but I you know, it's hard for
Speaker 1: me to see that given where things stand today.
Speaker 5: But again, whether it's Chris Christie, whether.
Speaker 1: It's Mike Pence, whether it's veck Ramswami, whether it's Nicki Haley,
Speaker 1: Tim Scott, Willhard, Basa Hutchinson, what's the good North Dakota
Speaker 1: Governor Bergham Birgham, Yes, any of these people they're getting
Speaker 1: any of the vote.
Speaker 5: It's a problem for Ronda Santas.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I just saw a piece this
Speaker 1: morning Saga about how you know his early state strategy,
Speaker 1: which depends on Iowa New Hampshire still looking okay in
Speaker 1: Iowa New Hampshire's kind of falling apart, and they his
Speaker 1: super PAC isn't even running ads there. Apparently he hasn't
Speaker 1: gotten traction on the ground and struggling really to pick
Speaker 1: up speed in the Granite States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because New Hampshire's Trump country. I mean, it's his white,
Speaker 2: working class state. It's the one that he very first
Speaker 2: won in twenty sixteen. Far less religious than Iowa Catholics
Speaker 2: and Evangelicals who vote in that primary. And yeah, look,
Speaker 2: you know what doesn't take a genius to look at
Speaker 2: the overall demographic, stand up the base that votes in there,
Speaker 2: and say that the DeSantis case in New Hampshire actually
Speaker 2: relied a hell of a lot more on Iowa than
Speaker 2: it does rely on anything else. He needs to win Iowa.
Speaker 2: If he doesn't, I think he's done.
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely, I kind of think he's done. All right, Right, Yeah,
Speaker 5: you never know what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Let's get to a story that is, you know, really
Speaker 1: kind of shocking and very disturbing coming out of Montana.
Speaker 5: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So there was a freight train that was carrying hot
Speaker 1: asphalt and molten sulfur that derailed into a river, into
Speaker 1: Yellowstone River there in that state. Now, what it looks
Speaker 1: like happened and NTSB is still investigating, is that actually
Speaker 1: the bridge itself collapsed and that's what's caused this train
Speaker 1: derailment spilling these toxic substances into the river there. This
Speaker 1: is a river that is, you know, really relied upon,
Speaker 1: both in terms of drinking water also in terms of
Speaker 1: agriculture and irrigation. So this is very troubling. The government
Speaker 1: does not have a great track record, and we'll get
Speaker 1: into that.
Speaker 5: In a minute.
Speaker 1: Of being honest about the risk to citizens of these
Speaker 1: type of toxic waste spills, let me read you a
Speaker 1: little bit of this. They say the train cars were
Speaker 1: carrying hot asphalt and molten sulfur. Official shutdown drinking water
Speaker 1: intakes downstream while they evaluated the danger after the six
Speaker 1: a m accident. By the way, this happened on Saturday,
Speaker 1: and AP reporter witnessed a yellow substance coming out of
Speaker 1: some of the tank cars.
Speaker 5: They also have some conjecture.
Speaker 1: Here, and I think this was from some of the
Speaker 1: local reporting about what caused this bridge to collapse, because
Speaker 1: I mean, that's an incredibly stunning and disturbing turn of
Speaker 1: events that this part of our critical part of our
Speaker 1: infrastructure could just completely crumble and collapse like this. Apparently,
Speaker 1: Yellowstone River saw record flooding in twenty twenty two that
Speaker 1: caused extensive damage to Yellowstone National Park and adjacent towns.
Speaker 1: Apparently there have been repeated years of heavy river flows.
Speaker 1: The high water flow translates to high forces acting directly
Speaker 1: on the pier and importantly on the river bottom. This
Speaker 1: expert said, you can have erosion or scour that removes
Speaker 1: support from the foundation. High forces translate to a high
Speaker 1: likelihood of a structural or foundation failure that could act
Speaker 1: as a trigger to initiate the accident.
Speaker 5: We also know that there had been an old.
Speaker 1: Highway bridge that cars used to traverse that paralleled that
Speaker 1: railroad bridge, and they had actually taken that highway old
Speaker 1: highway bridge down because it was determined to be in
Speaker 1: imminent danger of failing. So it's right alongside this railroad bridge.
Speaker 1: They had taken that one down, and now you have
Speaker 1: the railroad bridge completely collapsing. According to their reporting, not
Speaker 1: immediately clear when that bridge that collapse was constructed or
Speaker 1: when it was last inspected. Let's go ahead, guys and
Speaker 1: put these images up on the screen. We've got a
Speaker 1: little bit a video of someone who appears to be
Speaker 1: have been driving by the accident, and then we've got
Speaker 1: some overhead drone footage. You can see a number of
Speaker 1: these freight cars collapsed.
Speaker 5: Into the river.
Speaker 1: You can see there that yellow substance that reporters were
Speaker 1: saying they saw spilling out into this river. Now, some
Speaker 1: of the experts have said that the type of material
Speaker 1: that spilled here shouldn't cause a problem because while it's
Speaker 1: kept in a sort of molten state within these tanker cars,
Speaker 1: once it hits the cold water that it solidifies, So
Speaker 1: hopefully there shouldn't be much problem downstream.
Speaker 5: We will see if that is the case.
Speaker 1: Let's put these next images up on the screen so
Speaker 1: people can just get a sense of the catastrophe here.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can see just twisted metal and these
Speaker 1: freight cars collapsed into this beautiful scenic river there in Yellowstone.
Speaker 1: You can see the way that the bridge just completely
Speaker 1: collapsed and crumbled here. Thank God that no one was injured.
Speaker 1: And I was thinking about the know that the engineers
Speaker 1: who were on board this train and how terrifying and
Speaker 1: shocking this must have been for them. Thank God that
Speaker 1: no one was injured or lost their life, But still
Speaker 1: a deeply troubling situation with a lot of questions.
Speaker 2: Still sober, Yeah, absolutely, I mean the issue. First of all,
Speaker 2: this is a disaster. This is one of my favorite
Speaker 2: places in the world. Love Yellstone is one of the
Speaker 2: most If anybody gets the opportunity, please do it. Also,
Speaker 2: I read a very troubling stat that the vast majority
Speaker 2: of people who visit Yellstone don't even get out of
Speaker 2: their cars or just go to the visitor go for
Speaker 2: get out of the car and walk, you know, into
Speaker 2: non designated just like little wooden areas with a sign
Speaker 2: actually go and explored a little.
Speaker 4: But you know what, it's one of the best places if.
Speaker 1: You're physically ready for that, because I've also heard horror
Speaker 1: stories of people who learn are not fit yeah, and
Speaker 1: don't even bring water and are wearing like they're you know, sandals,
Speaker 1: their crocs, act whatever, and they're like.
Speaker 2: I got to go for a hike. I got to
Speaker 2: park service. These people are they know exactly what they're doing.
Speaker 2: It's funny like when you hike the Grand Canyon, like
Speaker 2: three miles in, there's a.
Speaker 4: Lady who's like, hey, you got enough water, You're good.
Speaker 2: They're like, where are you going? You're going to that far?
Speaker 2: And then if you if you are going for it,
Speaker 2: they'll be like, you don't have an.
Speaker 4: Water to do that.
Speaker 2: They're like, you should turn around.
Speaker 4: I actually literally watch that happen. So shout out to
Speaker 4: the NPS. Yeah, for sure, I.
Speaker 1: Have a tragic I won't even share. But it's important
Speaker 1: to be careful yecally when he is involved.
Speaker 2: Correct, always be careful with The point though, is that
Speaker 2: this one of the most treasured national monuments are national parts.
Speaker 2: Is an area that millions of Americans visit every year.
Speaker 2: Actually more people are visiting it more than ever. And
Speaker 2: the problem that we have here is that the overall
Speaker 2: accountability into the railroads and to the current Rail Safety
Speaker 2: Act and the way that that is still being held
Speaker 2: up in Congress right now, mostly by conservative Republicans like
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz. As I understand, it is the main opposition
Speaker 2: to this entire thing, and it's a huge issue because
Speaker 2: the initial East Palestine derailment obviously got a lot of
Speaker 2: attention I think it should have. But the problem is
Speaker 2: is that some of it is diminishing now over time,
Speaker 2: and the energy around getting the actual rail industry regulated
Speaker 2: whenever they receive billions and billions and billions of dollars
Speaker 2: in subsidies from the federal govern and then still basically
Speaker 2: are allowed to operate with impunity. That's the overall problem
Speaker 2: that we still are not taking our eye or we
Speaker 2: taken our eye off unfortunately as a country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I have an East Palestine update that is
Speaker 1: pretty stunning that I want to get to in just
Speaker 1: a minute. But I want to say with this particular derailment,
Speaker 1: and NTSB is still investigating, so we don't have all
Speaker 1: of the answers here, but it appears this raises a
Speaker 1: lot of questions about our infrastructure and you know, inspections
Speaker 1: and listen, we have long known that we have a
Speaker 1: lot of crumbling infrastructure that needs to be tended to
Speaker 1: and rebuild. And so the fact that you know, in
Speaker 1: a wealthy country such as ours, that you have bridges
Speaker 1: just collapsing from you know, normal wear and tear is
Speaker 1: it's embarrassing.
Speaker 5: It's horrifying.
Speaker 1: It's terrifying because you have no idea what is the
Speaker 1: next one to go. I mean, actually, there was a
Speaker 1: there's a critical bridge in Tennessee crossing the Mississippi River
Speaker 1: that had to be closed on an emergency basis because
Speaker 1: engineers saw strtual flaws that could lead to that collapsing
Speaker 1: and it totally you know, destroyed traffic and snarled traffic
Speaker 1: there for months and months.
Speaker 5: We're just you know, we.
Speaker 1: Have really really underinvested in our own basic infrastructure. And
Speaker 1: I think that's an important story out of this one
Speaker 1: as well. You mentioned East Palestine, Go ahead and put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen.
Speaker 5: We just learned that, as you.
Speaker 1: Guys recall, the thing that led to all of this
Speaker 1: toxic fallout and disaster and potentially you know, carcinogens and
Speaker 1: residents being incredibly sick and nauseous and headaches and all
Speaker 1: of the rest was they did this quote unquote controlled
Speaker 1: bird which turned the whole train into this basically like
Speaker 1: bomb fireball that the citizens of that town in Ohio
Speaker 1: and really the whole region are still reckoning with the
Speaker 1: fallout from and have never been able to get straight
Speaker 1: answers about exactly what risks there are to their health
Speaker 1: today and into the future. Well, we're now learning it
Speaker 1: looks like they may not have had to do that controlled.
Speaker 5: Burn at all. You had an owner.
Speaker 1: Of five of the toxic vinyl chloride cars that Norfolk
Speaker 1: Southern detonated over East Palestine said they told Norfolk Southern
Speaker 1: three different times they saw no evidence that vinyl chloride
Speaker 1: inside the cars was quote polymerizing and at risk of
Speaker 1: an uncontrolled explosion. Basically, the idea here is that Norfolk
Speaker 1: Southern was more interested in getting these cars off the
Speaker 1: track so that they could get back to business as
Speaker 1: usual and running their trains and turning their record breaking
Speaker 1: profits and doing their stock buybacks and screwing their workers.
Speaker 1: They wanted to get back to that as soon as possible.
Speaker 1: So even though there, according to this testimony, was not
Speaker 1: an appearance that there was an imminent risk with regard
Speaker 1: to these cars. And in fact, the temperature and this
Speaker 1: is really critical, was going down and this is something
Speaker 1: that the NTSB confirmed, or the EPA rather confirmed, the
Speaker 1: temperature was actually going down in those cars. That indicates
Speaker 1: they did not need to do this at all. They
Speaker 1: could have waited and it still would have been you know,
Speaker 1: required cleanup, et cetera, but it would not have been
Speaker 1: nearly the risk to the local residents that this quote
Speaker 1: unquote controlled burn which released all of this into the
Speaker 1: atmosphere and into the ground and into the water, that
Speaker 1: that ended up being.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that control burn was what spread the contaminants really
Speaker 2: all over the place. And was also highlighted by the residents.
Speaker 2: Obviously we had like a genuine almost mushroom cloud like
Speaker 2: situation that developed over the area. It asked a lot
Speaker 2: of questions about air quality. That's what a lot of
Speaker 2: people said. It was after that control burn that they
Speaker 2: saw their pets and others suffering. So right, That's why
Speaker 2: I just think it's very important that we never take
Speaker 2: our eye off the situation and that you know, if
Speaker 2: that's true basically what he's testified to therefore before the panel, well,
Speaker 2: I mean, then somebody needs to pay for that. Somebody
Speaker 2: needs to actually do a real analysis as pre and
Speaker 2: posted as to what the damage specifically from this incident
Speaker 2: are and then actually find this company get to the
Speaker 2: bottom of it. As a public it was one of
Speaker 2: those that flared up almost immediately but has largely been forgotten.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I want to give credit to the folks
Speaker 1: a status koop because they have stayed all over it.
Speaker 1: And in fact, even before this testimony came out, they
Speaker 1: had obtained a recording of an EPA official who didn't
Speaker 1: know he was being recorded, admitting that there was no
Speaker 1: evidence to support Norfolk Southern's decision to detonate those vinyl
Speaker 1: chloride cars. Quote, they did this to get the train
Speaker 1: lines open. That's according to a hazardous waste expert who
Speaker 1: listened to this leaked audio. But basically, this is what
Speaker 1: residents have suspected all along, that the controlled burn wasn't
Speaker 1: because it was the best way to deal with these
Speaker 1: hazardous chemicals, wasn't because they were concerned about their health
Speaker 1: and well being. It was because Norfolk Southern wanted to
Speaker 1: get back to making money as quickly as possible, and
Speaker 1: a parent currently the EPA, it seems, may have had
Speaker 1: some knowledge of that. So it opens up a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about even more questions about exactly what was
Speaker 1: done here and the way that this town and their
Speaker 1: residents were effectively sacrificed to the whims of this company
Speaker 1: and their desire to continue earning their record profits.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and look, can't take your eye off of it,
Speaker 2: and we'll continue to be updated the status QUP guys
Speaker 2: are doing a really good job on this story.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, we had to cover this because we
Speaker 1: talked about the friggin submersible tragic situation.
Speaker 5: I don't want to downplay it.
Speaker 1: All the lives on board that were loss but you know,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of warnings in advance that perhaps
Speaker 1: the whull of this submersible, the Titan, that was designed
Speaker 1: supposedly to go down and view the records of the
Speaker 1: Titan and go of the Titanic and go, you know,
Speaker 1: really far underwater, that perhaps the materials this was constructed
Speaker 1: with were not sufficient for the immense amount of water
Speaker 1: pressure that comes to bear on these craft.
Speaker 5: So lo and behold.
Speaker 1: It turns out that the US Navy apparently knew that
Speaker 1: the craft had spontaneously imploded and that all lives on
Speaker 1: board were lost, even as everybody here and significantly around
Speaker 1: the world were wondering about whether these individuals were still alive.
Speaker 1: The families were wondering if they were still alive. There
Speaker 1: was a countdown on when their oxygen would run out,
Speaker 1: and there was a huge mustering of resources, footed by
Speaker 1: the way by the US taxpayer to try to locate
Speaker 1: and rescue any potential survivors.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen because it's really something.
Speaker 1: So this is after we had the news that okay,
Speaker 1: they found a debris field. Okay, it looks like it
Speaker 1: was an implosion. It looks like no one survived. The
Speaker 1: US Navy heard what it believed was the Titan implosion
Speaker 1: days ago. Underwater microphones designed to spot enemy submarines first.
Speaker 5: Detected the Titan tragedy.
Speaker 1: So this is Wall Street Journal reporting that again, we
Speaker 1: did not get act to until after they had found
Speaker 1: the debris field and said, looks like no one survived.
Speaker 5: Let me read you a little bit of this article.
Speaker 1: They say a top secret military acoustic detection system designed
Speaker 1: to spot enemy submarines first heard what the US Navy
Speaker 1: suspected was the Titan submersiful implosion hours after the submersible
Speaker 1: began its voyage. Officials involved in the search set the
Speaker 1: Navy began listening for the Titan almost as soon as
Speaker 1: a sub lost communications. Shortly after the submersibles appearance on Sunday,
Speaker 1: the US system detected what it suspected was the sound
Speaker 1: of an implosion near the debris site discovered Thursday, and
Speaker 1: reported its findings to the Coastguard commander on site. US
Speaker 1: Defense officials set now here is their cope of why
Speaker 1: they didn't tell us or the families or the rescuers.
Speaker 1: I mean, they say they told the Coastguard that was
Speaker 1: commanding the rescue here, but the public certainly had no idea.
Speaker 5: They say.
Speaker 1: The Navy couldn't say definitively this sound came from the Titan.
Speaker 1: Discovery did play a role though, in narrowing the scope
Speaker 1: of this for the vessel before its debris was discovered
Speaker 1: on Thursday. Now to get specific, they say they shared
Speaker 1: their findings with the Coast Guard immediately, which led the search.
Speaker 1: The US held off making public what noise it had
Speaker 1: detected because it wanted to ensure search and rescue operations
Speaker 1: continued and couldn't say for sure it was an implosion.
Speaker 1: The families were informed Thursday of the Navy's findings when
Speaker 1: the search and rescue team discovered the debris field.
Speaker 5: According to a US defensive thing.
Speaker 2: So why did we wait ninety six hours and string
Speaker 2: the entire US public along on top of the.
Speaker 4: Media with family.
Speaker 2: I feel bad for them too, and look, honestly, it
Speaker 2: kind of suspects what I thought the first time somebody
Speaker 2: asked me about it, I said, there's no way these
Speaker 2: people are alive. They're obviously dead, you know, especially whenever
Speaker 2: you look at the safety mechanism. And that's actually all
Speaker 2: the data indicates is that the contact was lost at
Speaker 2: nine thousand feet and the sound was heard at the
Speaker 2: exact moment of that by these US Navy sensors. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: it looks like they you know, perished immediately. I guess
Speaker 2: one thing that you can keep in mind is that
Speaker 2: it happened like literally a hypersonic speed because of how
Speaker 2: far down glove.
Speaker 1: That's the way that they went to all the available options.
Speaker 1: That's it was instantaneous but horrifying.
Speaker 2: But the part of the problem is that the whole
Speaker 2: public was left to you know, basically imagine a scenario
Speaker 2: where they're alive, and they're together, and they don't have
Speaker 2: a toilet or bathroom and all this when the preponderance
Speaker 2: of evidence at the time was like they're almost certainly dead.
Speaker 2: They should have informed the families privately and just said look. Also,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of questions we share this with foreign governments.
Speaker 2: I mean, how many millions of dollars were spent on
Speaker 2: getting rescue equipment to the site. I know that there
Speaker 2: was a French piece of machinery that was on its way.
Speaker 2: Multiple other governments were involved in sort of source search
Speaker 2: and rescue. There was like an all hands on deck
Speaker 2: situation for people who were looking to try and to
Speaker 2: save this when the you know, the stark reality was
Speaker 2: is that it's almost certainly over and this is a
Speaker 2: debris recovery situation. Debris recovery is very different in terms
Speaker 2: of the level of money that you would spend, the resources,
Speaker 2: and then the family itself, you know, giving them false
Speaker 2: hope for four days, and also you know the mom
Speaker 2: for example, of this nineteen year old, like you got
Speaker 2: to give their peace and just like giving people, giving
Speaker 2: people hope even for ninety six hours, she's not We're
Speaker 2: going to forget about that, you know, that that time
Speaker 2: where you could have just made it easier, you know,
Speaker 2: at the time and just been like, look, it's weird,
Speaker 2: it's almost certain it'll be a miracle, of.
Speaker 4: Which it's true.
Speaker 5: It was truly cruel.
Speaker 1: And you know, they went public with these alleged banging
Speaker 1: noises that they were problem that they were hearing that
Speaker 1: you know, was giving people some modicum of hope that
Speaker 1: oh maybe there that's the sound of the survivors ramming
Speaker 1: the submersible against the wreckage to try to attract attention
Speaker 1: or whatever. So it went public with that, but not
Speaker 1: the much more conclusive evidence that basically the moment that
Speaker 1: contact was lost. There was this sound that very much
Speaker 1: appeared to be an implosion that was detected by the
Speaker 1: US Navy. And you know, there were a lot of
Speaker 1: warning signs about the construction of this craft we played
Speaker 1: for you before the video game controller and the way
Speaker 1: this seemed to be really Jerry rincked together the totally
Speaker 1: blase attitude that the CEO of this company, who was
Speaker 1: expected to have perished aboard as well, that he took
Speaker 1: towards safety, the fact that they did not get it
Speaker 1: classed or expected to make sure that it could withstand
Speaker 1: the extreme pressure of this level of you know, deep
Speaker 1: sea diving, That they used materials carbon fiber material that
Speaker 1: had never been tested before, that it was serious enough
Speaker 1: concerns that they had their own employee that was a whistleblower,
Speaker 1: that they had experts in the field that were routinely
Speaker 1: writing the letters expressing concerns about this. And listen, obviously,
Speaker 1: you know there's a level of risk anytime you engage
Speaker 1: in one of these types of extreme activities.
Speaker 5: But actually the deep sea.
Speaker 1: Diving technology has existed for quite a while. It's the
Speaker 1: industry has been very proud to be relatively accident free
Speaker 1: and completely fatality free. So you know this now is
Speaker 1: a sort of black mark on the whole industry. James Cameron, director,
Speaker 1: who had done He's a submersible expert and enthusiast. He
Speaker 1: actually designed his own craft for I don't know if
Speaker 1: you guys remember this deep sea challenge that he did
Speaker 1: where he went way deeper than actually the tanic was.
Speaker 1: He went to the deepest depths of the ocean in
Speaker 1: Mariana Trench, and he was sounding off about, you know
Speaker 1: how tragic and predictable ultimately this situation was as it unfolded.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to a little bit of what
Speaker 1: he had to say.
Speaker 8: Well, I've been down there many times and I know
Speaker 8: the Rex site very well, as does my friend Bob Ballard.
Speaker 8: I've been made thirty three dives. I actually calculated that
Speaker 8: I've spent more time on the ship than the captain
Speaker 8: did back in the day. Now, this is a mature
Speaker 8: art and many people in the community were very concerned
Speaker 8: about this sub and a number of you know, of
Speaker 8: the top players in the deep submergence engineering community even
Speaker 8: wrote letters to the company saying that what they were
Speaker 8: doing was too experimental to carry passengers and that needed
Speaker 8: to be certified and so on. So I'm struck by
Speaker 8: the similarity of the Titanic disaster itself, where the was
Speaker 8: repeatedly warned about ice ahead of his ship, and yet
Speaker 8: he themed at full speed into an ice field on
Speaker 8: a moonless night and many people died as a result.
Speaker 5: So true, and I had not put that together, but.
Speaker 4: Of course he did.
Speaker 5: Parallels exactly.
Speaker 1: The parallels are incredibly eerie that all of these warnings,
Speaker 1: the you know, the analogous iceberg, all of these warnings
Speaker 1: went completely unheeded and you know, ends in disaster and tragedy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is sad, I mean, but I think, really
Speaker 2: I love Cameron too, the way he's like, I've spent
Speaker 2: more time on the ship than the captain did. He's like,
Speaker 2: I've you know, but at the same time, like he's
Speaker 2: obviously right, and he even said he's like, look, I
Speaker 2: understand what the guy was saying about regulation. But also,
Speaker 2: you know, we went to real engineering depths. I read
Speaker 2: even more about some of his criticisms, specifically of everything
Speaker 2: that Ocean Gate was doing, and at a very basic level,
Speaker 2: they were signed up for disaster years ago. For example,
Speaker 2: they were using materials that are used for space travel,
Speaker 2: like carbon fiber as opposed to different ones that they
Speaker 2: would have used, because it was strong enough in space,
Speaker 2: but wasn't designed to actually withstand the amount of pressure
Speaker 2: that you will face it a deep sea. That's just
Speaker 2: such a basic engineering thing. That was a cost cutting
Speaker 2: maneuver and it's meant to be seen as high tech
Speaker 2: by the Ocean Gate CEO whenever he was building it,
Speaker 2: and ultimately he put people's lives in danger. And multiple
Speaker 2: people who had been on the sub previously, we played
Speaker 2: that before about somebody said it was a suicide mission.
Speaker 2: Others said that you know, that they were, that they
Speaker 2: felt dangerous, and that there were some there were cracking
Speaker 2: sounds one of the times that they'd been on. Funnily enough,
Speaker 2: a mister Beast put out a text message apparently he
Speaker 2: was invited on the Titanic submersible. I mean, you could
Speaker 2: see a world where mister Beast, as part of the
Speaker 2: one of his videos, actually went on. So a lot
Speaker 2: of people dodged a bullet, you know, by at least
Speaker 2: knowing that this was dangerous. But some people didn't do
Speaker 2: enough research or you know, they took they took the
Speaker 2: claims at face value, And it does seem that this
Speaker 2: was an open secret in the subcommunity that they were like, hey,
Speaker 2: this is a real problem. And you know, I didn't
Speaker 2: even know this. I did not know that, like we
Speaker 2: reached the depths of the Mariana Trench. The US Navy
Speaker 2: did it, or some guys did in like nineteen fifty,
Speaker 2: so it's not like we haven't been doing this for
Speaker 2: a long time.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Same.
Speaker 2: I was like, Wow, that's crazy. So apparently we've had
Speaker 2: that capability for a long time. But that just means
Speaker 2: that if it's been that old, it's how extraordinary it
Speaker 2: was to still do such a shoddy job of building
Speaker 2: this current thing and taking people.
Speaker 1: Out of you want to hear something that's kindastic. Apparently
Speaker 1: downloads of My Heart Will Go On Oh, from the
Speaker 1: Titanic soundtrack have really skyrocketed.
Speaker 4: It's a good song and Netflix.
Speaker 1: Netflix is bringing back the Titanic. Oh good, lineup, good
Speaker 1: next week.
Speaker 2: It's a great movie.
Speaker 5: Are morbid?
Speaker 2: All right? Yeah, people are morbid. I also saw some
Speaker 2: memes going around where it's like one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: year timeline and it's like Titanic casualties, and it spiked
Speaker 2: in nineteen twelve and then waited until twenty twenty three
Speaker 2: and then spiked up to four again.
Speaker 4: So look, sorry, sorry for laughing.
Speaker 2: I had to.
Speaker 4: It's the Internet.
Speaker 5: People are mean, all right, Zacher.
Speaker 2: Really looking at it, well, it's hard to tell you
Speaker 2: why I cannot stand Megan Margle so much. After all,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of know nothing, attention seeking former
Speaker 2: actresses in this world. Part of it is because I
Speaker 2: do love the UK so much and I think we
Speaker 2: effectively exported our worst cultural asset to hurt their Royal family.
Speaker 2: And the other part of it, though, is the way
Speaker 2: that the media has always lapped up her obviously false
Speaker 2: claims and fed into her delusions of grandeur, which culminated
Speaker 2: in her and her husband, Prince Harry, officially leaving the
Speaker 2: Royal family. Their departure was sold initially as principled. Megan
Speaker 2: had allegedly been ostracized by the Royal family because of
Speaker 2: her race, according to her.
Speaker 4: And the British press.
Speaker 2: Was just too mean to her, but the reality of
Speaker 2: the situation after they left is actually clear. They left
Speaker 2: because she wasn't getting enough attention. The Royals had rules.
Speaker 2: You had to you could be a star, but you
Speaker 2: couldn't be bigger than the head Royal, and you couldn't
Speaker 2: take positions or star in movie. Of course, as South
Speaker 2: Park is so hilariously put it, they just wanted privacy, right,
Speaker 2: which is why they moved to California to set up
Speaker 2: shop and a production company. And a few years now
Speaker 2: into that production company, we're getting a very good view
Speaker 2: into how big of Charlatan's both Meghan and Harry really
Speaker 2: appear to be a perfect view into big entertainment companies
Speaker 2: which are apparently dumb enough to feed these people's delusions
Speaker 2: of grandeur. First, we already brought you the news that
Speaker 2: Spotify is ending its relationship with Harry and Meghan. Reporting
Speaker 2: indicates that they were paid some twenty million dollars for
Speaker 2: twelve episodes, and despite this astronomically high rate per episode,
Speaker 2: Megan apparently could not find the time to actually conduct
Speaker 2: interviews herself and would have someone else do it. She
Speaker 2: would then edit in her voice as if she was
Speaker 2: the one doing in the interview, one of the craziest
Speaker 2: things I have ever heard. But there are even more
Speaker 2: details on the Spotify project which are just too good.
Speaker 2: Harry apparently reneged on many parts of his deal because
Speaker 2: he just had too hard of a time coming up
Speaker 2: with something to actually say. His ideas ranged from a
Speaker 2: podcast on veterans issues to one on misinforma to a
Speaker 2: point of view of someone new living in America. Quote.
Speaker 2: Hey at one point considered co hosting a show with
Speaker 2: comedian Hassan Minaj. My personal favorite anecdote was one serious
Speaker 2: Harry idea where he would interview people like Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: Vladimir Putin, and Mark Zuckerberg, but effectively focus on only
Speaker 2: their childhood trauma. He also proposed interviewing Pope Francis about
Speaker 2: religion quote in a show centered around fatherhood, and then
Speaker 2: a series covering societal matters like climate change. That's not everything, though.
Speaker 4: The couple also had.
Speaker 2: A one hundred million dollar deal with Netflix not only
Speaker 2: to sell their own personal story, but to come up
Speaker 2: with groundbreaking new series where they would tea taken seriously.
Speaker 2: As creative types, they believed quote they were qualified to
Speaker 2: tackle the authority topic of misinformation.
Speaker 4: Why is that?
Speaker 2: Because apparently they know a lot about the topic after
Speaker 2: having to deal with the British press. That's why they
Speaker 2: totally were qualified to talk and produce an entire documentary
Speaker 2: about it Luckily, I guess for all of us. They
Speaker 2: were so lazy and so inept at actually getting the
Speaker 2: project off the ground. Netflix killed the deal. They also
Speaker 2: killed a so called animated children's show that Megan Markele
Speaker 2: was involved with, and they killed quote at least two
Speaker 2: TV ideas that the couple had pitched in the last year.
Speaker 2: I swear I'm not making this up. One was a
Speaker 2: project pitched by the couple was described as quote Emily
Speaker 2: in Paris, but with a man. The other was quote
Speaker 2: a family friendly TV show about a gay character that
Speaker 2: was effectively derivative of the show Heartstopper. My personal favorite
Speaker 2: line is this from the New Wall Street Journal expose
Speaker 2: on the couple. Quote. Archwell employees and associates say that
Speaker 2: the company often lacks direction, that its founders at times
Speaker 2: seem surprised by the work required to finish entertainment projects.
Speaker 2: Most potential initiatives follow a similar route. Big idea subpar
Speaker 2: execution makes sense, especially if you never actually had to
Speaker 2: work hard a day in your life. But as much
Speaker 2: as I wish that this was just about awful Airy
Speaker 2: and Megan and how bad they are, it's a story
Speaker 2: of giant entertainment companies showering the undeserving talent in cash.
Speaker 2: Harry and Meghan did not get the idea to get
Speaker 2: Netflix to pay them a fat stack to come up
Speaker 2: with these ideas. They stole it from the real duke
Speaker 2: and duchess of turning yourself into a brand, Barack and
Speaker 2: Michelle Obama, who left office and almost immediately started signing
Speaker 2: insanely lucrative deals with the exact same companies, Spotify and Netflix.
Speaker 2: Yet a similar story has already played out there. Spotify
Speaker 2: did not renew its deal with the Obamas because they
Speaker 2: rightfully thought, if you sign a deal with Obama, Obama
Speaker 2: would actually appear every once in a while on a podcast.
Speaker 2: But they apparently don't want to do that. They want
Speaker 2: to produce content from behind the scenes that doesn't feature
Speaker 2: them as must because they're so special talent producers. A
Speaker 2: common theme is emerging here. People become famous, either through
Speaker 2: birth or public service, then they turned themselves into a brand.
Speaker 2: Obama himself ceased being an actual man a very long
Speaker 2: time ago. He is a multi million dollar deal, as
Speaker 2: is his wife. After the book become fame, their job
Speaker 2: is to print as much cash in this lifetime as
Speaker 2: humanly possible while maintaining an iron death grip on the
Speaker 2: control of the Democratic Party. Obama himself has not been
Speaker 2: all that adept at actually producing good content. His National
Speaker 2: Park series on Netflix was a huge flop, generated almost
Speaker 2: no buzz. I personally also found it odd. Why is
Speaker 2: it an American president doing a series called National Parks
Speaker 2: and then including parks about other countries? Whatever? I digress.
Speaker 2: The major takeaway from these two cases is how much money,
Speaker 2: leeway and cash that you can get when you are
Speaker 2: a cultural star with the right politics take people like
Speaker 2: us out of it. How insane is our current system.
Speaker 2: From comedy to politics to almost every sector of entertainment,
Speaker 2: there is an explosion of independent talent hustling, building real audiences,
Speaker 2: connections with millions of people across the globe. Now some
Speaker 2: of them get paid, to be sure, but really only
Speaker 2: what the top point zero one percent. People like Joe Rogan, xQc. Others,
Speaker 2: they hustle their way there for years before they got paid.
Speaker 2: People like Obama, Harry and Megan, they jumped the line
Speaker 2: and they don't do any of the actual work. That
Speaker 2: drives That's what actually what drives me the craziest about
Speaker 2: this is like, you can quit.
Speaker 1: The Royal fan and if you want to hear my
Speaker 1: reaction to Sager's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 4: Chris L.
Speaker 2: What are you taking a look at?
Speaker 1: There is an extraordinary scandal unfolding in the lucrative world
Speaker 1: of behavioral science. One of the stars of the field,
Speaker 1: Francesca Gino, is being accused of repeated outright fraud, and
Speaker 1: in a deliciously.
Speaker 5: Ironic twist, you really can't make this up.
Speaker 1: She is said to have faked results in a study
Speaker 1: about honesty. An incredible story, humiliating for her employer that
Speaker 1: would be Harvard, the blue chip companies that sought out
Speaker 1: her services, the mainstream outlets that routinely quoted her, and
Speaker 1: also further calls into question some of the blockbuster behavioral
Speaker 1: science findings of the past two decades. All right, so
Speaker 1: let me give you a little bit of backstory here.
Speaker 1: Behavioral scientists typically attempt to id identify subtle prompts and
Speaker 1: tendencies that influence how human beings act. How do you
Speaker 1: encourage more organ donation or healthier eating, or how.
Speaker 5: Do you get consumers to buy a particular product.
Speaker 1: It's essentially the study of shaping and manipulating human behavior
Speaker 1: without the subject really ever knowing what is happening.
Speaker 5: Over the past few.
Speaker 1: Decades, behavioral science has shot to prominence because it's obviously
Speaker 1: very valuable for corporations and governments to know the little
Speaker 1: psychological tricks that can keep you buying their goods or
Speaker 1: keep employees placated and supplicant or citizens compliant. Key research
Speaker 1: in the field, though, has already been called into question
Speaker 1: over the years, due primarily to an inability to replicate
Speaker 1: many of the most blockbuster findings. So back in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: laboratories sought to recreate the results of twenty one different
Speaker 1: studies in the field. They were only able to do
Speaker 1: so in thirteen instances. Now, this was no minor affair,
Speaker 1: as BuzzFeed reported at the time. Quote the eight papers
Speaker 1: that did not fully replicate seven in the journal Science,
Speaker 1: one in Nature, have been cited hundreds of times in
Speaker 1: scientific literature, and many were widely covered by the media.
Speaker 1: But this is small potatoes compared to the new revelations.
Speaker 1: At issue is a twenty twelve paper authored by Geno
Speaker 1: and a number of other co authors which relied on
Speaker 1: the results of three different studies. Those studies purported to
Speaker 1: show that people could be compelled to behave more honestly
Speaker 1: if they were asked to sign an honesty pledge at
Speaker 1: the top of a form instead of at the bottom. However,
Speaker 1: a group of scientists that run a blog called data
Speaker 1: Colata they were able to demonstrate that some of the
Speaker 1: data used in the study had been tampered with and
Speaker 1: that that fake data had actually driven the results of
Speaker 1: that study and led to that finding. Now, the same
Speaker 1: group of crusading researchers they had found manipulated data in
Speaker 1: one of the other studies that also drove that same
Speaker 1: blockbuster twenty twelve paper. So, for those who are keeping
Speaker 1: track at home, two out of the three honesty studies
Speaker 1: relied on dishonest information.
Speaker 5: But that's not all the data.
Speaker 1: C lot of folks have since published additional blogs revealing
Speaker 1: fabricated data in two other studies in which doctor Gina
Speaker 1: was involved, and they are promising one more. This has
Speaker 1: caused an earthquake in the field. She was both a
Speaker 1: star and she collaborated widely with other researchers, all of
Speaker 1: whom are now wondering if the results of the studies
Speaker 1: they worked on with doctor Gina were real or fake,
Speaker 1: and The New York Times quota behavioral scientist Maurice Schweitzer
Speaker 1: as saying that the allegations are having large reverberations in
Speaker 1: the academic community because doctor Gino is someone who has
Speaker 1: so many collaborators, so many articles, who is really a
Speaker 1: leading scholar in the field. And doctor Gino herself has
Speaker 1: been placed on leave by her employer, Harvard University. It
Speaker 1: doesn't take an economics degree to understand the motivations in
Speaker 1: this field to create fake results, As The Chronicle of
Speaker 1: Higher Education put it quote, her expertise has made her
Speaker 1: in demand as a consultant speaker to some of the
Speaker 1: world's biggest companies and institutions, but Carti, Google, Microsoft, Coca Cola, Disney, Goldman, Sex, Honeywell, Nevardes,
Speaker 1: Procter and Gamble, and the US Air Force, Army, and Navy,
Speaker 1: and as a source to media outlets from The New
Speaker 1: York Times, the Wall Street Journal to her website.
Speaker 5: She has co authored more than one hundred and.
Speaker 1: Thirty five academic articles and written books, including twenty eighteen's
Speaker 1: Rebel Talent, Why It Pays to Break the rules at
Speaker 1: work and in life.
Speaker 5: That's an interesting one, isn't it. She's also been named one.
Speaker 1: Of the world's forty best business school professors under forty
Speaker 1: and fifty most influential management thinkers. She is the type
Speaker 1: of expert who does ted talks and is highly sought
Speaker 1: after for corporate conferences and the like. And in order
Speaker 1: to get people to continue buying your books and paying
Speaker 1: for you to speak at their conferences, you got to
Speaker 1: keep churning out attention grabbing research which is highly relevant
Speaker 1: to corporate America and look study of human beings and
Speaker 1: our particular irrationalities. That is inherently interesting, it's also potentially gross. Where,
Speaker 1: after all, is the line between nudging or shaping behavior
Speaker 1: and manipulative syups. What type of powerful psychological manipulations, for example,
Speaker 1: are being unleashed on our nation's teenagers to keep them
Speaker 1: addicted to their social media feeds even as they are
Speaker 1: making them increasingly miserable. This is all big big business
Speaker 1: banks and arch corporations have taken to hiring their own
Speaker 1: in house behavioral scientists to make sure they are squeezing
Speaker 1: their customers and their workers for everything that they are worth.
Speaker 1: Bottom line, I guess we shouldn't be too shocked when
Speaker 1: the top researchers in the field of manipulation are caught
Speaker 1: engaging in their own manipulations.
Speaker 5: And this one sager is so humiliating.
Speaker 2: I mean, and if you want to hear my reaction
Speaker 2: to Crystal's monologue, become a premum subscriber today at breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot com.
Speaker 1: As you know, guys, we've been doing extensive coverage of
Speaker 1: that aborted coup effort in Russian and we're very excited
Speaker 1: now to get to talk to a resident of Moscow
Speaker 1: and a great friend, Yegor Kotkin. He is a great
Speaker 1: socialist thinker and writer. You can actually check them out
Speaker 1: on substack and we'll post links for all of his
Speaker 1: writings and where you can support him via bitcoin as well.
Speaker 1: But it's great to see you, my friend.
Speaker 6: Good to see you man, Good to see you guys.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's a pleasure.
Speaker 1: So while all of this was unfolding, you were there
Speaker 1: in Moscow watching it on Telegram, Twitter and all the
Speaker 1: other means. I mean, just take us through what this
Speaker 1: was like to live for live through for you.
Speaker 6: Literally under siege.
Speaker 12: No actually from the standpoint of a regular cities.
Speaker 6: And you might completely miss this.
Speaker 12: So in the SAT day, when the most events unfolded,
Speaker 12: I just met out the regime went back, and if
Speaker 12: I was glued to telegram channels and the bitter news,
Speaker 12: I would not even notice that.
Speaker 6: Something is happening.
Speaker 12: My boyfriend, who travels much more than me, he noticed
Speaker 12: in some places in he enters in most school there
Speaker 12: are some unusual activity more.
Speaker 6: But again you could easily miss it because.
Speaker 12: Basically all events will happened and mostly online and outside
Speaker 12: of Moscow, Moscow didn't. If you do not anticipate this
Speaker 12: through the news coming to Moscow, you might completely miss it.
Speaker 12: And now people just joke and that if someone went
Speaker 12: in the mountains on the weekend and now asking what happened,
Speaker 12: you can safely say nothing happened, because it.
Speaker 6: It went back.
Speaker 12: From the civil standpoint, it went back and it was
Speaker 12: almost nothing.
Speaker 6: But from the political from political.
Speaker 12: Standpoint and the historical standpoint, I mean, the picture is
Speaker 12: completely different.
Speaker 6: Of course.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so let's talk about that you brought up your
Speaker 2: mom before as a good view into like how regular
Speaker 2: Russians are internalizing propaganda, So like what is the view
Speaker 2: from your mother from a from an average Russian media
Speaker 2: consumer as to what the hell happened in this coupe.
Speaker 12: Literally the first thing I did, I called to my
Speaker 12: mother Saturday morning asked what what does she know?
Speaker 6: She didn't know nothing because uh.
Speaker 12: Urgently putting message to the population was unplanned. Was at
Speaker 12: nine a m in Russia, so she missed it because
Speaker 12: she watched her news Friday evening, so no news yet.
Speaker 12: Then Saturday, Monday, the moon, she doesn't know what is
Speaker 12: because she didn't watch news yet, Putting's translation went mostly
Speaker 12: unnoticed to the most people.
Speaker 6: And then when I ask hell again on Sunday, she
Speaker 6: said that.
Speaker 12: Official version is well, there was some kind of movement.
Speaker 12: It was not good, but they didn't help anybody, So
Speaker 12: whould let them pass m And.
Speaker 1: So explain to us what is the you know as
Speaker 1: best as you can. How do people largely feel about
Speaker 1: Progoson himself? How did they feel before this attempted cue?
Speaker 1: How do they feel after? Did they view him as
Speaker 1: a hero? Do they view him as a trader? Is
Speaker 1: it mixed? Is it complicated? What's your sense of that?
Speaker 6: Well, Pregossion is mostly a media creature.
Speaker 8: He was.
Speaker 12: Propt to buy media in the last year because well,
Speaker 12: you have to understand how Russian there is to understand
Speaker 12: pregossion phenomena is, despite his public image, is very indecisive
Speaker 12: leader and say cowardly. So he loves to all hard
Speaker 12: decisions delegate to people below him.
Speaker 6: Or just wait it out. When history of where it happened.
Speaker 6: So when it was.
Speaker 12: UH stalemate in the Ukrainian War about a year ago
Speaker 12: happening UH, there was a vacuum, media vacuum for some
Speaker 12: kind of leaders of this war who showed the Russia
Speaker 12: doing something, and Prigordan just took this place.
Speaker 6: And the media were happy.
Speaker 12: Propaganda propaganda, what happened to use it for this purpose?
Speaker 6: So they propped him his.
Speaker 12: As not a mercenary leader, not a businessman my film,
Speaker 12: but as a true Russian hero, patriot and basically a
Speaker 12: spear plat of Russian in Ukraine. And I think that
Speaker 12: people believed. People believed it, of course, and I think
Speaker 12: he got high on the smell of his own parts,
Speaker 12: as it says, because he started act like his public person.
Speaker 12: He's actually had any political base. I mean, yes, show
Speaker 12: like he has up to twenty percent support from Russian population.
Speaker 12: But this is what the media push can give you.
Speaker 12: You see this in America all the time, like where
Speaker 12: was twenty percent of Wounder support in democratic primaries. Once
Speaker 12: you see him in action, it disappears. So basically you
Speaker 12: have this manufactured support for pregossion. But he believed that
Speaker 12: he actually have a political future. He starts brawling openly
Speaker 12: with the Russian Minister of Defense, and again it was
Speaker 12: very opportun for him because people who are supporting this
Speaker 12: world or even what this all to get over, which
Speaker 12: is majorge of population, they since that there is something
Speaker 12: the Russian military, Russian military leadership.
Speaker 6: So when Prigordon started record his.
Speaker 12: Viral videos giving them or given exam they thought that
Speaker 12: he might be the change for the better. So again
Speaker 12: it was everything that was media done, and he was
Speaker 12: using only the lack of presence by the actual leaders
Speaker 12: of the military and putting himself to use this opportunity.
Speaker 6: But then you start talking.
Speaker 1: Yes, well I was gonna ask what is your assessment
Speaker 1: of what this will mean for the Putin regime going forward?
Speaker 5: As best as anyone could say.
Speaker 6: Well, my first I probably say think what I think happened.
Speaker 6: It was not that much of a political act, I
Speaker 6: think is.
Speaker 12: As much as we saw how things are being done
Speaker 12: in Puttin's regime and have been done for twenty years,
Speaker 12: just in open view for the first time, not under
Speaker 12: the rug. The rug got pulled away for a second.
Speaker 12: So I'm pretty sure that Russian rehythm is the works
Speaker 12: exactly this way. There are forces of power, There are
Speaker 12: different clients who compete with.
Speaker 6: Each other for money, for power, for uh.
Speaker 12: Stage job and so on, and the pujet is their
Speaker 12: high arbital, and there is a lot of threads, violent
Speaker 12: threads going under the ruck. Usually right now we just
Speaker 12: sols out in the open. But my sense that it
Speaker 12: wasn't nothing more that internal struggle that come out in
Speaker 12: the public political space, and the precaution did not probably
Speaker 12: expect the backlash he will get because the people were
Speaker 12: not ready to see this internal kitchen.
Speaker 6: Outright on the.
Speaker 12: Public view, because it became a historic moment, it became
Speaker 12: part of recorded history.
Speaker 6: So he checked out. But I think for Putting it
Speaker 6: will be for a time being just fine.
Speaker 12: Because as the high arbiter of Martia plants that Oligard
Speaker 12: plans that divide Russia, he still worked out the thing,
Speaker 12: judge fine. So he managed to pull through some deal.
Speaker 12: What kind of deal? No one knows exactly, but he
Speaker 12: managed to do this, so he proved his usefulness for
Speaker 12: the people who backed back the regime once again the
Speaker 12: same way, but now in the public usually going on
Speaker 12: under the run. And I think the fact that it
Speaker 12: enters in the space of public politics, it changes a lot,
Speaker 12: but it changes.
Speaker 6: A lot in the long run. In the short run,
Speaker 6: it put in the win.
Speaker 1: I think that that is fascinating. Yegor, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: It's really invaluable for us to have your insights today.
Speaker 4: We're really grateful, Thank you, Diegor.
Speaker 5: And also taking the personal risk.
Speaker 4: Yeah, let's be real, this.
Speaker 2: Man is taking a risk. He's actually a hero. So
Speaker 2: you know, if you want to support him, we'll have
Speaker 2: links in the description to all of that. So thank
Speaker 2: you very much, Diegor. We appreciate your analysis.
Speaker 5: Yeah, great to see you, my friend.
Speaker 4: Thank you guys so much for watching the show. We
Speaker 4: appreciate it.
Speaker 2: We've got a great interview with Mary Anne Williamson. We'll
Speaker 2: be dropping a little bit later today. We're excited for that,
Speaker 2: and thank you. Everybody's been heeding the call on our subscribers.
Speaker 2: We're doing well. It actually looks like I might have
Speaker 2: to do that show in Indian garb. Let's do the
Speaker 2: official count, the official nine to nine eight zero zero eight,
Speaker 2: So we've got a couple hundred six weeks. Yeah, zero zero, ten, eleven, twelve.
Speaker 2: This is fun.
Speaker 4: It's good to watch the live counter.
Speaker 2: So if you want to see me in full Indian
Speaker 2: dress garb and sneakers humiliate myself, go ahead and subscribe
Speaker 2: to the show. Well, let's get to one million. Otherwise,
Speaker 2: we'll see you all tomorrow.
Speaker 5: Love you guys, See you tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Crisp S.