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 everything.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 2: for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have, Chris sal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do lots to get to you this morning.
Speaker 1: Polls Polls pull some very interesting numbers coming out New
Speaker 1: York Times on both the Democratic side and the Republican side.
Speaker 1: Who's up, who's down? What does the race look like?
Speaker 1: We will dig into all of that. We also had
Speaker 1: some very interesting testimony here on Capitol Hill from a
Speaker 1: former Hunter Biden business associate who is by the way,
Speaker 1: facing jail time and is really undermining the story that
Speaker 1: Biden has been going with. We've got some media cope
Speaker 1: for you. We've got we got the whole thing with
Speaker 1: regards to Hunter Biden. Also, big developments in terms of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: You know, these drone strikes on Moscow are now becoming
Speaker 1: just an absolutely regular occurrence. So we'll tell you about that,
Speaker 1: some of the things that are going on there. Wild
Speaker 1: story coming out of California. I honestly don't know what
Speaker 1: to make of it. There was an unlicensed medical testing
Speaker 1: lab that you know, authorities were able to get into.
Speaker 1: They found all kinds of you know, viruses and all
Speaker 1: kinds of like human biological substances. Very disturbing actually, and
Speaker 1: some disturbing connections there as well. Sager's got an update
Speaker 1: for us as well in terms of the UFO testimony
Speaker 1: that we saw recently and some pushback that we're getting
Speaker 1: drama breaks, some major drama there, So we will break
Speaker 1: all of that down for you as well. But before
Speaker 1: we get to any of that, thank you again to
Speaker 1: all of the premiums describers.
Speaker 4: So we've been really working hard.
Speaker 1: To get some big guests in studio, and I know
Speaker 1: you guys have really been responding to those interviews, so
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your support.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: So we've got more big guests that are coming down
Speaker 2: the pipeline. We've been working and using extensively a lot
Speaker 2: more resources. Thanks to everybody that's been able to sign
Speaker 2: up breakingpoints dot com. You guys not only enable the
Speaker 2: ability to actually get these done, all the man hours
Speaker 2: that go into it, the after the production travel, et cetera.
Speaker 3: That makes that possible.
Speaker 2: So thank you all to those people, And of course,
Speaker 2: as a thank you, we always release those interviews first
Speaker 2: to our premium describers. So if you want the big
Speaker 2: names and you want them first, then that's the reason
Speaker 2: to sign up breakingpoints dot com if you are able.
Speaker 2: But let's get to this big New York Times poll Crystal,
Speaker 2: which is making big waves both.
Speaker 3: On the Republican and on the Democratic side.
Speaker 1: Really, yeah, that's right, So let's start with what's going
Speaker 1: on with the Republicans.
Speaker 4: Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So Trump with a massive lead in terms of this
Speaker 1: New York Times Siana poll, which is considered kind of
Speaker 1: a gold standard. They spend a lot of money on
Speaker 1: these things to try to make them as accurate as possible,
Speaker 1: not that they always really succeed there, but this comports
Speaker 1: with the trend that we have seen of Trump really
Speaker 1: pulling away from the field.
Speaker 4: So we have him at fifty.
Speaker 1: Four, so more than majority DeSantis at seventeen, and then
Speaker 1: everybody else is at either three, two or one percent.
Speaker 1: You got Pence, Scott and Haley at three percent, Vivek
Speaker 1: and Chris Christy at two percent.
Speaker 4: So obviously, doing the basic.
Speaker 1: Math year, even if you add up all of the
Speaker 1: Trump opponents together, you still do not match what Trump has.
Speaker 1: They did test the head to head Trump versus DeSantis,
Speaker 1: and he was winning by a two to one margin.
Speaker 1: So even in the fantasy world where everybody drops out
Speaker 1: and everybody coalesces around Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump still with
Speaker 1: a massive, massive lead. Let me read you a little
Speaker 1: bit of the analysis here. They say that mister Trump
Speaker 1: held decisive advantages across almost every demographic group and region
Speaker 1: and in every ideological wing up the party, as Republican
Speaker 1: voters waved away concerns about his escalating legal jeopardy, led
Speaker 1: by wide margins among men, women, younger, older voters, moderates, conservatives,
Speaker 1: those who went to college, those who didn't go to college, cities.
Speaker 4: Suburbs, and rural areas.
Speaker 1: And you can also see that there were additional ominous signs,
Speaker 1: they say, from mister DeSantis, who performed weakest among some
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party's biggest and most influential constituencies. He
Speaker 1: earned nine percent DeSantis nine percent support among voters at
Speaker 1: least sixty five years old, thirteen percent of those without
Speaker 1: a college degree, so basically working class voters only thirteen
Speaker 1: percent for DeSantis. And you know, in another science sager
Speaker 1: that is very not so great for DeSantis. Republicans who
Speaker 1: described themselves as very conservative favored Trump by a fifty
Speaker 1: point margin.
Speaker 4: Sixty five to fifteen.
Speaker 1: And that's really where DeSantis has been trying to lean.
Speaker 1: He's gotten to the right of Trump on a variety
Speaker 1: of issues, hoping that he could pick up these very
Speaker 1: conservative voters.
Speaker 3: It is not working out for no, it is certainly
Speaker 3: not working out at all.
Speaker 2: Our own Amblin Dashinski actually flagged or really interesting some
Speaker 2: takeaways I think from here. Let's go and put this
Speaker 2: next one up there on the screen. This one, as
Speaker 2: you can see here, is about one of the most
Speaker 2: important things that they actually poll test in Trump feed.
Speaker 2: DeSantis strong leader, gets things done, able to beat Joe Biden, fun,
Speaker 2: likable and moral. So interestingly enough, Desanta is actually beating
Speaker 2: Trump on likable and moral, but whenever it comes to
Speaker 2: strong leader, Trump is crushing DeSantis sixty nine to twenty
Speaker 2: two in terms of get things done, it's sixty seven
Speaker 2: to twenty two. That's brutal for DeSantis because his entire
Speaker 2: case is I'm the guy who actually gets things done
Speaker 2: and not focused on the drama. But really, to me,
Speaker 2: the one that actually just brought it all home was
Speaker 2: the fun deficit, Crystal Chris is Trump fifty four percent fun,
Speaker 2: DeSantis sixteen percent fun. That is actually the biggest delta
Speaker 2: between the two. And look, politics is a show. Trump
Speaker 2: he captive to these people. He gave meeting to their lives.
Speaker 2: He gave them, he gave them the jolt that they
Speaker 2: always wanted to see, somebody who pisses the people off that.
Speaker 3: They hate more than anything on national television.
Speaker 2: And he gave them that gift four years, every single day,
Speaker 2: three hundred and sixty five, every tweet that was ever sent. DeSantis,
Speaker 2: in many ways is almost undermining that ability because he
Speaker 2: wants to be the guy who gets things done. He
Speaker 2: doesn't want to focus on the drama. He doesn't want
Speaker 2: to do silly season. And you know something we've maintained
Speaker 2: here for a long time is that that's just a
Speaker 2: very wrong reading of the GOP electorate. The GOP electorate
Speaker 2: loves silly Season. They actually they love Trump. They think
Speaker 2: it's hilarious. And that comes through dramatically really throughout all
Speaker 2: of this. Because they don't think he's likable. They know
Speaker 2: nobody's ever thought he's likable. They don't think he's moral,
Speaker 2: but they think he's hilarious. They think he's funny, they
Speaker 2: think he's strong, and they think he can beat Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: You can't disagree with them.
Speaker 3: I can't disagree with him either. That's the thing.
Speaker 2: Can you really anyone who is honest, who is not
Speaker 2: a self serious you know, it's not a self serious
Speaker 2: like Cerebrole just like sitting there and be like, oh,
Speaker 2: the democracy and all that.
Speaker 3: On an objective basis, he's good at what he does.
Speaker 3: He's a funny guys.
Speaker 1: It's charismatic, and he's hilarious. It's terrific that he's such
Speaker 1: a terrible person. But that is the report. And so
Speaker 1: if you've got two guys who share basically the same
Speaker 1: ideology and one of them is funny and the other
Speaker 1: one is sort of like grading and not that fun
Speaker 1: to listen to Yeah, I mean listen. I don't want
Speaker 1: to be too hard on DeSantis, because I do think
Speaker 1: that he basically read the electorate wrong in every key way.
Speaker 1: I also don't think that there is really a way
Speaker 1: to go head to head against Trump and come out
Speaker 1: on top just because of where the Republican base is
Speaker 1: right now. We'll get some more of those numbers in
Speaker 1: just a second. Another way, though, in which DeSantis misread
Speaker 1: the Republican electorate was on making wokeness the center, end all,
Speaker 1: be all of his campaign. Only twenty four percent of
Speaker 1: Republican voters said they would be more likely to support
Speaker 1: the candidate focused on fighting quote woke issues. And they
Speaker 1: did a bunch of tests of like wokeness versus you know,
Speaker 1: other messaging, and in every instance the other messaging sort
Speaker 1: of more of a focus on law and order and
Speaker 1: border came out way on top over focusing on fighting
Speaker 1: back against wokeness. They asked questions about the fight basically
Speaker 1: that DeSantis is engaged in with Disney, and more people
Speaker 1: were on the side of, hey, you know, you shouldn't
Speaker 1: be using state power to go after private corporations, And
Speaker 1: that was across demographic groups.
Speaker 4: Across education groups.
Speaker 1: So I understand why he put that at the center
Speaker 1: because he has a very difficult challenge trying to stitch
Speaker 1: together this coalition. And the one thing that does seem
Speaker 1: to be a glue across a very divided Republican electorate
Speaker 1: right now is concerns about quote unquote wokeness. But clearly
Speaker 1: it's not enough of a concern. It doesn't feel like
Speaker 1: it touches people's lives directly enough for this to be
Speaker 1: sufficient for them to move off of Trump. Let's go
Speaker 1: and put this next piece up on the screen that
Speaker 1: shows some of the divide within the Republican park already
Speaker 1: along really class lines. So at the top you see
Speaker 1: you've got magabase that's like thirty seven percent.
Speaker 4: Those are the people rock solid for Trump.
Speaker 1: You've got thirty seven percent of persuadable voters who they
Speaker 1: like Trump, but they could be maybe open to a
Speaker 1: different candidate. And then you've got twenty five percent who
Speaker 1: are not open to Trump. Across those different categories, you
Speaker 1: have a very big class divide. So in the magabase
Speaker 1: you have a much higher number who do not have
Speaker 1: a college degree. You have then on the open to Trump,
Speaker 1: you have a much higher number who do have a
Speaker 1: college degree. It's a majority there that have a college degree.
Speaker 1: You have near a majority there among the not open
Speaker 1: to Trump who earn one hundred k or more. So
Speaker 1: very clear classified in terms of which category these people
Speaker 1: sort themselves into.
Speaker 3: So on the.
Speaker 1: Number who oppose immigration reform, you see huge split between
Speaker 1: the magabase, it's seventy one percent no immigration reform. Among
Speaker 1: the higher end income and college education group that are
Speaker 1: not open to Trump, it's only thirty seven percent. You
Speaker 1: see a big divide on opposing a to Ukraine, much
Speaker 1: more popular position among the working class MAGA base. This
Speaker 1: one was the most notable, though, perhaps among the MAGA base,
Speaker 1: eighty percent say that America is in danger of failing.
Speaker 1: Among the more affluent not open to Trump group, it
Speaker 1: is only thirty seven percent who say America is in
Speaker 1: danger of failing.
Speaker 4: I mean, I guess it makes sense.
Speaker 1: When you yourself are doing pretty well, you probably feel pretty
Speaker 1: good about the direction that the country is heading in.
Speaker 4: You don't feel an existential risk.
Speaker 1: Whereas if you are in that non college educated, more
Speaker 1: working class base, it makes sense that you would see
Speaker 1: things quite a bit more dimly than the rest.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: Let's put the next part up on their on screen,
Speaker 2: because they have a very important sliding graphic here which
Speaker 2: shows you that the MAGA base is already thirty seven percent.
Speaker 2: Then amongst the so called persuadables, seventeen percent of those
Speaker 2: people actually lean towards Trump. So now you just got
Speaker 2: to an outright fifty percent amongst the rest, there are
Speaker 2: twelve percent others, and then really only a very slight
Speaker 2: crossover between persuadable and not open to Trump. So we've
Speaker 2: always said it, you know, it's very difficult to try
Speaker 2: and cobble these things together.
Speaker 3: I've never really believed that.
Speaker 2: The coalition really existed for Ron DeSantis, just given the
Speaker 2: way that people feel about Trump, and this is just
Speaker 2: a you know, a good confirmation of that, I think
Speaker 2: in many ways, and the class divide at this point,
Speaker 2: I almost think it's important just to stop talking about
Speaker 2: even DeSantis many of these other people and just look
Speaker 2: at the base as it exists. And that why I
Speaker 2: think that they still look and favor Trump. I mean,
Speaker 2: consider the Ukraine question. Sixty four percent of the MAGA
Speaker 2: base opposes a to Ukraine. Fifty eight percent of these
Speaker 2: persuadable voters also oppose a to Ukraine. Twenty six percent
Speaker 2: don't In the not open to Trump the GOP lawmakers
Speaker 2: who are vastly represented in Congress and in the Senate.
Speaker 2: Whose side are they on. They're on the side of
Speaker 2: the affluent, They're on the side of the small And
Speaker 2: these people who are not open to Trump, these are
Speaker 2: old time Republicans. These are Mitt Romney, small business owners,
Speaker 2: you know, the multi millionaires, like the guys in Florida
Speaker 2: on a nice boat and you know, like in the
Speaker 2: in the Trump boat parade. But they don't do it
Speaker 2: because they love Trump. They really just do it to
Speaker 2: like flex the boat on the hill attacks. Yeah, these
Speaker 2: guys are being Republicans for you know, for decades. It's
Speaker 2: like those are the people that you need to really
Speaker 2: persuade or really should be like act being working on
Speaker 2: behalf of it. If you think about it in terms
Speaker 2: of coalitions, this shows me again that like there it's Trump,
Speaker 2: it's Marjorie, it's Matt Gates.
Speaker 3: I can name. On the other hand, like maybe JD.
Speaker 2: Evans At sometimes like Josh Holly, a few others, Like
Speaker 2: that's basically it in terms of their coalition that's in Congress.
Speaker 2: So no wonder that they feel so connected to Trump
Speaker 2: because he is really the only even spokesperson in rhetoric
Speaker 2: for so many of the things that they even come
Speaker 2: to care about.
Speaker 1: Although, to be honest with you, looking at these numbers,
Speaker 1: what really comes across is it's more about the vibes
Speaker 1: and specific policy issue because even pulled okay.
Speaker 4: So what do you think about Ukraine? A to Ukraine?
Speaker 1: And even among people who are like I support it,
Speaker 1: and I support Ukraine and I want to be there,
Speaker 1: you know, indefinitely, they still support Donald Trump, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: on all of these among people who think that Social
Speaker 1: Security shouldn't be cut, and among people who think it
Speaker 1: should be cut, they all support Trump. So I think,
Speaker 1: to me much more at the core is the fun
Speaker 1: graphic of how people, how people feel. He's a strong
Speaker 1: leader and I have a good time when I'm listening
Speaker 1: to him.
Speaker 4: That's what I'm really in it for.
Speaker 1: And you know, I mean this is not to like
Speaker 1: cast ex versions on the electro but part of how
Speaker 1: DeSantis misread the Republican base is by thinking like, oh,
Speaker 1: if I go down the issue list and I like
Speaker 1: check off the boxes and I get to Trump's right,
Speaker 1: and I find the right position on all of these
Speaker 1: things and get the right answer, then people are going
Speaker 1: to come into my camp.
Speaker 4: It hasn't worked out that way.
Speaker 1: In fact, the more that he has, you know, leaned
Speaker 1: into his policy oriented message, the more people have moved
Speaker 1: on to Donald Trump. So I really, you know, I
Speaker 1: think what you're saying is important in the fact that
Speaker 1: there is a failure of democracy in terms of representation
Speaker 1: in Washington, the issues that are pushed by either major
Speaker 1: party in Washington, what the actual policy incomes are. I
Speaker 1: think that is incredibly important and essential, But I don't
Speaker 1: actually think that's driving what the support is in the
Speaker 1: Republican primary. There is a quote in here though, that
Speaker 1: I think more gets to this point why people are
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly backing Donald Trump in the Republican primary. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. This is from David Green,
Speaker 1: sixty nine year old retail manager in Somersworth, New Hampshire.
Speaker 1: He says of Trump and why he supports him. Quote,
Speaker 1: he might say mean things and make all the men
Speaker 1: cry because all the men are wearing your wife's underpants,
Speaker 1: and you can't be a man anymore. You got to
Speaker 1: be a little sissy and cry about everything. But at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, you want results. Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: my guy. He proved it on a national level. Much
Speaker 1: more vibes that because I mean, DeSantis has leaned into
Speaker 1: whatever shoes this man is gesturing at. He's very much
Speaker 1: leaned into those policy issues.
Speaker 4: But Trump, that makes the more like strong man kind
Speaker 4: of case.
Speaker 2: I love this guy because he just says it out loud.
Speaker 2: He's right by the way in terms of like how
Speaker 2: people view things, like that's it, that's what it takes away.
Speaker 2: That's why I mean, look, I led with fun whenever
Speaker 2: I said it explained everything. There are a few other
Speaker 2: things that I do think you know, tangentially apply, but
Speaker 2: fun the appears strong pissing the people off what I
Speaker 2: hate the most.
Speaker 3: That's pretty much always been it.
Speaker 1: So anyway, man may have his own issues that he's
Speaker 1: working there there. Your top issue is women's men wearing
Speaker 1: women's underpants. Anyways, let's move on to the Biden side
Speaker 1: of the aisle, because we just this morning got the
Speaker 1: New York Times Siana poll on the Democratic side, and
Speaker 1: it is also very interesting.
Speaker 4: Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So Biden has somewhat improved his position among Democrats, although a.
Speaker 4: Majority are still like, we'd rather have someone other than Biden.
Speaker 1: But here's some of the analysis from the New York Times.
Speaker 1: They say warning signs a bound for the president. Despite
Speaker 1: his improved standing and a friendlier national environment, mister Biden
Speaker 1: remains broadly unpopular among a voting public that is pessimistic
Speaker 1: about the country's future, and his approval rating is a
Speaker 1: mere thirty nine percent. Perhaps most worryingly for Democrats, the
Speaker 1: poll found mister Biden in a neck and neck race
Speaker 1: with former President Donald Trump, who held a commanding lead
Speaker 1: among likely Republican primary voters as we were just discussing,
Speaker 1: even as he faces two criminal indictments and more potential
Speaker 1: charges on the horizon. Mister Biden and mister Trump were
Speaker 1: tied at forty three percent a piece in a hypothetical
Speaker 1: rematch in twenty twenty four, according to the poll. Now,
Speaker 1: in terms of primary support, within this poll, Biden had
Speaker 1: the backing of sixty four percent of Democratic primary voters
Speaker 1: who were intending on participating in the party's primaries. Thirteen
Speaker 1: percent were behind RFK Junior, and ten percent chose Mary
Speaker 1: and Williamson. So even though you still have and They've
Speaker 1: got some good quotes here. I'll read to you Voters
Speaker 1: who are on the Democratics, they're not enthusiastic about Biden.
Speaker 1: They feel like they have no real choice. I think
Speaker 1: that the relentless message from the party leadership and from
Speaker 1: corporate media aligned with the Democratic Party that listen, guys,
Speaker 1: Biden is effectively the only candidate in the race, and
Speaker 1: we're just gonna ignore.
Speaker 4: These other two. I think that's worked.
Speaker 1: You've got a couple of quotes here that I want
Speaker 1: to share with you. One individual who has said about
Speaker 1: Trump and Biden. I'm sorry, but both of them to
Speaker 1: me are too old. Biden to me, seems less mentally
Speaker 1: capable age wise. But Trump is just evil. He's done
Speaker 1: horrible things. That is the case that the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is hoping is going to resonate with the American public. Like, listen,
Speaker 1: you may not be in love with Jo'biden, but look
Speaker 1: at the alternative.
Speaker 2: You have.
Speaker 1: A thirty eight year old woman government analyst from Atlanta
Speaker 1: described herself as a political progressive not aligned with a party,
Speaker 1: who said mister Biden's tax policy had been skewed to
Speaker 1: favor the wealthy while the middle class paid more than
Speaker 1: its fair share. Quote, we're kind of smushed in the middle.
Speaker 1: We're taking the brunt of the taxes for everybody. She
Speaker 1: did say she'd vote for Biden again, but added she
Speaker 1: wouldn't do so with much gusto. It's basically like, I
Speaker 1: don't have another choice because I don't feel comfortable not voting.
Speaker 2: She said, Yeah, I mean on the Democratic side, it's
Speaker 2: pathetic whenever you're only getting six two thirds or whatever
Speaker 2: people to support you.
Speaker 3: So let's just leave that aside.
Speaker 2: The most the big headline to me was the Trump
Speaker 2: I mean the actual head to head one versus him.
Speaker 2: I mean he is actually tied in this pole crystal
Speaker 2: at forty three percent a piece in a rematch in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. That's a terrible position to be in
Speaker 2: as an incumbent president, especially two years out. You know,
Speaker 2: we really have not yet heard the full critique of
Speaker 2: Donald Trump in an actual like media circus environment of
Speaker 2: a full twenty twenty four campaign. He theoretically should be
Speaker 2: stronger right now than he ever has been. The counter
Speaker 2: to that could be, oh, well, Biden hasn't yet made
Speaker 2: his case to the American people. I mean, my counter
Speaker 2: would be, you're the president. You get to make your
Speaker 2: case every day.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Also, you are getting older every day, which is part
Speaker 2: of the problem as to why people are very skeptical
Speaker 2: of you.
Speaker 3: I mean, this really does confirm a couple of things.
Speaker 2: Trump is still dramatically electable, as much as people want
Speaker 2: to count him out. This New York Times poll I
Speaker 2: saw CNN story yesterday kind of preparing the liberals just
Speaker 2: being like, guys, Trump could actually win. And it's true.
Speaker 2: I mean I've always said this. When you are the
Speaker 2: nominee of a major party, you can win the presidency.
Speaker 2: But then with Trump, he is always underestimated. Yes, I
Speaker 2: understand twenty twenty two didn't go well.
Speaker 3: It's true. Twenty eight two didn't go well either, But
Speaker 3: he won the freaking presidency.
Speaker 2: You can't deny it. He only lost forty four, five
Speaker 2: hundred votes. And I just checked the twenty twenty poll
Speaker 2: that came out October twenty twenty see in New York
Speaker 2: Times Sienna is actually a poll historically biased against Trump
Speaker 2: in terms of his favor They had Biden up fifty
Speaker 2: one to forty two. Yeah, and the last poll of
Speaker 2: October twenty twenty, so if they have him tied Trump Biden.
Speaker 2: I'm giving Trump plus four. Historically, that's what it usually
Speaker 2: has come down to. Didn't seem to work in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two, but to me, that was because Trump himself
Speaker 2: wasn't on the ballot.
Speaker 3: This man magician. I don't know what it exactly it is.
Speaker 2: But in terms of getting people actually to the polls
Speaker 2: to come out to vote, he seems singularly enabled to
Speaker 2: do that as a politician. It's one of the rarest
Speaker 2: things you'll ever see in politics.
Speaker 1: So I have that cnnpiece from Harry Anton, who's like,
Speaker 1: there are a guy analysis of the polls, and the
Speaker 1: headline that he has here is the chance of Trump
Speaker 1: winning another term is very real. And one of the
Speaker 1: things he says that I think people really need to internalize.
Speaker 1: Trump is not only in a historically strong position for
Speaker 1: a non incumbent to win the Republican nomination, but he
Speaker 1: is in a better position to win the general election
Speaker 1: that at any point during the twenty twenty cycle, and
Speaker 1: almost at any point during the twenty sixteen cycle. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind, with Donald Trump in twenty sixteen, he was
Speaker 1: almost always pulling behind Hillary. With Biden in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: it looked like it was going to be a blowout
Speaker 1: if you were just looking at the polls. He has
Speaker 1: very rarely been looking at poles where he was actually
Speaker 1: in the poll itself tied with his Democratic opponent. So
Speaker 1: now listen, he's facing a number of other charges. He's
Speaker 1: going to be going to trial before this election.
Speaker 4: He could be.
Speaker 1: Facing prison time. That's a very real possibility, and I
Speaker 1: have to think that that is not going to be
Speaker 1: an easy thing for him to be able to overcome.
Speaker 1: So there are a lot of wild cards out there,
Speaker 1: but I think people need to take very seriously the
Speaker 1: fact that Joe Biden is an extraordinarily weak Democratic nominee.
Speaker 1: For all the people out there who are really concerned
Speaker 1: about electability, you know, and if God forbid, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump gets re elected, they need to take a
Speaker 1: really really critical lens to the Democratic Party and the
Speaker 1: fact that they shut this process out. They did not
Speaker 1: allow voters to have a choice. They said, you have
Speaker 1: to be stuck with this man that an overwhelming majority
Speaker 1: of Americans are like, this guy's just tooling.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I look, I mean it's been obvious from day one.
Speaker 2: They're playing with fire, you know, if they believe that
Speaker 2: Trump is an existential with which they say all the time.
Speaker 3: Who knows if it's whether they believe it or not.
Speaker 2: Well, if you lose, it's your fault, one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: It's on you and more and more than I'm reading Crystal.
Speaker 2: While stop the steal is a problem, while the criminal
Speaker 2: cases are a problem. You know, everyone else can recite
Speaker 2: the litany of problems. He's a strong politician, man. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it comes like anytime we see like a very serious
Speaker 2: look at his real support against Biden, specifically in the
Speaker 2: swing states and all that, I always come away with
Speaker 2: the same thought of this man, he's getting awful close
Speaker 2: to the Oval office right now, especially when you peg
Speaker 2: it to how the media and all these other people
Speaker 2: are painting his chances, and so look, be a fool
Speaker 2: and count him out if you want to. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: I would not advise.
Speaker 1: The one thing that I'll put on the other side
Speaker 1: of that equation for Joe Biden is, you know, the
Speaker 1: economy does seem to be improving, Inflation does seem to
Speaker 1: be going down, although you know, if you ask American
Speaker 1: voters they still learn not feeling it.
Speaker 2: Really.
Speaker 1: In terms of an improved economy, the mood is very,
Speaker 1: very negative. But you know, my instinct is that the
Speaker 1: charges and the criminal jeopardy for Trump, while it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter in a Republican primary, could be damaging to him
Speaker 1: in a general election. But on the other hand, I
Speaker 1: mean as silent tepas, I don't know what he did
Speaker 1: on January six, It's not like people don't know that
Speaker 1: he's facing these charges, etc. So listen, it's a jumpall
Speaker 1: right now. I think that's all we can say. And
Speaker 1: I to me, yes, it speaks to the strength of
Speaker 1: Trump as a politician. But for me, Trump's success and
Speaker 1: very near success in twenty twenty has always been a
Speaker 1: deep reflection of how weak the Democratic Party is and
Speaker 1: how little they live up to their promises and actually
Speaker 1: deliver for people. So I think it's pathetic, well they
Speaker 1: should be in this position going into this election season.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to another piece on the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: which is continued questions and maybe answers about Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: his business dealings and critically because it is the part
Speaker 1: that really really matters the involvement of his father, the
Speaker 1: President of the United States, Joe Biden. So yesterday, one
Speaker 1: of Hunter's former business partners Devin Archer, who was involved
Speaker 1: in the whole Bearisma situation. He was on Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: to testify, and what he said directly undercut what Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's line has always been about his lack of involvement
Speaker 1: in Hunter Biden's busy. Said he never even talked to
Speaker 1: Hunter about his business dealings. Well, Devin Archer has a
Speaker 1: different story. He says Hunter would quite often, many times
Speaker 1: put Joe on speakerphone with his business associates to try
Speaker 1: to basically sell the Biden brand and leverage his famous,
Speaker 1: powerful last name into his own business dealings. Democratic Representative
Speaker 1: Dan Goldman was asked about this after the hearings. Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen to how he spun those revelations.
Speaker 5: It was clear that it was part of the daily
Speaker 5: conversations that Hunter by and had with his father, And
Speaker 5: it was and sounded like most of the time, now
Speaker 5: President Biden didn't even know who the people he was
Speaker 5: at dinner. He was just asked to say hello, uh,
Speaker 5: and he would, you.
Speaker 3: Know, talk about the way he described it.
Speaker 5: Several times they asked over and over and over he
Speaker 5: described what the weather was, how, how what's going on
Speaker 5: on your end? He the witness was very, very consistent
Speaker 5: that none of those conversations ever had to do with
Speaker 5: any business dealings or transactions. They were purely what he
Speaker 5: called casual conversations.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, incredible, incredible, And we are expected to believe
Speaker 1: in his telling of events that the President of the
Speaker 1: United States is so naive that he doesn't know what's
Speaker 1: going on in these conversations.
Speaker 4: And they expect the American.
Speaker 1: People to be so naive to buy this version of events.
Speaker 1: And they also expect us to completely, like, you know,
Speaker 1: erase our memories of Biden saying that none of this
Speaker 1: ever happened.
Speaker 2: So he said he never spoke to him once on
Speaker 2: the phone. And this guy's like, oh, they were just
Speaker 2: talking about the weather. You just said they talked for
Speaker 2: how many times?
Speaker 1: Story significantly completely changed the goalposts.
Speaker 3: Put this up there on the screen. Also from Fox News.
Speaker 2: Devin Archer actually whenever he was present in front of
Speaker 2: the in front of the committee, unfortunately, was actually behind
Speaker 2: closed doors. So I really would like to see the
Speaker 2: transcript of that hearing. I am calling on them to
Speaker 2: quote release the transcript. And look, I've always said this
Speaker 2: too with Archer, he's an unsavory character.
Speaker 3: In his own right.
Speaker 2: He's facing jail time, but he was there at the
Speaker 2: center of all of these deals. And one of the
Speaker 2: reasons I feel like I'm growing nuts, Crystal is I
Speaker 2: you know, I've been covering this for almost five years.
Speaker 2: I actually looked through my notes. I did a monologue
Speaker 2: on Rising September twenty fourth, twenty twenty, which detailed every
Speaker 2: single one of the allegations that Devin Archer made behind
Speaker 2: the closed door at this hearing about the Russian billionaire
Speaker 2: who transferred money there about it was actually the source
Speaker 2: material was the twenty twenty GOP Overside Committee report, which
Speaker 2: detailed all of this and which Joe Biden then denied
Speaker 2: on September I believe it was twenty fifth somewhere around then,
Speaker 2: at the very first presidential debate. This has been out
Speaker 2: in the open for years. I mean, I actually so.
Speaker 2: I also went back and checked. I did an interview
Speaker 2: with Peter Schweizer, who wrote the book on Hunter Biden,
Speaker 2: on March fourteenth, twenty nineteen, over at Rising, and every
Speaker 2: single detail about BHD partners Devin Archer, China, Ukraine and
Speaker 2: Bearisma is listed in that interview. So it's like this
Speaker 2: has all been present in the public sphere before Joe
Speaker 2: Biden was even a declared candidate, let alone the president.
Speaker 3: So it's like, how are we still litigating.
Speaker 2: This and never have gotten to the actual bottom of
Speaker 2: it until now August one, twenty twenty three. Like that's
Speaker 2: the absurd part to me, rather than the facts. I
Speaker 2: mean Archer saying I put the guy on the phone,
Speaker 2: like I put the guy. Of course you obviously did.
Speaker 2: Archer testifying that BIZMA hired Hunter for the quote Biden brand,
Speaker 2: and everyone's like, oh, what is shocking?
Speaker 3: Is it shocking?
Speaker 2: Like you need Devin Archer to testify to that? Yeah,
Speaker 2: why does the guy get eighty three thousand dollars a month? Okay,
Speaker 2: it's not shocking to anybody. We knew consistently that Biden
Speaker 2: had met at the very least have been testified to
Speaker 2: by eyewitnesses with business partners. So it's like, to me,
Speaker 2: this is only confirmation of facts on the that we
Speaker 2: have known for years at this point. So it's just
Speaker 2: it's really repulsive to me to see Goldman and all
Speaker 2: of them not admit the very basic truth.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's only one honest interpretation of this.
Speaker 2: Biden lied straight up on the debate stage on the
Speaker 2: campaign trail as President of the United States, and White
Speaker 2: House Press Secretary Jensaki and kream John Pierre both told
Speaker 2: lies about Hunter's business dealings from the podium and the
Speaker 2: story period. If we are to believe this testimony, not
Speaker 2: only is testimony, multiple other corroborating reports, the text message
Speaker 2: you know that has come out. It's like all of this,
Speaker 2: It's just it's absurd that they can still try and
Speaker 2: stick to their original.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was always very plain on its face
Speaker 1: that the most charitable interpretation of Hunter's business dealings is
Speaker 1: that he was using the Biden. I mean, there was
Speaker 1: never any other possible explanation, right, Remember how he was
Speaker 1: like on the Amtrak board.
Speaker 4: Of course, road trains.
Speaker 1: He liked the train, Like okay, yeah, that's what that's
Speaker 1: what gets you on that board. It was always really obvious,
Speaker 1: and I'll never forget when we ask Congress and Ted
Speaker 1: Low about these dealings and he's like, yeah, people will
Speaker 1: sit on boards on the iron salaries as if, as
Speaker 1: if that's totally fine. Now listen, that may not be illegal.
Speaker 1: Although I do think some of his potential unregistered lobbying
Speaker 1: for foreign governments is something that deserves a lot of
Speaker 1: scrutiny and may be illegal, but you know, unfortunately, leveraging
Speaker 1: your political connections and parlaying them into lucrative financial positions
Speaker 1: may not be illegal.
Speaker 4: Number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, I'd like to see Republicans apply some of
Speaker 1: the same scrutiny to their own activities and dealing with
Speaker 1: those of Donald Trump. But Biden has really caught himself
Speaker 1: here and backed himself into a corner by stating so
Speaker 1: unequivocally that he never even spoke to Hunter about those
Speaker 1: And it's just that part. It's gone like, it's very
Speaker 1: clear that that's a lie. At this point, you got
Speaker 1: this other piece. There was Devin Archer apparently, you know,
Speaker 1: reportedly testified that Biden had met with this Russian oligarch
Speaker 1: who was also involved in in potential business deals, and
Speaker 1: there were questions about why this particular Russian oligarch did
Speaker 1: not end up getting sanctioned. Karine Jean Pierre refused to
Speaker 1: answer a question about this from the podium.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 6: Regarding Russia's sanctions, I'm wondering if you could share the
Speaker 6: reason why President Biden hasn't sanctioned the Russian billionaires Vladimir
Speaker 6: yet to Shenkov and Elena Vautarina.
Speaker 3: How is he handling the conflict of interest there?
Speaker 6: Giving his son was a business associated these two people,
Speaker 6: and can you confirm that, as sitting vice president he
Speaker 6: dined with that arena in Georgie.
Speaker 3: I'm just not speaking to anything that's related to his
Speaker 3: son from here.
Speaker 2: If you want to have if you want to ask
Speaker 2: a questions about Hunter Biden specifically, I would refer you
Speaker 2: to his family.
Speaker 4: So just continuing this done while here a complete bs.
Speaker 2: Once again, I literally had the notes right here in
Speaker 2: front of me as I wrote at that time, and
Speaker 2: payment included a three point five million dollar wire transfer
Speaker 2: from Ellena Butarina, the richest woman in all of Raschia,
Speaker 2: conveniently the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. Business
Speaker 2: associations with individuals who are linked to the Chinese Communist
Speaker 2: Party and the People's Liberation.
Speaker 3: Army of Chin it's all, it's all been in the
Speaker 3: public record.
Speaker 2: Yeah, everyone knows this, and it's like, you know, Stephen
Speaker 2: friend of the show, a great reporter, you know at
Speaker 2: least has the kahones to ask about this and to
Speaker 2: get them on the record, but it's like the level
Speaker 2: of obviousness of which what was testified here that the
Speaker 2: Biden brand was being stocked by Bearisma of course, that
Speaker 2: Biden had been on the phone now with Hunter Biden associates,
Speaker 2: and the thing is about Dan Goldman is now Goldman
Speaker 2: is dropping the only defense that the White House ever had.
Speaker 2: I never talked to him about business, which was ridiculous
Speaker 2: in a farce on its face, but never had any
Speaker 2: real credible testimony.
Speaker 3: Archer has been saying this.
Speaker 2: Tony Bobolinski came forward in what I mean it was
Speaker 2: October I believe of twenty twenty, and said, yeah, what
Speaker 2: are you talking about?
Speaker 3: I met with Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: I literally all of this, all of the core allegation,
Speaker 2: the facts, everything has been here now for years, and
Speaker 2: you know, still the media is either is either downplaying
Speaker 2: it or I mean, really what it was shocked me
Speaker 2: with Goldman is like I'm like, wait, he just admitted it,
Speaker 2: Like he said, he admitted the quiet part out loud,
Speaker 2: like he says Biden talked to him on the phone,
Speaker 2: and it's like you said, Crystal, even if they were
Speaker 2: just talking about the weather, which I don't believe let's
Speaker 2: say that they were. When you were able to dial
Speaker 2: somebody up in a meeting to flex your relationship with
Speaker 2: them and put them on the phone with business partners.
Speaker 3: That's worth a lot of money. If he's trying to
Speaker 3: close a dealer.
Speaker 2: He says, yeah, I've got juice, and they're like, yeah,
Speaker 2: well kind of juicy got And he goes, I can
Speaker 2: get my dad on the phone anytime I want. And
Speaker 2: you're sitting in a caf in China or you're seeing
Speaker 2: in a cafe in Italy, which both of these happened,
Speaker 2: just so you're aware. And he dials his dad up
Speaker 2: in the middle of the night or whatever, and his
Speaker 2: dad probably answers because he's terrified his son.
Speaker 3: Is probably going on a crack bingch again.
Speaker 2: But you're doing that to flex the fact that you
Speaker 2: have such a deep relationship with the guy that's still corruption,
Speaker 2: you know, regardless. And Biden, you know, he said he's
Speaker 2: not stupid. He's been in the game for a long time.
Speaker 2: He knew exactly what Hunter was doing when this was
Speaker 2: all going on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I think there's no it's hard to
Speaker 1: come up with another plausible explanation here. So we've got
Speaker 1: some interesting media coverage of Devin Archer's testimony and what
Speaker 1: this all means for Joe Biden. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to how they are portraying the facts.
Speaker 7: So Goldin is sort of explaining that Archer qualified the
Speaker 7: topics of discussion on these phone calls as niceties, that
Speaker 7: Biden sometimes didn't even know who was on the other
Speaker 7: line with his son Hunter, and you know source in
Speaker 7: the room telling scene. And now that Archer did not
Speaker 7: point the finger directly at any sort of a connection
Speaker 7: between Joe Biden and his son's form business dealings'd rather,
Speaker 7: you know, said that he was that Hunter Biden was
Speaker 7: selling the illusion of set access oris.
Speaker 8: Really a stunning development, zech when you consider that Republicans
Speaker 8: were selling this as a breakthrough that would link Hunter's
Speaker 8: business dealings with his father. Instead, business was apparently never discussed,
Speaker 8: according to Devin Archer. Zach Cohen, thanks much for the reporting.
Speaker 3: Right, that's the takeaway.
Speaker 1: Right, So we're either we're either supposed to believe that
Speaker 1: the press of the United States is such a fool
Speaker 1: that he had no idea what was going on with
Speaker 1: these many phone calls with Hunter's business associates, or they're wildly,
Speaker 1: you know, he lied, and they are still wildly misrepresenting
Speaker 1: what really happened here. I mean, listen, have Republicans put
Speaker 1: their finger on like Joe Biden directly financially benefiting from
Speaker 1: Hunter's business.
Speaker 4: No, they haven't.
Speaker 1: They have not gotten any you know, smoking gun evidence
Speaker 1: with regard to that. But do they have pretty clear
Speaker 1: evidence that Joe Biden has lied to the America people
Speaker 1: about how all this went down and you know, the
Speaker 1: at least verbal involvement of him with his son's business dealings.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, I mean this is where the semantics of
Speaker 2: it just become absurd to me. If I have a
Speaker 2: little sister, If my little sister was trading off my
Speaker 2: name in the way that James Biden was trading off
Speaker 2: of his and used one hundred thousand dollars slush fund
Speaker 2: to buy herself a laptop, threw a deal with the
Speaker 2: Chinese Communist Party, and not just buy herself a laptop,
Speaker 2: but for all of my nieces and nephews and possibly
Speaker 2: even my in conjunction by the way, with one of
Speaker 2: my children. Yeah, I think I did financially benefit from that.
Speaker 2: I mean, by any common understanding of family corruption, they
Speaker 2: obviously benefited from it. So did Biden's actual bank account
Speaker 2: get any money.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I mean I actually still think it's possible.
Speaker 2: But you know, in the I think we even said
Speaker 2: this at the time, Crystal, it's almost very like third
Speaker 2: world in the way that this entire thing went down.
Speaker 2: Like the way that it works in a developing world is,
Speaker 2: you know, you never pay. Sometimes you pay somebody off directly,
Speaker 2: but usually it's like, ah, you pay my uncle, you
Speaker 2: pay my cousin. The cousin will you know, facilitate. It's
Speaker 2: like in Narcos Mexico, whenever the Defense Minister of Mexico,
Speaker 2: he's like, you don't deal with me, you deal with
Speaker 2: my nephew. The nephew is the one who is like
Speaker 2: the bank transfer guy between the cartels and the government.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, with modern money laundering and FBI
Speaker 2: stings and all of that, Like even in the rest
Speaker 2: of the world, briefcases full of cation, all.
Speaker 3: That stuff doesn't happen.
Speaker 2: It's but it is still obvious in any familial like
Speaker 2: network ties that if you are going to mansions paid
Speaker 2: for with corrupt cash, you benefited from that. We understand
Speaker 2: that right whenever it comes to private jets. But why
Speaker 2: don't we understand it whenever your quality of life and
Speaker 2: all the people around you is directly affected by this corruption,
Speaker 2: then to me, and again in any common public understanding
Speaker 2: of that, I understand not legally, then you clearly did
Speaker 2: financially benefit from these transactions.
Speaker 1: Republicans, you know they're doing this for political reasons. They
Speaker 1: clearly don't really care about corruption on its face. Sure,
Speaker 1: I don't say shit about Donald tr All of that
Speaker 1: can be true, and it can also be true that
Speaker 1: the conduct here from the President of United States is
Speaker 1: a problem, and it's something that the mainstream press should
Speaker 1: be digging into rather than trying to give excuses and
Speaker 1: you know, spin this testimony yesterday, which was really bad
Speaker 1: for the president and did reveal lies that he's told
Speaker 1: the American people, try to spin this as like a
Speaker 1: loss for Republicans. And also, I just you know, why
Speaker 1: are you why play into their game where they want
Speaker 1: this just to be about like scoring points against President
Speaker 1: Biden in this like partisan battle.
Speaker 4: Why play their game?
Speaker 1: Why not just actually look at the facts when it
Speaker 1: pertains to Trump, when it pertains to Biden.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's certainly what we try to.
Speaker 3: Do here obviously.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know for all of the what ifs,
Speaker 2: you can search breaking points Jared Kushner Saudi, if you're interested.
Speaker 1: Was yesterday we were talking about Trump builking his orders
Speaker 1: for sixty five million dollars in legal fear.
Speaker 2: You are welcome to search Steve Minuchin, Trump, Saudi, Jared Saudi.
Speaker 2: You know, like all of the America First Policies Institute,
Speaker 2: you know, billionaires. I was like, we could go into
Speaker 2: it forever, and that's that's the way that it should be. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's go to the next part here. Some interesting developments
Speaker 2: going on in Ukraine. Obviously Chrysill alluded to this. There
Speaker 2: have been multiple drone strikes now by the Ukrainians on
Speaker 2: the city of Moscow, kind of just becoming a routine development.
Speaker 2: I guess us all just hope that, you know, they
Speaker 2: continue to just strike buildings and you know, if they
Speaker 2: don't kill the wrong guy and that way launches us
Speaker 2: all into a massive conflict. But there was a piece
Speaker 2: of news buried actually within a New York Times expose,
Speaker 2: not even expose per se, more like a profile of
Speaker 2: Elon Musk and of Starlink, which revealed not only the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian reliance on starlink, but also Elon's personal intervention here
Speaker 2: into the conflict, which does say a lot about our society.
Speaker 2: So let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Elon apparently is personally intervening in the war and vetoing
Speaker 2: access to its services for Ukrainian military to facilitate operations
Speaker 2: that he personally does not approve of. So as an
Speaker 2: example that they give here, they say that mister Musk
Speaker 2: expressed fears that Ukraine would use starlink not just to
Speaker 2: defend itself but also to conduct offensive operations to regain
Speaker 2: territory seized by Russia, which would cause significant military casualties.
Speaker 2: And this was actually personally intervened then by the Biden
Speaker 2: administration to call him. Let's go to the next one
Speaker 2: that actually shows you. Starlink access since then has quote
Speaker 2: fluctuated depending on the movements of the war in Russia
Speaker 2: as Russia won territory and Ukraine fought to take it back.
Speaker 2: As battle line shifted, Musk has used a process called
Speaker 2: geofencing to restrict where starlink is available on the front line.
Speaker 2: SpaceX uses this location data by its service to enforce
Speaker 2: then geofencing limits. This has caused problems when Ukrainian troops
Speaker 2: tried retaking cities like Kirsan in the Russian controlled areas
Speaker 2: in the fall, they needed internet access to community eight
Speaker 2: members of the arm versus message mister Musk requests to
Speaker 2: restore service and areas where the army was advancing. So
Speaker 2: it's it's funny because there are several elements to this.
Speaker 2: On the one hand, you could be like, oh, this
Speaker 2: is capricious. On the other, Starlink is being provided for
Speaker 2: free the Ukrainian military, and they call it the backbone
Speaker 2: of their you know, of their military operations. So if
Speaker 2: they want some terms of dictation or whatever with what's
Speaker 2: going on, then you should pay for it.
Speaker 3: That's number one too.
Speaker 2: You know, you're welcome in many cases to go get
Speaker 2: some ISR, which is intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance of
Speaker 2: your own. If you could afford it, you can't because
Speaker 2: the US is the one who's paying all of your bills.
Speaker 2: So I've seen Elon take a tremendous amount of criticism
Speaker 2: for this crystal.
Speaker 3: But if he.
Speaker 2: Does personally own the company and they he's providing them
Speaker 2: a service for free, then in my mind, it's like, well, okay,
Speaker 2: well then why shouldn't his opinion matter, Like, if you're
Speaker 2: paying for it, then that's one thing. You know, we
Speaker 2: can have a negotiation here and still obviously he can
Speaker 2: do what he wants. But they're not even paying for it.
Speaker 2: They're literally forgetting it for free. And then you know,
Speaker 2: the US military and apparently the Ukrainian military are so
Speaker 2: wholly reliant in a single point of failure, which is
Speaker 2: a private company in the whims of the guy who
Speaker 2: changed freaking Twitter to X It's like, well, what are
Speaker 2: you surprised by at this point in the conflict? Why
Speaker 2: are you invested in something else? So that's a whole
Speaker 2: other conversation. I think it's a big meta problem. It's
Speaker 2: worth discussing.
Speaker 1: It is a big meta problem, and I really would
Speaker 1: like people to try to put aside how they specifically
Speaker 1: feel about Elon Musk and how they specifically feel about
Speaker 1: what the right or wrong policy is with regard to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: We should not be outsourcing key sta functions to any
Speaker 1: one person, period because, like you know, when when he
Speaker 1: gave access to Ukraine to Starlink, like celebrated, but then
Speaker 1: you didn't realize that you were then giving him a
Speaker 1: say in the in what your foreign policy, as the
Speaker 1: supposedly most powerful nation on the planet, what your foreign
Speaker 1: policy is. I mean, you're basically like putting that in
Speaker 1: his hands. That's insane, that is malpractice.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that'sul.
Speaker 1: So we should not be outsourcing key government state functions
Speaker 1: of you know, state craft and warcraft to one person,
Speaker 1: whether you like him or hat him, or feel indifferent
Speaker 1: about him, or think he makes good decision a bad
Speaker 1: decisions or whatever. So the part of this piece that
Speaker 1: actually really struck home for me is they quoted this
Speaker 1: tweet from Elon from back in April, where he says,
Speaker 1: quote between Tesla, Starlink, and Twitter, I may have more
Speaker 1: real time global economic data in one head than anyone ever.
Speaker 4: That may be true.
Speaker 1: I think he's right, and I really want us to
Speaker 1: take in the fact that this one individual, again, however
Speaker 1: you feel about him, and I certainly made my feelings
Speaker 1: and you know, analysis of his business decisions clearer, how
Speaker 1: are you feel about him? He is deeply integral to
Speaker 1: at least three really key industries in our society. Tesla,
Speaker 1: I mean the move towards ev vehicles. This is a
Speaker 1: central component of the Biden administration pauses central push in
Speaker 1: terms of people who care about climate change, and he
Speaker 1: is huge market shared there. Starlink. I think this is
Speaker 1: case in point of why he's got a huge number
Speaker 1: of the number in here.
Speaker 3: What is it.
Speaker 1: He's got like more than half of the satellites that
Speaker 1: are orbiting our earth are elon Musk satellites. That seems
Speaker 1: like it's pretty significant. And Twitter, and now that he
Speaker 1: or x whatever, you know, he has bought and now
Speaker 1: controls a key part of our communications infrastructure and something
Speaker 1: that is you know, bedrock to our democracy and our
Speaker 1: town square, etcetera, etcetera. So this one individual has so
Speaker 1: much power in so many sectors.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure people have really wrapped the hudder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then just don't be surprised then whenever that
Speaker 2: individual flexes that power based upon their whims, especially when
Speaker 2: you're not paying for it, you know, it's like that's
Speaker 2: the one that really and it's especially great me. You know,
Speaker 2: it's like like you said, he was celebrated whenever he
Speaker 2: gave it to him for free, and then they didn't
Speaker 2: realize that, you know, there is no such thing as
Speaker 2: a free lunch. Meanwhile, obviously the war in Ukraine continues
Speaker 2: to become brutal or Russians really showing us all who
Speaker 2: they are.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen. Just a
Speaker 3: barbaric attack.
Speaker 2: Yesterday there was a missile strike actually on Zelenski's hometown,
Speaker 2: which killed six civilians, including a ten year old girl
Speaker 2: and her mother. It's always important just to remember that
Speaker 2: this level of barbarism happens on a daily basis. Then,
Speaker 2: of course, you know, Ukraine is retaliating, and then of
Speaker 2: course that singular missile strike was done crystal because Zelenski
Speaker 2: went on Twitter and issued effectively battle plans for retaking Crimea.
Speaker 2: We're in a vicious you know cycle, and this was
Speaker 2: meant to be a personal rebuke against President Zelenski as well.
Speaker 3: Let's also not forget this. Let's put this up there
Speaker 3: on the screen.
Speaker 2: The Kremlin actually just yesterday threatened the use of nuclear
Speaker 2: weapons in retaliation for the drone strike on Moscow skyscrapers.
Speaker 3: They warned, quote, there is no other way out.
Speaker 2: After attacks on the business district that closed Russian airspace
Speaker 2: and left one injured. Closing Russian airspace, by the way,
Speaker 2: is no joke. You know, I've just recently been taking
Speaker 2: flights to India back and forth. The disruption over that
Speaker 2: airspace is one of the most critical areas for specifically
Speaker 2: European flights to East Asia and also the long haul
Speaker 2: flights that come from the East coast of the United
Speaker 2: States that usually fly over this. It's not only has
Speaker 2: caused multiple cancelations, but the uncertainty and all of that.
Speaker 2: I mean, we all know the Malay I forgot was
Speaker 2: it Malayian flight for I forget that got shot down
Speaker 2: over Ukraine, not I mean, not that long ago.
Speaker 3: It's almost like I think it.
Speaker 2: Was like about a decade ago, because some Russian separatists
Speaker 2: thought that it was I forget exactly what they thought
Speaker 2: it was. But the point being, you know, one hundreds
Speaker 2: of civilians were killed. So it's creating a tremendous amount
Speaker 2: of uncertainty in this entire conflict. We've got little kids
Speaker 2: getting killed in apartment buildings, you know, in terms of
Speaker 2: a retaliation, and then we've got you know, drone strikes
Speaker 2: on them freaking business district in downtown Moscow. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's what I said at the beginning of this entire discussion,
Speaker 2: which is it only takes one guy to get killed
Speaker 2: and things change completely.
Speaker 3: They don't know who they're going to hit.
Speaker 2: They could hit, you know, somebody who's like the cousin
Speaker 2: of whatever, some person who's very special up in there,
Speaker 2: and the whole conflict could change completely overnight. So anyway,
Speaker 2: you know, it's always just a reminder that like there's
Speaker 2: a tremendous amount of uncertainty and risk and you know,
Speaker 2: trauma and all that that actually comes.
Speaker 3: To a real war. It's not just a video game
Speaker 3: that people playing on Twitter.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's really a live fire exercise.
Speaker 1: And so it appears that the Ukrainians have been trying
Speaker 1: to target these sort of like symbolic targets ministries. You've
Speaker 1: had little in the way of casualties in terms of
Speaker 1: these attacks directly on Moscow right now. I mean, their
Speaker 1: intent is to terrorize the citizen.
Speaker 3: Ryan.
Speaker 4: I think that's really the intent.
Speaker 1: You can see some of the videos that people post,
Speaker 1: and you know, I'm screaming in terrors they see drone
Speaker 1: strikes on their city. And it's understandable when you consider
Speaker 1: the horror that the Russians have inflicted on Ukrainian civilians,
Speaker 1: you know. So I'm not saying that these are like
Speaker 1: on the same level. But there's a lot going on
Speaker 1: in Russia domestically right now, with moves being made by
Speaker 1: their legislative bodies to try to you know, potentially have
Speaker 1: martial law, to try to potentially have another round of recruitment.
Speaker 1: And if Ukrainians, if Zelenski thinks that these drone strikes
Speaker 1: on Moscow are going to you know, force the crumblin
Speaker 1: to the table and you know, make the Russian population
Speaker 1: really reject this this war, I think that's very foolish.
Speaker 1: I don't think that that's likely to be the outcome.
Speaker 1: So ultimately you're just playing with fire here and risking
Speaker 1: a broader conflagration. And maybe that is the real point
Speaker 1: for the Ukrainians.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's smart and look, who knows. We'll continue
Speaker 2: to keep everybody updated. Let's go to the next part.
Speaker 2: This is a wild story, one that we actually spent
Speaker 2: hours kind of try to digg In went.
Speaker 4: Down this rabbit hole.
Speaker 3: I was just like, what the hell is going on?
Speaker 2: Is this as osne as it appears on the surface,
Speaker 2: And the answer actually is yes, So let's put this
Speaker 2: up there. The first person to flag it to me
Speaker 2: was Kyle Bass, who put out this tweet, and we're
Speaker 2: going to go through some of the actual allegations in here.
Speaker 2: He says, quote, an illegal, secret Chinese bioagent lab has
Speaker 2: been raided by the FBI, the CDC, and California Public
Speaker 2: Health Department in Fresno County, California. The CDC's Division of
Speaker 2: Select Agents found infectious, infectious, bacterial and viral agents at
Speaker 2: the site, which was listed as an empty building. Bioagents
Speaker 2: included malaria, rebella, and HIV.
Speaker 3: He continues, Chlamydia E.
Speaker 2: Coli, numerous other types hepatitis B, and C herpes. One
Speaker 2: in five the lab had quote nine hundred genetically engineered
Speaker 2: mice designed to carry various COVID streams living in inhumane conditions,
Speaker 2: with another one hundred and seventy five that were actually
Speaker 2: found dead. Okay, so let's look at the actual details,
Speaker 2: and it appears actually that many of them do add ups.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the NBC News report. So the NBC
Speaker 2: News reports specifically did not put the they did not
Speaker 2: ascribe the origin and the connections to the Chinese Communist
Speaker 2: Party in this, but they do actually confirm something key one.
Speaker 2: This was an illegal, unlicensed laboratory full of lab mice,
Speaker 2: full of medical waste and full of hazardous material. The
Speaker 2: Fresno County Public Health Department quote, evaluate and assess the
Speaker 2: activities of this unlicensed lab. And what they found is
Speaker 2: that with multiple state and federal agencies determined biological and
Speaker 2: chemical contents that were actually on site, including coronavirus, HIV, hepatitis,
Speaker 2: and herpie So they actually confirmed some of the actual
Speaker 2: chemicals and the biological strange and many of the others
Speaker 2: that were present there on site. Then you have to
Speaker 2: go down like a bit of a deeper rabbit hole here,
Speaker 2: and this was a fascinating view actually from public local news.
Speaker 2: This is why we do still need local news, Crystal,
Speaker 2: because they have great investigations.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there.
Speaker 2: They say, quote, I have never seen anything like this
Speaker 2: a legal medical lab discovered in Really this is from
Speaker 2: your Central Valley dot com. What they point to is
Speaker 2: the city manager actually of the property says that she's
Speaker 2: never seen this in her twenty six twenty six year
Speaker 2: career in the County of Fresno. We had eight hundred
Speaker 2: different types of chemicals and all of that which were
Speaker 2: on site. But eventually what comes through is that the
Speaker 2: tenant was a company called Prestige Biotech and this has
Speaker 2: now since been confirmed that was registered in Nevada but
Speaker 2: was actually unlicensed for business in California. So the company's
Speaker 2: president is a Chinese citizen who they were only able
Speaker 2: to speak with via emails which were actually included in
Speaker 2: the court documents. And quote other addresses provided as authorized
Speaker 2: agents for these empty offices were addresses in China that
Speaker 2: could not then be verified. Also, agents found thousands of
Speaker 2: package boxes, many with shipping labels from China, which were
Speaker 2: included in the court documents. Uh so, what was this
Speaker 2: lab doing in Fresno County, California?
Speaker 3: What's happening with this?
Speaker 2: And the craziest part, nobody knows, right, who is this company,
Speaker 2: who is this Chinese guy? Where are or how did
Speaker 2: they get a permit for all this stuff? Did it
Speaker 2: come through legally or illegally in customs? And then what
Speaker 2: were they studying in this? So this is one of
Speaker 2: the most bizarre odd things that has happened. You know,
Speaker 2: there's obviously been a lot of skepticism and allegation and
Speaker 2: discussion around Wuhan, but you know, at least that one
Speaker 2: was a level you know, it's the Level four safety
Speaker 2: bio lab run by the Chinese government. This is some
Speaker 2: sketchy company in the middle of Fresno doing god knows
Speaker 2: what with who knows the amount of unregulated chemicals, and
Speaker 2: the why question has still yet to be answered, despite
Speaker 2: multiple people in California trying to get to the bottom
Speaker 2: of the Yeah, from what I could read in the
Speaker 2: court documents, it's a.
Speaker 1: Wild story and they authorities just sort of stumbled upon this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the city inspector saw a garden hose that was like
Speaker 1: in a place of garden hose that was supposed to
Speaker 1: be which I didn't really know that they regulated where
Speaker 1: garden hoses could be, but apparently they do this.
Speaker 3: They do billing.
Speaker 1: They were like, you can have the garden hose there,
Speaker 1: what else is going on? And then they go into
Speaker 1: this supposedly empty warehouse building and find all of this
Speaker 1: crazy stuff they In terms of what the owner of
Speaker 1: this company, Prestige Biotech, is saying, he told officials that
Speaker 1: Prestige Biotech moved assets that were that belonged to a
Speaker 1: defunct company called Universal Meta Tech, Inc. To that warehouse
Speaker 1: from Fresno after that other company went under. Prestige Biotech
Speaker 1: was a creditor to that other company and identified as
Speaker 1: its successor. According to court documents, officials were unable to
Speaker 1: get any California based address for either company except for
Speaker 1: the previous resident location from which you m I had
Speaker 1: been evicted. So basically the story from the owner of
Speaker 1: this sketchy biotech company is that they had acquired this
Speaker 1: other defunct biotech company, that these were the assets from
Speaker 1: that one and they just were.
Speaker 4: Sort of like storing them there randomly. Is basically the idea.
Speaker 1: But I mean you think like live mice included in this,
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's it is a wild one. I
Speaker 1: have no idea what's going on with this, but it
Speaker 1: is really weird.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think what has kind of come
Speaker 2: through is that clearly. I mean, the thing is too,
Speaker 2: is that the pictures like you could see, can we
Speaker 2: throw the first one up there just so people get
Speaker 2: an idea? I mean this all I mean, I would
Speaker 2: have believed if they had told me that it was
Speaker 2: like a meth lab or some sort of drug lab.
Speaker 2: As you can see from I mean, it's filthy, there's
Speaker 2: stuff everywhere. Clearly, it's not clean gloves just hanging out,
Speaker 2: you know, beakers and all this stuff. I mean, it
Speaker 2: genuinely does look like it could come out of a
Speaker 2: drug denner, out of a movie. And yet you find
Speaker 2: out that we're talking about like viral agents, infectious bacterial
Speaker 2: filthy mice in conditions. And then you know, the why
Speaker 2: question is the one that just continues to abound from
Speaker 2: all of this. So, yeah, like you said, they stumbled
Speaker 2: across it somehow. I mean, what's really actually kind of
Speaker 2: terrifying to me is that none of this was flagg
Speaker 2: through customs because allegedly all of we are supposed to
Speaker 2: have very stringent regulation on age, you know, chemical agents,
Speaker 2: viral agents, bacteria and all this stuff that comes into
Speaker 2: the United States, and it's especially supposed to be.
Speaker 3: Very high on China.
Speaker 2: Now, the problem is that China makes the vast majority
Speaker 2: of inputs for a lot of our drugs, but they
Speaker 2: do come in via a relatively regulated process. One of
Speaker 2: the reasons why they we're supposed to look very hard
Speaker 2: at the unregulated market is a Chinese fentanyl is probably
Speaker 2: responsible for the vast majority of opioid debts here in
Speaker 2: the United States. And that's the reason why the drug
Speaker 2: cartels they don't make those drugs here in America. They
Speaker 2: make it in Mexico, where the export controls. It's much
Speaker 2: more corrupt effectively in order to get it into the country.
Speaker 2: That's the whole point. So then my question is like, well,
Speaker 2: how the hell did they even get this Well.
Speaker 1: But we don't necessarily know that it came from that.
Speaker 1: The materials came from.
Speaker 2: Too, well, the shipping boxes came from China, so I mean, yeah,
Speaker 2: you're right, maybe they shipped to Mexico and they drove
Speaker 2: it across the border.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've generated we have no idea where this
Speaker 1: stuff was acquired from whatsoever. I mean, that could be
Speaker 1: too that it was shipped. We just don't know. And
Speaker 1: the thing to me that doesn't pass the sniff test
Speaker 1: about the story that this was. You know, they're basically
Speaker 1: just storing this stuff here after this other company went
Speaker 1: to funked or whatever. When you look at those pictures,
Speaker 1: I mean, this isn't just like things in storage boxes.
Speaker 4: You've got a whole lab set up there.
Speaker 1: You got the gloves there, you've got things and beakers,
Speaker 1: you've got stuff that's on the table. I don't know,
Speaker 1: it doesn't look like you were just like, oh, let
Speaker 1: me put it in storage and then I don't know,
Speaker 1: dispose of it somehow do something with it.
Speaker 4: It's a weird one.
Speaker 2: Also, the you know, creating front companies and all that
Speaker 2: in order to justify legal export import. That's a time
Speaker 2: honored kind of Chinese tradition for you know, I've read,
Speaker 2: I've read and done some dives into Chinese men in
Speaker 2: all business.
Speaker 3: It's almost exactly the same in.
Speaker 2: Terms of like, oh, you have a defunct company a
Speaker 2: fake address in China. In terms whenever you're trying to,
Speaker 2: you know, trace it back and be like where did
Speaker 2: this company.
Speaker 1: It's not a Chinese specific phenomenon. That's what sketchy businessmen
Speaker 1: do all around the world, including here in the good
Speaker 1: old US of A.
Speaker 2: Maybe they probably stole it from They probably stole the
Speaker 2: tactic from us. So you know, don't don't let anyone
Speaker 2: say that they didn't steal the best. Uh, let's go
Speaker 2: to the next part here. Crystal being very gracious in
Speaker 2: allowing me to give everyone an update on the UFO phenomenon,
Speaker 2: So we updated everybody about the hearing about what happened.
Speaker 2: Dave Grush came forward and make some extraordinary allegations Chrystal.
Speaker 2: One of the things that you asked me was what
Speaker 2: do you think of all this? Like, what what are
Speaker 2: we to make of all this? Yeah, And what I
Speaker 2: said is it's important, uh, for to get this on
Speaker 2: the record and to create a binary. I think creating
Speaker 2: the binary the most important thing. Is it true or
Speaker 2: is it not true? He's entered this under oath in
Speaker 2: the congressional record. We also have a previous director of
Speaker 2: the program, the ARROW program, coming forward and saying there's
Speaker 2: no evidence of extraterrestrials, there's no evidence of any of
Speaker 2: these hidden craft retrieval sides, any of the stuff that
Speaker 2: Dave Grush has alleged before. Just to give people a
Speaker 2: flashback to that, that was doctor Sean Kirkpatrick, who is
Speaker 2: directly at odds now with Grush's testimony.
Speaker 3: Here's what he said a couple of months ago before
Speaker 3: to Congress.
Speaker 9: I should also state clearly for the record that in
Speaker 9: our research, ARROW has found no credible evidence thus far
Speaker 9: of extraterrestrial activity off world technology or objects that defy
Speaker 9: the known laws of physics. In the event sufficient scientific
Speaker 9: data wherever attained that a UAP encountered can only be
Speaker 9: explained by extraterrestrial origin. We are committed to working with
Speaker 9: our interagency partners at NASA to appropriately inform US government's
Speaker 9: leadership of its findings.
Speaker 3: So Crystal.
Speaker 2: After Dave Grush caave testimony at that hearing which directly
Speaker 2: contradicted what he said and which he said that Grush
Speaker 2: also said that he had brought forward these allegations to Kirkpatrick,
Speaker 2: a very odd letter began to circulate. It appears that
Speaker 2: Kirkpatrick circumvented Pentagons the pentagons like official framework for releasing statements,
Speaker 2: and released a statement of his own accord on his
Speaker 2: LinkedIn page respond very odd. This does not happen in
Speaker 2: the government, and does not happen in the Department of Defense,
Speaker 2: of which I used to cover. I've never seen anything
Speaker 2: like this in my entire career. So here's the letter
Speaker 2: that he put out. Again, he is saying quote, they'd
Speaker 2: either his personal observations and opinions and do not represent
Speaker 2: the DoD or the IC positions, IC being the intelligence community.
Speaker 2: Long letter here effectively saying that he's very proud of
Speaker 2: his team, and he says, quote, I cannot let yesterday's
Speaker 2: hearing pass without sharing.
Speaker 3: How insulting it was.
Speaker 2: To the officers of the Department of Defense an intelligence
Speaker 2: committee who chose to join ARROW many not unreasonable anxieties
Speaker 2: about the careerists that this would entail. So he specifically
Speaker 2: in this letter calls Grush a liar. He says, contrary
Speaker 2: to assertions made in hearing, the central source of those
Speaker 2: allegations has refused to speak with ARROW. Furthermore, some information
Speaker 2: were purportedly provided to Congress has not been provided to ARROW,
Speaker 2: raising additional questions about the true commitment to transparency by
Speaker 2: some Congressional elements. So I'm going to zero in on
Speaker 2: that and kind of let all of the other stuff go,
Speaker 2: because the important thing that has comed out from here
Speaker 2: is he is claiming very matter of factly, not necessarily
Speaker 2: under oath, remember that, and also not through the official meeting,
Speaker 2: so through the official process.
Speaker 3: So I don't really know what to.
Speaker 2: Make of it, but he effectively is saying Dave Grush
Speaker 2: is lying. Because Grush said at the hearing that he
Speaker 2: had provided materials, evidence and all of that to the program,
Speaker 2: to the ARROW program that was reviewing the past record
Speaker 2: of UFO knowledge files and all that stuff, and that
Speaker 2: the reason he became a whistleblower is because it was
Speaker 2: not taken seriously and that it was buried.
Speaker 3: So we're basically we're in.
Speaker 2: Now an almost total like yes or no question, Like
Speaker 2: one of these people is lying and lied to Congress.
Speaker 4: What did you make of this part?
Speaker 1: At the very end, he says in this statement on
Speaker 1: his LinkedIn Also, to be clear, none of the whistleblowers
Speaker 1: from yesterday's hearing ever worked for Arrow or was ever
Speaker 1: a representative to Arrow, contrary to statements made in testimony
Speaker 1: and in the media. So he's also, am I right
Speaker 1: asserting that Grush is even lying about what positions he held.
Speaker 2: From what I read, there are some technicalities in terms
Speaker 2: of the way that Grush described his attachment to the program.
Speaker 3: Not necessarily we.
Speaker 1: Didn't like director the program, So they're using some sort
Speaker 1: of legalistic language here.
Speaker 3: There's two ways to read it, you know.
Speaker 2: And again this is not a vetted statement by the Pentagon,
Speaker 2: you know, it's not officially. This is just him something
Speaker 2: that he put out on his LinkedIn page. But he's
Speaker 2: basically saying, I don't know this guy. He never brought
Speaker 2: any this stuff forward. He's a liar, he never made
Speaker 2: any of the clearity, didn't even work for me. I mean,
Speaker 2: each one of those is extraordinary in itself. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's effectively the only place where he's not given himself
Speaker 2: out is saying that he was never shared those materials.
Speaker 2: Because now it's straight up like did Grush lie or not?
Speaker 2: And listen, we really have no way of knowing. This
Speaker 2: is why it's so difficult actually to look at these
Speaker 2: two things, because remember that the Grush report.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's not like he just came forward to
Speaker 3: the New York Times.
Speaker 2: He went through the internal whistleblower process in the Department
Speaker 2: of Defense, which the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Speaker 2: said that they found credible and urgent and bearing investigation.
Speaker 2: So it was vetted at the very least in some way,
Speaker 2: you know, at least from what we're seeing, much of
Speaker 2: what he said even at the hearing was set in
Speaker 2: an unclassified setting, of which has been cleared by the Department,
Speaker 2: but of which has not been restricted from saying out
Speaker 2: in the open. He says that he provided, you know,
Speaker 2: all of these materials to Congress for investigation into the
Speaker 2: specific allegations about these programs and all of us. So
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm I'm like, even though I thought that
Speaker 2: this was an incredibly bizarre event. I'm happy that it
Speaker 2: happened because and you know, it probably sucks for Grush
Speaker 2: and many of these other people to be called liar
Speaker 2: is because now we actually really have to find out
Speaker 2: because you know, he Kirkpatrick had given himself some outs
Speaker 2: in the past. He said, oh, we don't have any evidence.
Speaker 3: All.
Speaker 2: This is a lot of different ways that you could
Speaker 2: spend that you know, whether he lied to Congress or not,
Speaker 2: but this one is such a direct and a personal
Speaker 2: statement saying he's a liar. And let's put this Daily
Speaker 2: Mail piece up on the screen. Because this included also
Speaker 2: quotes from very confused members of Congress who actually saw it. So,
Speaker 2: for example, Anna Paulina Luna, who is one of the
Speaker 2: congresswomen who has been really at the side of Tim
Speaker 2: Burchett on all of this, here's what she said. She said,
Speaker 2: it's crazy to me that they would try to discredit them.
Speaker 2: The fact that Kirkpatrick just tried to discredit Also the
Speaker 2: other two witnesses that were legitimate pilots for the military
Speaker 2: that had the gimbal and the tic TAC video we're
Speaker 2: confirmed by DoD is exact reason why I think people
Speaker 2: don't trust Arrow. The evidence was brought forward by multiple
Speaker 2: veterans who had confirmed the video footage of the tiktak
Speaker 2: and the gimbal of advanced technologies that does exist. The
Speaker 2: DD even admitted it, like what are you talking about that? Actually,
Speaker 2: you know, highlights what you said, you know, the very
Speaker 2: odd part at the end whenever he's like, well, none
Speaker 2: of these three witnesses worked for us, and it's like, well,
Speaker 2: let's put Grush aside. The other two never claimed to
Speaker 2: ever work for the program. They were just like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I flew planes and I had a UFO encounter.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So this was very much aimed at Grush.
Speaker 2: This was absolutely aimed at Grush, Which was why I
Speaker 2: thought it was bizarre that he also tried to kind
Speaker 2: of take umbrage at Fravor and at graves testimony. Who
Speaker 2: I mean, they didn't even really say anything about Arrow anyway.
Speaker 2: The reason why I wanted to highlight it is just
Speaker 2: that clearly we are in a situation now where one
Speaker 2: of these individuals is telling the truth, and it's actually,
Speaker 2: frankly should be easier now at this point to figure
Speaker 2: it out. And I implore these members of Congress, like,
Speaker 2: please find out and update us in a very you know,
Speaker 2: speedy manner, because enough, you know, public interest has been
Speaker 2: given now to the non human biologics, to the you know,
Speaker 2: the all of the just incredible allegations made by Grush.
Speaker 2: But we have enough now to where he at the
Speaker 2: very least, like he said it under oath, that he's
Speaker 2: provided materials to them. And we've also got some documents
Speaker 2: that are provided by George Knapp, which makes some really
Speaker 2: crazy allegations that were entered into the congressional record. It's like,
Speaker 2: look investigated and just tell if it's true or not true.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's going to be very difficult to get
Speaker 1: any kind of answers about some of the extraordinary claims
Speaker 1: that were made in testimony. But some of the stuff
Speaker 1: that is laid down in this personal statement seems more provable.
Speaker 1: Exactly did he actually provide the material that he said
Speaker 1: he did or not, Like that seems like something we
Speaker 1: could potentially get to the bottom of, you know, what
Speaker 1: is the reality of who we work for and whether
Speaker 1: he technically worked for Arrow or not. And while those
Speaker 1: things don't provide us conclusive evidence of you know, what's
Speaker 1: going on with these they do provide you with a
Speaker 1: little bit of information about the credibility of these various No.
Speaker 3: I think that's incredibly well said.
Speaker 2: That gives us, This gives us actually quite a lot
Speaker 2: more to work with. And bizarrely enough, I found it
Speaker 2: ignored by the media just because as a headline itself,
Speaker 2: it's like UFO whistleblower called liar by head of the
Speaker 2: Pentagon program. I mean, that's extraordinary to me. And then
Speaker 2: not again, not done through the official Dood process. So
Speaker 2: that's the breakdown from the best of what I've been
Speaker 2: able to gather on it covering this topic. You know,
Speaker 2: things always just seem nothing I guess, is ever done
Speaker 2: in the ordinary fashion. Crystal, what are you taking a
Speaker 2: look at?
Speaker 1: Whatever you think of Barbenheimer, the explosion of cultural fascination
Speaker 1: with both films is basically a testament to our love
Speaker 1: affair with human creativity. For once, studios took a risk
Speaker 1: on a few things that were truly new and different,
Speaker 1: and they were rewarded with massive audiences and a flood
Speaker 1: of national discourse that has briefly recreated a monocultural event
Speaker 1: the likes of which I really thought we might never
Speaker 1: see again. Ironically, this moment of delight in human imagination
Speaker 1: comes at a time when the very essence of creativity
Speaker 1: is actually under threat. Big tech, in order to monopolize
Speaker 1: the new world of AI, is attempting to feed their
Speaker 1: models with the whole world of human ingenuity, scraping every
Speaker 1: bit of language, articulated vision, and novel innovation that they
Speaker 1: can get their hands on so that their machines might
Speaker 1: impersonate a bastardized version of the human spark. These so
Speaker 1: called large language models can't create anything new, but by
Speaker 1: harvesting our musings, our pictures, our conversations, our stories, companies
Speaker 1: are hoping that the bots can be trained to mimic
Speaker 1: us well enough.
Speaker 4: That we will accept their AI derived products.
Speaker 1: Basically, they're trying to eat our souls and then sell
Speaker 1: them back to us. But increasingly artists and creatives are
Speaker 1: refusing to be food for bots.
Speaker 4: That would replace them.
Speaker 1: Part of this resistance, of course, is located in Hollywood,
Speaker 1: where rules around AI use are at the center of
Speaker 1: the actors and Writers' strike. Studios want to be able
Speaker 1: to scan actors and use their likeness forever for whatever
Speaker 1: they want, obliterating the livelihoods of many actors, including extras
Speaker 1: Studios also want to be able to use AI to
Speaker 1: write first drafts of new shows and films, bringing writers
Speaker 1: in at the end just to polish.
Speaker 4: Those scripts at a lower pay rate.
Speaker 1: Both of these things, of course, are assaults on workers pay,
Speaker 1: and that is really crucial. But they're also an assault
Speaker 1: on the very essence of human creativity. Instead of a
Speaker 1: human vision board of whatever collection of experiences brought that
Speaker 1: particular person to that particular moment, studios want to use
Speaker 1: AI to barf up a regurgitated amalgamation of the creativity
Speaker 1: that it has pilfered from humanity. A pure embodiment of
Speaker 1: this struggle is coming from an unexpected place, the world
Speaker 1: of fan fiction writers. Now, these authors delight in expanding
Speaker 1: the universes of.
Speaker 4: Their favorite shows, books, characters.
Speaker 1: They take inspiration from another human spark and let their
Speaker 1: own imaginations run wild. They create communities around these expanded visions.
Speaker 1: They author stories primarily for the sheer joy of creativity,
Speaker 1: since copyright laws keep them from directly monetiged their work,
Speaker 1: and many were horrified to see their works scraped and
Speaker 1: ingested by AI. And the way these authors figured out
Speaker 1: their work had been fed to the machines. It's actually
Speaker 1: kind of interesting in and of itself. One of the
Speaker 1: bots exhibited detailed knowledge of something called the omegaverse, which
Speaker 1: is apparently a specific sexual dynamic that only exists in
Speaker 1: the fan fiction world.
Speaker 4: That's all I really know about it.
Speaker 1: There was no way the bots could have known about
Speaker 1: the omega Verse if they had not been trained on
Speaker 1: reams of fan fiction. Rather than accepting this unauthorized pilfering
Speaker 1: of their labors of love, fan fiction writers state a revolt.
Speaker 1: Some decided they would no longer post their stories publicly,
Speaker 1: and instead sending to private lists or taking other steps
Speaker 1: to keep their work private and walled off from the machines.
Speaker 1: They've also been pushing popular fan fiction sites to ban
Speaker 1: AI generated content. A number also mounted a unique protest
Speaker 1: of small scale sabotage. Authors banded together for a ritathon
Speaker 1: in which they attempted to produce as much garbage fanfic
Speaker 1: as they possibly could in an attempt to confuse the machines.
Speaker 1: Actually love the ingenuity of this approach. Creative community using
Speaker 1: creative misshift to mess with the bots. It's quite beautiful, actually.
Speaker 1: More mainstream artists are also mounting resistance of their own
Speaker 1: using the legal system and demands for payment. Thousands of authors,
Speaker 1: including James Patterson, sign an open letter demanding permission and
Speaker 1: compensation for the use of their work. Comedian Sarah Silverman
Speaker 1: is among a growing number of creatives who have filed
Speaker 1: lawsuits against big tech companies for the unauthorized use of
Speaker 1: their work to train AI models. The news industry has
Speaker 1: also been fighting to get paid for use of their archives,
Speaker 1: and the AP has actually reached some sort of a
Speaker 1: deal with open AI to license their news content. Well,
Speaker 1: I can imagine the big boys, like The New York Times,
Speaker 1: let's say, cutting deals with AI companies. Who's going to
Speaker 1: look out for the product of smaller scale creators, Because
Speaker 1: while you may not see yourself as a creator, to
Speaker 1: be human is to create, to tell stories, to share thoughts,
Speaker 1: to build, to find delight in sparks of inspiration. AI
Speaker 1: will never be able to actually do these things. But
Speaker 1: I think the attempt to vacuum up as much human
Speaker 1: creative content as possible, from works of art to Facebook
Speaker 1: musing should be properly seen as an existential threat. The
Speaker 1: goal of these tech oligarchs is to make AIS regurgitated
Speaker 1: derivative products good enough that these products come to dominate
Speaker 1: the cultural landscape and certainly the marketplace, devaluing human creativity
Speaker 1: and squeezing it down into increasingly cramped corners of our society.
Speaker 1: Technology which was supposed to bring the marvel of human
Speaker 1: creativity to global audiences instead being used to quash human
Speaker 1: creativity centrality to our own society. It's not that the
Speaker 1: drive to create will be extinguished, of course, not. If
Speaker 1: you can make a living from artistic expression, then the
Speaker 1: day job is certainly going to take precedence if AI
Speaker 1: is creating our music and our movies because it's cheaper
Speaker 1: than paying real human beings, or basically marking an endpoint
Speaker 1: for the advance of human creativity on a national or
Speaker 1: international scale, because AI cannot create anything new, only recycle
Speaker 1: the old, leaving us in an endless cultural loop living
Speaker 1: off the scraps of recombined Friends episodes and Star Wars spinoffs.
Speaker 1: Tech Giant's vacuuming up every quean and labor of love,
Speaker 1: flight of fancy creative spark, and lots of driveling and
Speaker 1: drivell and mundane meanderings, besides all to train AI models
Speaker 1: to serve their own profit making purposes.
Speaker 4: I mean, guys, what could go wrong here?
Speaker 1: In other words, you might have liked Barbie, but are
Speaker 1: you really going to like Barbie five?
Speaker 4: Brought to you by the bots?
Speaker 1: Perhaps better to reflect on Oppenheimer, where we track how
Speaker 1: humanity invents the tools of our own destruction. And Sager,
Speaker 1: you know it really got to me the fan things.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 4: All right, Sager, what are you looking at?
Speaker 2: I'll worry a lot here on Breaking Points about polarization
Speaker 2: red versus blue. It's the easiest form to discuss, but
Speaker 2: in reality, the way that polarization really affects our lives
Speaker 2: is all the little ways that we start to hate
Speaker 2: each other, from dating preferences to where you will live,
Speaker 2: to the type of car that you will buy, to
Speaker 2: which school you will send your kids to. Polarization actually
Speaker 2: divides us in a more fundamental way than we often
Speaker 2: tend to realize. And I often said that polarize today
Speaker 2: is best understood by a single question, did you attend
Speaker 2: a four year college degree or not? The answer to
Speaker 2: that question is probably the single best determinant of how
Speaker 2: you voted in twenty twenty. If you did, statistically are
Speaker 2: much more likely to vote Democrat, and if you didn't,
Speaker 2: statistically more likely to support Trump. Where there are important exceptions,
Speaker 2: and overall it's good as good as we got. But
Speaker 2: increasingly another factor is actually beginning to emerge that could
Speaker 2: really hurt us.
Speaker 3: What gender are you?
Speaker 2: As you could actually see from those maps, if only
Speaker 2: women voted, Democrats would win by a huge margin. If
Speaker 2: only men voted, the same would happen for Republicans. So
Speaker 2: once again, there are important exceptions to this rule. But
Speaker 2: the more true that it becomes, the bigger problems we
Speaker 2: are going to have. In fact, the more that I'm
Speaker 2: looking at emerging data, I'm realizing we've never actually been
Speaker 2: less racially polarized as a country, which.
Speaker 3: Is not a bad thing.
Speaker 2: But within races we are actually polarizing amongst very different lines.
Speaker 2: Take Latino voters, for example, The two big predictors of
Speaker 2: whether a Latino voted for Trump in twenty twenty are
Speaker 2: did you attend college or not?
Speaker 3: And are you a man or a woman. The same
Speaker 3: is true for white voters.
Speaker 2: Increasingly we see signs of this trend even amongst black voters.
Speaker 2: Andrew Breitbart once famously said politics is downstream of culture
Speaker 2: in this divide, I think it's becoming even more clear
Speaker 2: what stun mean was not just that this is true
Speaker 2: for adults, but it appears true even for the emerging
Speaker 2: generation of teenagers, who much has been talked and written
Speaker 2: about as the great liberal hope.
Speaker 3: If you're talking about just women, that might be true.
Speaker 2: But some new data unearthed by Daniel Deviz at The Hill,
Speaker 2: buried within the Monitoring the Future survey from the University
Speaker 2: of Michigan, finds that the political identities of twelfth grade
Speaker 2: boys differs starkly from the political identities of twelfth grade girls.
Speaker 2: The Michigan survey finds, quote, twelfth grade boys are nearly
Speaker 2: twice as likely to identify as conservative versus liberal. Now,
Speaker 2: it's important that many people don't identify as anything. Important
Speaker 2: to note that conservative standing still only is approximately one quarter.
Speaker 3: Liberal is a thirteen percent.
Speaker 2: But it's important designator whenever you put it up against women.
Speaker 2: For girls, it could actually be more different, as the
Speaker 2: survey finds, quote, the share of twelfth grade girls who
Speaker 2: identifies liberal rose from nineteen percent in twenty twelve to
Speaker 2: thirty percent in twenty twenty two. Only twelve percent of
Speaker 2: girls identified as conservative in last year's survey, so effectively
Speaker 2: the polar opposite of what's going on with boys. What's
Speaker 2: interesting is not the divide, but how actually new the
Speaker 2: divide is.
Speaker 3: As they know quote.
Speaker 2: As recently as late two thousands, liberal boys occasionally outnumbered conservatives,
Speaker 2: and back in the car To era, both boys and
Speaker 2: girls were leaning towards liberal. As researcher Gene Twine actually
Speaker 2: founded a new book published Generations, the difference in attitudes
Speaker 2: between twelfth graders has never been bigger than today. What's
Speaker 2: really interesting is that over a five year period, girls
Speaker 2: became slightly more liberal, but it's boys in particular who
Speaker 2: became much more conservative. So this explains actually a lot
Speaker 2: about today, a lot of trends like Liver King and
Speaker 2: Andrew Tate phenomenons, online shit posting, Reddit culture. As the
Speaker 2: overall culture becomes dramatically more hostile to traditional masculinity, especially
Speaker 2: during the Trump years, the new data on high schoolers
Speaker 2: in particular will have profound consequences for our society, culture,
Speaker 2: and our demographics as the years progress. We're already seeing
Speaker 2: what happens when this is applied to college. For example,
Speaker 2: the more colleges coded as left wing and for women
Speaker 2: and gays, the more that boys are just going to
Speaker 2: drop out. That's something that I've covered here repeatedly. Boys
Speaker 2: who are fleeing college by the millions in this higher
Speaker 2: education soon will have a gender gap nearly equal to
Speaker 2: the electoral gap that we are seeing right now. It
Speaker 2: is really as if worlds are colliding. And to once
Speaker 2: again answer the question, why should you even care about
Speaker 2: gender gaps and politics or in education, because it profoundly
Speaker 2: influences who dates who, and thus who is going to
Speaker 2: reproduce or even if that's attainable. A college graduate, for example,
Speaker 2: on average forty three percent less likely to date someone
Speaker 2: who is quote a Republican than the average American. It
Speaker 2: jumps up to sixty five percent for the term quote
Speaker 2: is a Trump Supporter. Dating in political polarization amongst gender
Speaker 2: creates a dramatic mismatch in the availability of mates both
Speaker 2: genders as they age up to the point where they
Speaker 2: desire a permanent partner.
Speaker 3: And while I support.
Speaker 2: People's right to be single, of course if they want to,
Speaker 2: the data tells us that people who are single longer
Speaker 2: and throughout their lives are less happy, less likely to
Speaker 2: report satisfaction in life, more likely to suffer from health problems,
Speaker 2: suffer worse overall lifetime earnings, and suffer on a myriad
Speaker 2: of other key quality of life metrics. So what can
Speaker 2: we do about this? I honestly don't know. Richard Reeves
Speaker 2: has some great ideas in his book about how to
Speaker 2: stop gender imbalances in schools and higher.
Speaker 3: Education, but I think it goes way deeper than that.
Speaker 2: Culture is telling men that they are not wanted, and
Speaker 2: they're responding accordingly by becoming both less desirable as mates
Speaker 2: and becoming more self loathing and angry with the Internet
Speaker 2: as a vehicle. Andrew Tait was a symptom of this disease.
Speaker 2: Liver King and many other scam artists to come and go.
Speaker 2: Since step one at least is acknowledging that we have
Speaker 2: a problem. It's okay to be a man, and it's
Speaker 2: also okay to care about men. So I'm clear curious
Speaker 2: what you thought, Chris.
Speaker 1: All about that, And if you want to hear my
Speaker 1: reaction to Cyber's monologue, become a Premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have a great show for everybody on Thursday.
Speaker 2: Enjoy Counterpoints.
Speaker 3: Tomorrow. Ryan will be where's he coming in from? From France.
Speaker 2: We're jealous of him here at Breaking Points, so anyway,
Speaker 2: enjoy the show. Thank you to all of our premium
Speaker 2: subscribers who've been signing up, and we're working on some big,
Speaker 2: big guests just to explain the current apps and so
Speaker 2: we'll see you guys later