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.
Speaker 3: Guys, the best independent coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. Ryan Grim
Speaker 2: is in for Crystal Ball.
Speaker 3: It's good to see you man, Good to see you too. Yeah,
Speaker 3: Bro show, first Bro show here on the news set.
Speaker 3: I hope everybody likes it.
Speaker 2: We're still playing around and doing lots of fun things
Speaker 2: here on the camera, so let us know what you
Speaker 2: think about that. But we've got a lot of great
Speaker 2: topics for everyone today. You can tell this is difficult
Speaker 2: for me. Pristle usually does this part. I just sit
Speaker 2: here nicely, look pretty and drink coffee. So we're going
Speaker 2: to talk about twenty twenty four RFK junior headaches for
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. We're going to be talking about the Ukraine War,
Speaker 2: some new extraordinary claims by President Vladimir Putin of Russia
Speaker 2: about a peace deal and what he alleges happened there
Speaker 2: behind the scenes. And then give everybody an update about
Speaker 2: the counter offensive. We'll be talking about Donald Trump in
Speaker 2: an absolute bonkers.
Speaker 3: Fox News interview.
Speaker 2: We were reviewing everything before we started the show, Ryan
Speaker 2: and I and we were just cackling with laughter.
Speaker 3: So I think everybody will enjoy it.
Speaker 2: A new Epstein report out of JP Morgan that I
Speaker 2: know that a lot of people will be very interested in.
Speaker 2: And then Megan Markle, she truly does not disappoint. Some
Speaker 2: new updates Ryan about just how much of a grifter
Speaker 2: this woman was side of Spotify. Yes, as podcasters, I
Speaker 2: honestly I need tips from this lady about how to
Speaker 2: make twenty million dollars and do zero work. So you know,
Speaker 2: in many ways, it's the American dream. So we've got
Speaker 2: good updates. I have a monologue on the whole Doctor
Speaker 2: Peter Hotes, RFK Junior, Joe Rogan debate thing going on,
Speaker 2: and Ryan, we saved this for you. You're gonna be
Speaker 2: memorializing Daniel Elsberg, one of the Greek heroes and whistleblowers
Speaker 2: of our time who passed away over the weekend, and
Speaker 2: we're gonna have a fun discussion for everybody. But before
Speaker 2: we get to that, thank you all so much. People
Speaker 2: have been signing up for their premium membership breakcompoints dot Com,
Speaker 2: buying the new merchandise. It's moving well. The mugs are
Speaker 2: moving well. But we got to sell more of those
Speaker 2: bucket hats, right especially, we talked a big game. We
Speaker 2: didn't like them, and they were selling. Well, let's sell
Speaker 2: even more of them. T shirts, all of that stuff.
Speaker 2: I love seeing photos of people wearing their hoodies. No,
Speaker 2: I do not approve of people wearing the hoodies with suits,
Speaker 2: but it is what it is. You know, you can't
Speaker 2: control everybody and what they're doing out there. So anyways,
Speaker 2: you can sign up for that, you can purchase that.
Speaker 2: And also, we are getting dangerously close to one million
Speaker 2: subscribers on YouTube, so if you can help us out,
Speaker 2: hit the subscribe button on YouTube. We are only ten
Speaker 2: or eleven thousand away something like that from one million.
Speaker 3: So let's put a nice gold plaque there right.
Speaker 2: Behind the crystal's head, so I think it'll look nice. Okay,
Speaker 2: let's start with this news. Ryan out of the Biden campaign.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. Some interesting
Speaker 2: new leaks from the Biden team about Robert Kennedy Junior
Speaker 2: and why his bid is a quote headache for Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: So Biden, apparently quote is on cruise control until the
Speaker 2: heat of the twenty twenty four election. All the nation's
Speaker 2: top Democrats are behind him, but he is now facing
Speaker 2: his own version of a primary, a campaign to shore
Speaker 2: up his support amongst skeptical Democratic voters. Currently, the rivals
Speaker 2: include Robert Kennedy Junior. They could describe him as the
Speaker 2: anti vaccine activist with a celebrated Democratic lineage who is
Speaker 2: merged with unexpected strength in early polls. They say he
Speaker 2: is looking as high as twenty percent in some surveys,
Speaker 2: a bracing reminder of left leading voters healthy appetite for
Speaker 2: a Biden alternative, a glaring symbol of.
Speaker 3: The president's weaknesses.
Speaker 2: It is clear there is a softness that is borne
Speaker 2: out of a worry about electability in twenty four, says
Speaker 2: Julian Castro, who attacked Biden on the debate stage, and
Speaker 2: he says there have been areas I think people feel
Speaker 2: like he hasn't delivered what he's promising on and overall
Speaker 2: Ryan right now, what they see is a panicked team
Speaker 2: of White House advisors who did not anticipate RFK Junior's strength.
Speaker 2: If you combine an RFK Junior with Marian Williamson, you're
Speaker 2: looking at almost thirty percent of one third of the full
Speaker 2: Democratic Party. And the overall number one objection is I
Speaker 2: just want someone else. And that's very powerful, very potent,
Speaker 2: as Bernie Sanders found out in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: So what do you think?
Speaker 4: And the very bottom of the piece references some focus
Speaker 4: grouping and polling done by this organization Way to Win
Speaker 4: that asks Democrats basically, what's your problem with Biden? When
Speaker 4: the thing that keeps coming up is, particularly among black
Speaker 4: and Hispanic voters, what has he done for me? I
Speaker 4: don't know anything that he's done for now. And so
Speaker 4: you've got all these Democrats saying the same things that
Speaker 4: they say for years. We just don't talk enough about
Speaker 4: all of our achievements and our accomplishments. They got grant
Speaker 4: and Mayor's going to do a road show across Pennsylvania
Speaker 4: telling everybody, you know, all the wonderful.
Speaker 5: Things that they did for them.
Speaker 4: The problem is they need to do things that people
Speaker 4: don't need to just be told about two obvious ones
Speaker 4: they could have done, they chose not to.
Speaker 5: One, raise the minimum wage.
Speaker 3: Done.
Speaker 4: Like, you raised the minimum wage, you get asked a question, what.
Speaker 3: Did Biden and the Democrats do for you?
Speaker 2: They raised them, talked about some four million people make
Speaker 2: a minimum wage in this.
Speaker 4: Country, and then everybody above them that gets a raise,
Speaker 4: they're like, I wonder if I got to raise partly
Speaker 4: because the minimum wage rhy No.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: Thank you for forcing these terrible, stingy bosses to like
Speaker 4: do a little bit more. And the child Task Credit
Speaker 4: would be another example. People remembered getting two hundred and
Speaker 4: fifty three hundred dollars checks every single month to help
Speaker 4: them get through what was a difficult time.
Speaker 5: It made inflation a.
Speaker 4: Little bit easier to deal with if things are getting
Speaker 4: a little more expensive at the grocery store. If you've
Speaker 4: got two kids and you got a six hundred dollars
Speaker 4: check from the government, like, what is Biden?
Speaker 5: What has Biden done for me?
Speaker 3: Boom?
Speaker 5: He gave me six hundred dollars every single month.
Speaker 4: So they actively decided not to do those things, and
Speaker 4: so now they're caught in a place where, even though
Speaker 4: they have one of the most robust economies in the
Speaker 4: last say fifty years, I think because people feel precarious
Speaker 4: about it, that they're not able to really enjoy it
Speaker 4: and reward Democrats for it. Because if you don't, if
Speaker 4: you're not sure it's going to be there a month later,
Speaker 4: if you're wondering if gas is going to go up
Speaker 4: to four bucks a gallon four fifty a gallon, if
Speaker 4: you're wondering that there's going to be some type of
Speaker 4: recession around the corner, then you're not going to reward
Speaker 4: Biden for the fact that wages are.
Speaker 3: Going up in the economy.
Speaker 2: I think this is a very important point because one
Speaker 2: of the things that it underscores is that if you
Speaker 2: don't feel like anybody has done anything for you, then
Speaker 2: you're just going to default to the you know, like
Speaker 2: the intangibles people, well, not intangible per se, but more
Speaker 2: than non material like age, like oh, I can't stand
Speaker 2: the way that he talks. I can't stand the way
Speaker 2: he's embarrassing. And you know RFK Junior is he ah,
Speaker 2: he's saying some interesting stuff. Oh, the guy's a Kennedy
Speaker 2: all right, yeah, I'll take yeah, I'll take a listen.
Speaker 3: And that's enough for a lot of people.
Speaker 2: Maryanne Williamson as well, always been a compelling speakers. Of
Speaker 2: those two combined, I mean, one third is not nothing.
Speaker 2: In fact, it's potent enough that they very seriously from
Speaker 2: the math that I was looking at yesterday, Ryan RFK
Speaker 2: Junior could walk away with some seven to eight hundred
Speaker 2: delegates in the convention. Could you explain why it is
Speaker 2: important for the Democrats to be serious about this? If
Speaker 2: they have a number of delegates, not a majority, but
Speaker 2: still some, what could they do with the DNC at
Speaker 2: the actual convention?
Speaker 3: Should they actually get.
Speaker 4: Some well, and we can put up a three because
Speaker 4: this fifty eight three please yeah.
Speaker 3: Basically, he could.
Speaker 4: Also get some momentum going because Biden is unlikely to
Speaker 4: be on the ballot in Iowa, because Iowa has been
Speaker 4: told you have to go after South Carolina exactly, New
Speaker 4: Hampshire's been told you have to go after South Carolina.
Speaker 4: And both of them are saying, well, no, we're going
Speaker 4: to go first, and they have all other reasons for
Speaker 4: why they're going to continue to go first. And so
Speaker 4: as a result, Biden won't be on the ballot in
Speaker 4: either of those places, plus all those voters or prostickety
Speaker 4: about their first in the nation points, so they'll might
Speaker 4: take it out on Biden anyway, even if he is
Speaker 4: on the bout. So then you got boom, RFK Junior
Speaker 4: winning Iowa, RFK Junior winning New Hampshire, coming into South Carolina,
Speaker 4: and then you've got Nevada Super Tuesday, And if Biden
Speaker 4: is stumbling at that point, you could you could plausibly
Speaker 4: see RFK Junior bring genuine delegates to the DNC.
Speaker 5: Now, the DNC writes its own rules, and so.
Speaker 3: They can screw him out of their delegates.
Speaker 4: Yeah, especially if he has fewer than fifty percent. Yes, no,
Speaker 4: it'll it'll be a nuisance, right, and you'll have some
Speaker 4: fighting on the floor, and you also are going to
Speaker 4: have a spectacle if who are RFK Junior's delegates.
Speaker 5: These are not your normy Democrats necessarily.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Maybe they demanded anti war package, anti war stance on Ukraine,
Speaker 2: or force a vote even on the or on vaccine
Speaker 2: on back any of those issues COVID or.
Speaker 4: Which and these are not the kinds of questions that
Speaker 4: Democrats want to be grappling with.
Speaker 3: In Chicago.
Speaker 5: I did want to.
Speaker 4: Raise this one piece in a portion of the New
Speaker 4: York Times Star, which is so bizarre. It says that
Speaker 4: he has a bunch of views that are Republican, and
Speaker 4: so he lists, okay, opposes an assault weapons ban.
Speaker 3: All right, check, well, well Bernie Sanders did right.
Speaker 4: But so we could argue that one out, but that fine,
Speaker 4: give him that one. Then he says he spreads pro
Speaker 4: Russian talking points on Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Always pro Russian. Kind of a weird one.
Speaker 4: He says, vaccine hesitancy in vaccine skepticism. RFK Junior has
Speaker 4: been one of these going back years. That's traditionally a
Speaker 4: left wing, left wing issue, a right wing issues become
Speaker 4: kind of coded right wing. But it started left. And
Speaker 4: then they say he suggested American presidential campaigns are rigged.
Speaker 4: What they're talking about is a big article he wrote
Speaker 4: about the two thousand and four campaign for Rolling Stone
Speaker 4: with the dominion was it dominion or deep die ball?
Speaker 5: Yeah, die ball voting.
Speaker 4: He was alleging that the voting machines were moving votes
Speaker 4: around in two thousand.
Speaker 5: That's not a right wing.
Speaker 3: Now, Hillary Clinton, he's saying Florida, the US Senate.
Speaker 5: He's saying Bush stole the election.
Speaker 4: Right, So all of a sudden, all of these things
Speaker 4: other than assault weapons ban that.
Speaker 2: Are true, even the assault weapons ban, I would contest, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it wasn't. I mean, like I said, Sanders was on
Speaker 2: the record against assault weapons ban, like not that long ago,
Speaker 2: something after the NRA beat it. Yeah, that's exactly. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's something that Biden would hammer Bernie. I'd be like,
Speaker 2: he doesn't have a you know, he's now hasn't taken
Speaker 2: on the NRA in the same way I have. Let's
Speaker 2: put this pole up there on the screen. Look, the
Speaker 2: man's support is just completely undeniable. This is from the Hill,
Speaker 2: and they say in the new Harvard Harris poll that
Speaker 2: was shared with The Hill, Kennedy received fifteen percent support
Speaker 2: amongst Democratic primary voters, twenty one percent of responders saying
Speaker 2: they have a positive view of him, and overall, like
Speaker 2: what you are saying is that this is a June
Speaker 2: fourteenth and fifteen poll. He still continues to double digit
Speaker 2: support in the Democratic primary, and I mean, he has
Speaker 2: a credible case to try and get on the debate stage.
Speaker 2: And so does mary An Williams as well, pulling over
Speaker 2: five percent, So the two of them really should be
Speaker 2: miffed that the primary is being so rigged by the
Speaker 2: party to keep them off the debate stage. And also
Speaker 2: from the media perspective, I mean, the only mainstream media
Speaker 2: organization to my knowledge so far or too have interviewed
Speaker 2: RFK junior one was CNN with Michael Smerconish and that was,
Speaker 2: you know, on their Sunday program, and they didn't hype
Speaker 2: it as well. And then of course ABC News which
Speaker 2: quite literally edited out what he said. And you know, look,
Speaker 2: that is just simply unacceptable. Like we even told him,
Speaker 2: you know before whenever we had our first year, I said, hey, man,
Speaker 2: like no matter what, you know, like you know, people
Speaker 2: get mad whatever, but like this whole thing is going
Speaker 2: up as it should be. You know, you cannot be
Speaker 2: in this position of censorship. So look, overall, I think
Speaker 2: the way the media is handling it is very foolish.
Speaker 2: And I think that the Democrats biden their headaches over RFK.
Speaker 2: I mean, listen, like that, you only have yourself to blame.
Speaker 2: They're not doing an affirmative enough case of convincing people,
Speaker 2: So don't get mad at them when they have a
Speaker 2: wandering eye and they're looking elsewhere.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and he just had his interview with Jordan Peterson
Speaker 3: getting nuked. Yes, okay, all right, let's talk about that.
Speaker 2: We wanted to make sure that we, you know, talked
Speaker 2: a little bit about this because it's been like an
Speaker 2: ongoing trend.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen, guys.
Speaker 2: So right now, the June fifth episode of the Jordan
Speaker 2: Peterson podcast, which is hosted by The Daily Wire, called
Speaker 2: Rekindling the Spirit of the Classic Democrat, episode three sixty three,
Speaker 2: has actually been taken off YouTube. The entire ninety five
Speaker 2: minute the entire ninety five minute podcast. Now, RFK Junior
Speaker 2: put this out there. Obviously, since we both are you
Speaker 2: show on YouTube, We're not going to play the clip,
Speaker 2: but if you are interested in watching it, it is
Speaker 2: on Twitter.
Speaker 3: You can go. We'll put a link in the description.
Speaker 3: You can go watch it for yourself.
Speaker 2: And so what they say is should social media platform
Speaker 2: censor presidenters wi candidate my conversation with Jordan Peterson. It
Speaker 2: was deleted by YouTube. Luckily you can watch you hear
Speaker 2: on Twitter. What's really troubling about this is that they
Speaker 2: didn't actually list a reason as to why it was
Speaker 2: taken off. There's some skepticism and there is some how
Speaker 2: would I say, there is some like theorizing that it
Speaker 2: might have been something he was talking about with regard
Speaker 2: to environmental contaminants and water and possibly having an effect
Speaker 2: on sex change and gender identity. I don't know enough
Speaker 2: about the issue to to be able to comment on all.
Speaker 3: That's something. It's like something about.
Speaker 5: Sometimes he goes around the bend.
Speaker 3: Listen and okay that a lot of people go around
Speaker 3: the bed on YouTube.
Speaker 2: And you know, what I don't understand is the capricious
Speaker 2: nature in the way that they're handling this because for example,
Speaker 2: you know, we've interviewed the man twice, he said multiple
Speaker 2: I mean, our videos were never taken down off of
Speaker 2: YouTube too. I mean, you know, whenever he was on
Speaker 2: our show, like he said things similarly whenever he was
Speaker 2: on past podcast as well. There's a very strange way
Speaker 2: that they have decided to go back and retroactively police
Speaker 2: the content. So for example, there was a episode of
Speaker 2: the THEO vonn podcast from twenty twenty that was also
Speaker 2: taken down off you but it was taken down now,
Speaker 2: it was taken down recently and in it I mean,
Speaker 2: I actually I haven't even watched the full thing.
Speaker 3: Again, there's no reason given. Whenever these things.
Speaker 2: Are taken down, they just say it's a violation of
Speaker 2: content policy. And Ryan, you and I we have both
Speaker 2: been outspoken against this issue because we covered these issues
Speaker 2: for a living and we know how blurry the line gets.
Speaker 2: So I mean, maybe you can tell people about when
Speaker 2: you were over at Rising, like the ridiculous standard that
Speaker 2: was imposed on your channel, which we have fought against
Speaker 2: vigorously here for that standard specifically because of what happened
Speaker 2: to you.
Speaker 3: And Emily was on that day too.
Speaker 4: It was me Emily and Robbi Suave, and we were
Speaker 4: talking about an interview that Trump had given maybe it
Speaker 4: was Brett with Brettbager again one of his and he
Speaker 4: said something like, you know, Putin never wouldn't have invaded
Speaker 4: if not for the rigged election. Yeah, And then we
Speaker 4: went on and then we made fun of Trump. I
Speaker 4: called him a maniac, and then we debated the point
Speaker 4: would Putin have invaded if Trump had won reelection? But
Speaker 4: what we didn't do is go back and say, dear
Speaker 4: YouTube sensors and dear audience, Like even though Trump said
Speaker 4: there was a rigged election in twenty twenty, in fact,
Speaker 4: it was not rigged.
Speaker 3: And he lost far and square.
Speaker 4: And that whole thing, to me is so funny because
Speaker 4: it's like, who is the person out there who is
Speaker 4: going to be influenced by hearing Trump say this rigged election?
Speaker 5: And they're like, oh, it's a rigged election.
Speaker 4: And then Ryan Grim gets on the YouTube and says,
Speaker 4: in fact, it was not stolen, and they're like, oh,
Speaker 4: I was about to believe Trump, but now that.
Speaker 5: Ryan says that it wasn't stolen.
Speaker 4: So yeah, So they nuked the channel for a week,
Speaker 4: for a week, took the whole channel down, and the
Speaker 4: channel was salted. They salted the earth of that channel.
Speaker 4: You know, it was doing numbers that are like around
Speaker 4: a million a day. Yeah, yeah, and it was when
Speaker 4: it came back a week later two hundred and three hundred.
Speaker 6: Wow.
Speaker 3: Yeah, where we left. That's about what it was doing.
Speaker 2: But you know, and look, we we always had the
Speaker 2: same I told them multiple times to your face, I said,
Speaker 2: this is a ridiculous policy. How are we supposed to
Speaker 2: cover the news if if Biden plays it says something crazy,
Speaker 2: which he does all the time, you know what we do?
Speaker 2: We play the clip that's it. You play the clip.
Speaker 2: We could talk about it, but I wonder what obligation
Speaker 2: am I to quote unquote fact check everything that the
Speaker 2: man says, or Trump or any politician. I have enough
Speaker 2: trust in the people who watch and who listen to
Speaker 2: this show.
Speaker 3: For them to make up their minds for themselves.
Speaker 2: And yeah, if you think that the election was stolen
Speaker 2: at this point, nothing I say is going to have
Speaker 2: any impact on you.
Speaker 3: But it wasn't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it was okay, Yeah, thank you Ryan. Actually
Speaker 2: they did repeal the policy. Look really, yeah, we applauded that.
Speaker 2: Thank you YouTube actually for listening to us and for
Speaker 2: so many other creators who told you how stupid this was.
Speaker 2: I've been outspoken about it. We talked about on the
Speaker 2: Rogan Pot. I talk about it.
Speaker 3: Every chance I can.
Speaker 2: Because if you think about this too, it's a huge
Speaker 2: advantage for cable news because they don't have censors. They
Speaker 2: don't have any I mean technically I guess the FCC,
Speaker 2: but like that's not, you know, not really insane. Especially
Speaker 2: when you're on cable news, not on network television. You
Speaker 2: can basically say everything you want. It's more advertiser pressure,
Speaker 2: which is a whole private censorship, But nobody's gonna take
Speaker 2: your channel off the air, you know, for having an
Speaker 2: interview or something like that with RFK Junior. So look,
Speaker 2: I mean, the entire policy is ludicrous and comparents they
Speaker 2: continue to do this to his candidacy, and of course
Speaker 2: what's happening. It's a streisand effect. More and more people
Speaker 2: are hearing about him. They're like, hey, what is the censorship?
Speaker 2: You know, Jordan Peterson that clip? Let me go ahead
Speaker 2: and take a look here. How how many views now
Speaker 2: does the clip have after it has got ahead? And yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean look, look a four point three million, Yeah,
Speaker 2: four point three million views now. Now, of course, look
Speaker 2: four point three million Twitter views doesn't mean four point
Speaker 2: three million watch it. But I can guarantee you a
Speaker 2: hell of a lot of people are gonna watch it.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I'm sitting here and talking about it. Probably
Speaker 2: wouldn't have talked about it otherwise if they hadn't done it.
Speaker 2: So look, Americans aren't dumb, and you know other tech companies.
Speaker 2: I never thought i'd be in this position. Facebook, Instagram.
Speaker 2: They reinstated RFK Junior's Instagram account, even though they said
Speaker 2: that he had violated their policies because they're like, hey,
Speaker 2: you know, he's an active candidate for president, Like, we
Speaker 2: can't be in this business of trying to censor these things.
Speaker 4: And just like people should know what Trump is saying
Speaker 4: about the election, Yes, people should know what RFK Jr.
Speaker 4: Is saying about different things. You had a case yesterday
Speaker 4: where on Rogan he was talking about how Wi fi
Speaker 4: causing all sorts of problems, et cetera. Without waiting into
Speaker 4: the details of it. I saw some you know, very
Speaker 4: like blue no matter who partisan Democrats clipping and sharing
Speaker 4: him Rfkjunior talking about how wi fi and.
Speaker 2: The blood brain barrier, and they were using as a
Speaker 2: presex not vote for him.
Speaker 4: Right, that's fine, they're saying, look at this, look what
Speaker 4: he says. It's so obset or you should not consider
Speaker 4: this serious person, you shouldn't. But what if you weren't
Speaker 4: allowed to share that, then how would those people be
Speaker 4: able to make their.
Speaker 2: Case exact against him? Exactly right. I mean We've made
Speaker 2: this point a myriad million times. I tried to tell
Speaker 2: this to YouTube, which was like, hey, guys, the number
Speaker 2: one thing of why people hate Trump, especially in the midterms,
Speaker 2: was stop the steal. So wouldn't you. Let's say you
Speaker 2: hate Trump, right, you should be playing him saying the
Speaker 2: election stone all day long. Drives quite crazy. Yeah, that's
Speaker 2: what Democrats do. What do you think they're playing on
Speaker 2: cable TV. So look, anyway, it's a very foolish, a
Speaker 2: very stupid policy. And uh yeah, I mean, look, I
Speaker 2: guess we're always on the lookout. Maybe they'll knwke our
Speaker 2: interview with him. Luckily we have backups that are available.
Speaker 2: But you know, this isn't going to deter people from interviewing,
Speaker 2: nor should it. You know, really it's in the public
Speaker 2: interest to get the stuff out there. Let's go to
Speaker 2: the next part here, speaking of danger from YouTube and
Speaker 2: all this. You never know with some of these clips.
Speaker 2: So I guess let me preface this by saying, this
Speaker 2: is not an endorsement. This is simply trying to get
Speaker 2: the news to the public about something which is potentially
Speaker 2: of the interest to you, about how to think about
Speaker 2: the war in Ukraine. And this is a clip that
Speaker 2: has come out from Russian state television. Again I'm being clear,
Speaker 2: it's from Russian state television. I would get it from
Speaker 2: somewhere else. But guess what, Ryan, there is no free
Speaker 2: media and Russia. So you know, sometimes whenever you play
Speaker 2: President Trump or Biden, you have to get it from
Speaker 2: c SPAN or Public Access because that's.
Speaker 3: The only feed.
Speaker 2: So it's not because we went out of our way
Speaker 2: that we are simply trying to show you the words
Speaker 2: of President Putin. Now, let's go ahead and put this
Speaker 2: up there. I'm going to read a translation of President Putin.
Speaker 2: He says, Russia has never rejected negotiations. He says, I
Speaker 2: want to draw your attention to this that, with the
Speaker 2: assistance of President Erdowan of Turkey, as you know, Turkey
Speaker 2: hosted a whole series of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine
Speaker 2: to develop. Here is the document. It is initial old
Speaker 2: by the Kiev delegation. The signature is there well after
Speaker 2: we as promised, with drew troops from Kiev Keiv authorities.
Speaker 2: In the same way owners usually do, threw it all
Speaker 2: away to the garbage dump of history. What he is
Speaker 2: talking about there and alleging is a previously unpublished document
Speaker 2: of which we are unable to verify, of which it
Speaker 2: has not been released. That was during a meeting with
Speaker 2: the South African president, in which he said that Ukraine
Speaker 2: and Russia in the spring of twenty twenty two had
Speaker 2: initialed and signed this alleged peace agreement which would have
Speaker 2: ended the conflict. Now, the reason why this is of
Speaker 2: interest is because it matches previous reporting that we have
Speaker 2: brought to everybody from August of twenty twenty two, not
Speaker 2: by an independent journalist by Fiona Hill, who is a
Speaker 2: you know, how would you best describer for diplomat Ukraine?
Speaker 2: You know, well within established in the effort, remember the
Speaker 2: Washington establishment on this vide who would know inside of
Speaker 2: foreign affairs. Let's go ahead and put this up there
Speaker 2: please on the screen. I have the article here in
Speaker 2: front of me. It's called the World Putin Wants How
Speaker 2: distortions about the past delusions about There we go, all
Speaker 2: so let me just pretend I'll put this up all
Speaker 2: three two one. It's called the World Putin Wants how
Speaker 2: distortions about the past feed delusions about the future. And
Speaker 2: in it Ryan she specifically says that Boris Johnson traveled
Speaker 2: to Kiev in twenty twenty two specifically to try and
Speaker 2: stop a Ukraine and a Russia peace deal. And we
Speaker 2: also know that because this actually came out in September
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty two. Let's put this please up on
Speaker 2: the screen from the BBC News that Boris Johnson had
Speaker 2: publicly warned against the Ukraine and a Russian peace deal,
Speaker 2: and not only that, actually Ukrainian media and sources at
Speaker 2: the time also said that they had not supported a
Speaker 2: Ukraine and Russian peace steal, and that Boris Johnson specifically
Speaker 2: was one of the NATO ambassadors to come there and
Speaker 2: to tell them that wasn't a good idea.
Speaker 3: So we are not cherry picking.
Speaker 2: We are simply looking at this clip in interest to say, wow, okay,
Speaker 2: this is something that President Putin and the Russians had
Speaker 2: long been talking about. There's no evidence he's alleging it
Speaker 2: in this meeting with the South African president. Is he
Speaker 2: lying or not? I mean, listen, what are we doing.
Speaker 2: We're calling on the Russian government released the document. I
Speaker 2: would love to read it and to hear exactly what
Speaker 2: it is. It's possibly he's lying, right, It's possible that
Speaker 2: the document was some sort of like quasi ceasefire around Kiev,
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of withdrawing tubes.
Speaker 3: It wasn't a full blown piece deal. If it was, then.
Speaker 2: They you know, that actually would bolster what the Ukrainians
Speaker 2: have said, which is that they're liars and false negotiators.
Speaker 2: But at the very least something went down with Ukraine
Speaker 2: and Russian Spring of twenty twenty two, and Boris Johnson
Speaker 2: came and was very upset with it on behalf of NATO.
Speaker 3: So that's what we know.
Speaker 4: Right now, and the reporting on that document fairly matches
Speaker 4: the reporting from what was coming out at the time
Speaker 4: and the deal as it was being constructed. Now we're
Speaker 4: gathering this from both sides at this point. Is that
Speaker 4: Russia would retreat back to the February twenty third, twenty
Speaker 4: twenty two lines.
Speaker 5: That's what Fiona Hill says.
Speaker 4: Basically, Donbas and Crimea would become Russian territory and in exchange,
Speaker 4: the war would be over. Ukraine would agree not to
Speaker 4: pursue NATO membership, but would cut security agreements with countries
Speaker 4: like Germany in the United States, which gives you as
Speaker 4: much comfort in a situation as being in NATO, because
Speaker 4: if the United States is going to back you in it. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's why Saudi's not trying to get into NATO.
Speaker 3: Saudi wants a US security Garan.
Speaker 2: You don't need NATO they're like, what NATO would look,
Speaker 2: we don't need that. Here's the irony Rye. What you
Speaker 2: just described is very likely what is going to happen
Speaker 2: anyway that Crimea and the Dunboss or at least part
Speaker 2: of the eastern Dunbas region remains part of Russia. That
Speaker 2: you're going to get a security guarantee, but it's not
Speaker 2: going to be part of NATO because guess what, Hungary
Speaker 2: Turkey always but there's no way they're going to allow
Speaker 2: to Ukraine into NATO, no matter what the polls and
Speaker 2: the Latvians and the Lithuanians, all of them say, it's
Speaker 2: not going to happen.
Speaker 4: Worse than that if they don't take back a lot
Speaker 4: of territory during this counter offensive. We're going to talk
Speaker 4: about that soon. It'll actually be significantly more than just.
Speaker 5: Don't bost in Crimea exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And hundreds of thousands of people are maimed, wounded,
Speaker 2: you know, tens of thousands of people are dead on
Speaker 2: both sides. And if that was what you're going to
Speaker 2: get anyways, and yeah, history will look upon that as
Speaker 2: literally as they do upon those Remember those secret agreements
Speaker 2: from the First World War when they had like territorial
Speaker 2: and you'll look at some of the initial proposals from August,
Speaker 2: not August like a few months into the war in
Speaker 2: nineteen fourteen, and it ends up that the deals that
Speaker 2: ended up being cut were way worse than that, after
Speaker 2: millions of people were dead. It's basically what we've been
Speaker 2: saying here from the very beginning. So look once again,
Speaker 2: you know, we are not saying that this is necessarily true.
Speaker 2: I would love for the Russian government to release it,
Speaker 2: or Ukrainian government, if they believe the Putin's lying, you
Speaker 2: release it too. You know, you are welcome to release
Speaker 2: this because it is a great matter of public interest.
Speaker 2: Boris Johnson specifically, their allegation here has already been made.
Speaker 2: And remember this too, I believe that you guys talked
Speaker 2: about it. The Israelly Prime Minister enough Tolly Bennett, after
Speaker 2: he left office, was on that podcast in Israel where
Speaker 2: he also confirmed that NATO and the West came in
Speaker 2: and specifically targeted and shot down this piece deal. So
Speaker 2: there are multiple pieces of corroborating evidence to back this up.
Speaker 4: And according to the reporting, the reason that the Ukrainians
Speaker 4: didn't have a choice in whether or not to make
Speaker 4: this deal? Was that and this is what the reporting about.
Speaker 4: Boris Johnson says that you may want a security agreement
Speaker 4: with US.
Speaker 3: But according to this deal.
Speaker 4: Okay, you're saying you won't join NATO, but the US
Speaker 4: and UK and Germany will back you in a security
Speaker 4: deal in order to end this war.
Speaker 3: We won't.
Speaker 4: And so therefore Ukraine can't go to Russia and accept
Speaker 4: the terms because they can't force the United States or
Speaker 4: UK or Germany is to agree to it, which goes
Speaker 4: back to if you remember this question that I asked
Speaker 4: Jensaki back here March of twenty twenty two, what is
Speaker 4: the United States doing to push peace negotiations forward? And
Speaker 4: is ze Lenski empowered to you know, if he reaches
Speaker 4: a deal but.
Speaker 3: The United States will back a deal.
Speaker 4: Shouldn't really answer that question, and it seems that we
Speaker 4: know the answer at this point, which is no. That
Speaker 4: the US felt and the UK and others in NATO
Speaker 4: felt that this was.
Speaker 5: A chance to punch Putin in the nose.
Speaker 4: That his military looked weaker than they expected, so they
Speaker 4: were going to draw some blood.
Speaker 3: They literally were going to draw a lot of blood.
Speaker 4: And so they decided it was in the national interests
Speaker 4: of the NATO countries to continue the war regardless of
Speaker 4: what the Ukrainians might want to do at that point.
Speaker 2: Well, well, we'll find out whether that was the right
Speaker 2: gambler or not. Personally, have never thought so specifically, not
Speaker 2: worth the risk relative to any potential reward. Okay, let's
Speaker 2: go to the next one here, and this actually underscores
Speaker 2: what you're talking about. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen, the new dispatches from journalists on the frontline
Speaker 2: in Ukraine. Wall Street Journal quote why Ukraine's offensive likely
Speaker 2: will be a slow and a costly grind. Kiev and
Speaker 2: Moscow have spent months preparing for along a vast front line,
Speaker 2: And specifically what they talk about here is that Ukraine
Speaker 2: has not had the option because they have not been
Speaker 2: able to have overwhelming ground assault flying beneath gunships blasting
Speaker 2: open on a path. Right now, Kiev troops are running
Speaker 2: into Russian air superiority along the front line, which has
Speaker 2: been unable to give them the offensive advantage of combined
Speaker 2: tactics that basically be in a feature of advancing warfare
Speaker 2: ever since the Second World War. What they point to
Speaker 2: also is that quote. It was they have been preparing
Speaker 2: for a long time. They have learned from some of
Speaker 2: their mistakes in Kharkiv, but that the fighting unfolding now,
Speaker 2: which is effectively just a slug fest on the battlefield,
Speaker 2: is fundamentally a battle of readiness both sides since the
Speaker 2: middle of last year, mustering weapons, troops, and defensive positions
Speaker 2: for what they knew would be a pivotal moment. Unfortunately
Speaker 2: for them, despite amassing, you know, billions and billions of dollars,
Speaker 2: Moscow still has called up over two hundred thousand soldiers.
Speaker 2: They have dug trenches, they've prepared fighting firing positions to
Speaker 2: stop the ukra Aranians, and they have spent spread quote
Speaker 2: millions of land mines in placed by minds viewing rockets
Speaker 2: fired from mobile launchers. The Ukrainian unit which was driving
Speaker 2: these advanced equipment earlier, which drove into those was incapacitated.
Speaker 2: Several tanks and armored fighting vehicles, and other units have
Speaker 2: faced multiple aerial attacks from helicopter gunships, missiles launched from
Speaker 2: both the air and the ground. All of these defensive
Speaker 2: capabilities of the Russians are making it more difficult than
Speaker 2: the original Spring offensive for the Ukrainians. Because frankly, the
Speaker 2: Russians had a long time to prepare for it. They
Speaker 2: had just as long and mobilization they had the mobilization.
Speaker 2: It also gets to something we pointed out here which
Speaker 2: a lot of people didn't want to hear, but clearly
Speaker 2: the Russian or the Ukrainian effort to waste tens of
Speaker 2: billions of dollars in their latest campaign effectively in a
Speaker 2: complete battle of attrition street by street of which they
Speaker 2: ultimately lost after being pushed out of the city, was
Speaker 2: obviously a colossal miss because that's exactly what US generals
Speaker 2: told them not to do repeatedly. They said, hey, you
Speaker 2: need to save all this AMMO and all these men
Speaker 2: and all these weapons for the actual coming counter offensive.
Speaker 2: And instead they spent somewhere upwards of ten to fifteen billion,
Speaker 2: you know, simply on the defense of a city that
Speaker 2: they ultimately completely lost, which was tactically a massive or
Speaker 2: strategically a massive mistake. They said they were bleeding the
Speaker 2: Russians dry. It's like, well, the Russians have more troops,
Speaker 2: you know, they have an unlimited number of men, they
Speaker 2: have an industrial base, they have a real military that
Speaker 2: they're able to resupply and able to manufacture. They have
Speaker 2: all of the defensive capabilities of real nation state. You're
Speaker 2: a nation being literally invaded, you know right now, it's
Speaker 2: very difficult.
Speaker 4: For you, right Ukraine can't win a war of attrition
Speaker 4: against Russia for the reasons that you pointed out. One
Speaker 4: just the immense population advantage that Russia has and its
Speaker 4: willingness to kind of grab people and throw them into
Speaker 4: the meat grinder of the front lines, as well as
Speaker 4: as you said, the Ukrainian economy is absolutely destroyed because
Speaker 4: they are currently the scene of a gruesome war. Russia
Speaker 4: is not Russia. There was a fire in Moscow yesterday
Speaker 4: that was making news.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 4: There have been you know, sporadic kind of attacks across
Speaker 4: the border by you know, Ukrainian linked, independent pro Russian
Speaker 4: anti Russian groups or whatever.
Speaker 3: But that's it.
Speaker 5: They're not they're not facing a full scale war.
Speaker 2: So the same thing as your capital being literally bombed
Speaker 2: most times over constantly thousands while at front line.
Speaker 4: So yes, so as a result, they need big sweeping
Speaker 4: victories like they had with that surprise counter offensive, and
Speaker 4: there just isn't the space for a surprise.
Speaker 3: Now we're early. You can put up this next.
Speaker 4: Yeah, let's put the element which is saying which is
Speaker 4: just brutal news for the Ukrainian forces here, saying that
Speaker 4: they're going to be pausing and reevalued possibly pausing. Now,
Speaker 4: so there's two possible plies here. One is that this
Speaker 4: is kind of could be a faint active disinformation from
Speaker 4: one of from basically the most loyal news outlet to
Speaker 4: the Ukrainian forces in Kiev that is trying to convince
Speaker 4: the Russians that what you're seeing is true or it
Speaker 4: is true and they are actually pausing and reevaluating based
Speaker 4: on just the structural disadvantages that you mentioned. For one
Speaker 4: hundred and fifty years, this has been warfare that the
Speaker 4: dug in side, the defensive side, has a massive advantage
Speaker 4: over the side that is having to leave their trench.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look right now, Look, the best case
Speaker 2: for the Ukrainians is the Russian I laid this out
Speaker 2: previously why I thought it was wrong. But here's a
Speaker 2: good case, which is Russia spent also billions of dollars
Speaker 2: and exhausted a lot of.
Speaker 3: Men's special forces in Bakhma.
Speaker 2: All these guys got blasted to death for basically, you know,
Speaker 2: a smoking scrap of ground. Their forces are very tired
Speaker 2: after having gone through this advance. They were the attacking
Speaker 2: force and now they're on the back foot while it
Speaker 2: is easier to defend where lack of their lack of morale,
Speaker 2: being tired watching their friends die, they're not gonna want
Speaker 2: to be the fight. They don't want to be the Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, they literally don't want to be there, most
Speaker 2: of them. Can you imagine being put in that situation,
Speaker 2: and so they're the ones who are more likely to flee.
Speaker 3: And all it takes is won. You just need one breakthrough.
Speaker 2: The pushback that I've seen to that is just simply
Speaker 2: that given the defensive capabilities of the Russians and their
Speaker 2: current air superiority on the front line, that it's just very,
Speaker 2: very difficult for them to be able to push through.
Speaker 2: Part of why the Ukrainians what do they want more
Speaker 2: than anything F sixteen specifically to try and challenge this
Speaker 2: air superiority. But of course, you know they claim they
Speaker 2: won't use it inside of Russia, right Ryan, we just
Speaker 2: totally believe that.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this final one up.
Speaker 2: There on the screen just to show you the you know,
Speaker 2: the expanding consequences of this. The New York Times put
Speaker 2: together a story where you can believe it if you want,
Speaker 2: saying why the evidence suggests Russia has blown up the
Speaker 2: Kakovia Dam. The dam in Ukraine was designed to withstand
Speaker 2: almost any attack imaginable from the outside. Evidence suggests right
Speaker 2: now that Russia blew it up from within. They use
Speaker 2: some you know, defense, They used some forensic analysis and
Speaker 2: analysis of what the quote unquote Achilles heel inside of
Speaker 2: the dam was that was built during Soviet times. Because
Speaker 2: Moscow had the engineering drawings and knew the exact place
Speaker 2: where to blow up the dam, they say it was
Speaker 2: more likely that they did it, and because they had
Speaker 2: control of the dam at the time, that it was
Speaker 2: obviously going to be easier for them to be abble
Speaker 2: to plant in internal device, you know. At the same time,
Speaker 2: it's not like the Ukrainians had an ad control of
Speaker 2: the dam, so they possibly also had access to that.
Speaker 2: And it's also not like blowing up infrastructure by infiltrating
Speaker 2: it through spyplots like as in the case of the
Speaker 2: Crimean bridge, that they have done that before or mounted
Speaker 2: attacks inside of Russia. So look, the evidence they say
Speaker 2: was it was likely crippled set off an explosion by
Speaker 2: the side that controls it, but of course they haven't
Speaker 2: proven it by any any definitive way.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and it's difficult to know what and when and
Speaker 4: how to believe the media in normal times. When it
Speaker 4: comes to wartime, there's so much propaganda that that you
Speaker 4: have to sift through to try to get to the truth.
Speaker 3: But I do encourage.
Speaker 4: People to read this piece because you know, we don't know.
Speaker 3: It's information is good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I learned a lot about the dam I was like,
Speaker 2: all right, that's interesting, Well, whoever did it? I was like,
Speaker 2: all right, well, the damn clearly blew ou from means
Speaker 2: very likely blow up from means.
Speaker 4: The argument does seem strong that in order for this
Speaker 4: damn to get blown up, because its Soviet era, you know,
Speaker 4: intended to be able to withstand an attack from the
Speaker 4: United States basically or from Germany, that there was only
Speaker 4: one way to blow it up, and that's with massive
Speaker 4: amounts of explosives, you know, put inside the damn way
Speaker 4: down below. Then they have some corroborating evidence that there
Speaker 4: are massive explosions if you believe that corroborating evidence, and
Speaker 4: maybe the most telling detail is that there. You ought
Speaker 4: to have been able to see the foundation all the
Speaker 4: way across it if the foundation wasn't blown. But there's
Speaker 4: this area where you can see that the foundation is missing.
Speaker 4: And so it does seem somebody blew that. How Ukraine
Speaker 4: would get in there is difficult to imagine how they
Speaker 4: could possibly get like so it to me the logic
Speaker 4: and the evidence does point in that direction, but we're
Speaker 4: still too early in the fog awar be able to
Speaker 4: say definitively.
Speaker 2: I can't say definitively. It was a disaster for a
Speaker 2: lot of millions, billions of people. They got flooded out
Speaker 2: of their homes. They think disease is now going to proliferate,
Speaker 2: and you know, war's hell.
Speaker 3: It truly is.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go to the next part here. We're
Speaker 2: going to talk about Trump and this new interview. We
Speaker 2: did our best here. Trump did a one hour interview
Speaker 2: on the Fox Nearest channel that aired last night, and
Speaker 2: there are so many good moments. We will start with
Speaker 2: the newsier elements, then we will play our personal favorite clip.
Speaker 3: Ryan.
Speaker 2: Let's start with the news asked about the documents case,
Speaker 2: of which he certainly is not doing himself. Any favors
Speaker 2: in this, some politics and more. Here's what he had
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 8: That you had a document to ten billing a plan
Speaker 8: attack on another country that was prepared by the US
Speaker 8: military for you when you were president, the Iran attack plan.
Speaker 8: You remember that ready, you were a recording.
Speaker 1: It was a a document. I had lots of paper.
Speaker 1: I had copies of newspaper articles, I had copies of
Speaker 1: magazine spread There was no document that was a massive
Speaker 1: amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and
Speaker 1: other things. And it may have been held up or
Speaker 1: may not, but that was not a document. I didn't
Speaker 1: have a document per se.
Speaker 8: The suggestion was that you wanted this as evidence that
Speaker 8: the military, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milli,
Speaker 8: had preemptively sent you plans for a possible attack on Iran,
Speaker 8: and that you didn't order that to happen.
Speaker 3: That's the suggect. I never ordered it to happen.
Speaker 8: No, but that's why you wanted the document.
Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever seen a document from Milli, frankly,
Speaker 1: was incompetent. The last one I'd want to attack with
Speaker 1: as my leader would be Milli. Continuation.
Speaker 8: More independent voters watch Fox News than any other TV source.
Speaker 3: At Lesson used to watch it a lot less. Right,
Speaker 3: We couldn't help but put that out there. It's just
Speaker 3: too good for him to go after him. Yes, a
Speaker 3: lot less than you think. I mean, hey, he's right.
Speaker 3: Trump is certainly right.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about that documents thing, though, what did he
Speaker 2: He did not do himself any favors Ryan, because he
Speaker 2: both admitted having possession of classified information and then withholding
Speaker 2: it from the grand jury, which I don't think a
Speaker 2: lot of people are understanding this. Trump is being charged
Speaker 2: with a process crime, like he's being charged specifically with
Speaker 2: the set of facts where they're like.
Speaker 3: We asked for it, he didn't give it all to us.
Speaker 2: He's on tape saying that he knew it was classified,
Speaker 2: not declassified properly, and that he didn't do it.
Speaker 3: That's it. I mean, they don't they don't have to
Speaker 3: litigate the political nature.
Speaker 2: They don't even have to re litigate what's in the
Speaker 2: document at all. It's literally like did you do it
Speaker 2: or not? It's very narrowly defined as an offense.
Speaker 4: And what they have now is basically his explanation. Yeah,
Speaker 4: now believe it or not. But his explanation for why
Speaker 4: he was withholding the documents was that he wanted to
Speaker 4: go through it himself and he didn't want to be rushed.
Speaker 3: He's very busy and as he says, there's t.
Speaker 4: Shirts and other golfing memorabilia that are in all these boxes,
Speaker 4: and he wants to take his time and you know,
Speaker 4: sift through these documents, make sure he doesn't accidentally turn
Speaker 4: some some golf trophies, you know, back to Nara.
Speaker 3: And you know, because he you know, he worked hard
Speaker 3: for that.
Speaker 4: He cheat, he cheated hard for those golf tournaments, yes, trophies,
Speaker 4: and so therefore, uh, he then you know, kind of stalled,
Speaker 4: like that's basically what he's saying, and you can't.
Speaker 5: You can't do that now because.
Speaker 2: That's not a legal defense for why exactly this is
Speaker 2: what I keep trying to say.
Speaker 4: He says, write a letter back to them and say,
Speaker 4: I want to go through the documents myself.
Speaker 5: You relax.
Speaker 3: Is that okay, you will get your stuff.
Speaker 5: When you get your stuff, I have it.
Speaker 3: Yes, just chill.
Speaker 4: That would have been a defense that he could make. Instead,
Speaker 4: he lied and said we've given you everything. There is
Speaker 4: nothing left. Hey, go go hide everything over here. Uh,
Speaker 4: and then because he's incompetent, a bad criminal, they learn
Speaker 4: about this and then they raid.
Speaker 3: Look, I mean people should know this.
Speaker 2: You've been watching us for years, Like you're not looking
Speaker 2: at people who ever trumped up Russia Gate claims, who
Speaker 2: think most of the stuff brought against Trump was bs
Speaker 2: and not or at the very least did not rise
Speaker 2: to the proper way that he should have been impeached.
Speaker 2: And I'm telling you right now this is a serious
Speaker 2: one simply because of the way that it is narrowly
Speaker 2: defined as an offense, and that the facts that the
Speaker 2: government presented thus far have not been refuted on the
Speaker 2: actual facts themselves. That is going to fly in a
Speaker 2: court of law. Politically, you can make all the cases
Speaker 2: you want about selective prosecute, of which, by the way,
Speaker 2: I think is true. You know, I think hill Rick
Speaker 2: Clinton should have been prosecuted. I think that there is
Speaker 2: a double standard. I think this is political in nature.
Speaker 2: All of that is true, but that's not gonna fly
Speaker 2: in a court of law. In a court of law,
Speaker 2: you have to argue on the merits themselves, and once
Speaker 2: the case was brought.
Speaker 3: It's a tough one.
Speaker 2: Ryan, It really is a tough one politically. There was
Speaker 2: a hilarious moment everyone where Brett I have no idea
Speaker 2: how Trump actually let Brett Bayer get through all of this.
Speaker 2: Bear reads off lists of all these people who used
Speaker 2: to work for Trump who now say that he should
Speaker 2: not be president again.
Speaker 3: It literally goes on for almost.
Speaker 2: A minute, and it is one of the most hilarious
Speaker 2: montages of television I have ever seen, including Trump's response,
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8: Okay, in twenty sixteen, you said that I'm going to
Speaker 8: surround myself with only the best and most serious people.
Speaker 1: Well I did do that this time tremendous. Look, we
Speaker 1: had the best economy we've ever had. This time has
Speaker 1: ever seen.
Speaker 8: Your Vice President, Mike Pence is running against you. You're
Speaker 8: Ambassador of the United Nations. Nikki Haley, she's running against you.
Speaker 8: Your former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo said he's not
Speaker 8: supporting you. You mentioned National Security Advisor John Bolton, he's
Speaker 8: not supporting you either. You mentioned Attorney General Bill Barr
Speaker 8: says you shouldn't be president again. It calls you the
Speaker 8: consummate narcissist and troubled man you recently called a bar
Speaker 8: a gutlass pig. Your second Defense secretary is not supporting
Speaker 8: you called you irresponsible. This week, you and your White
Speaker 8: House called your White House Chief of Staff John Kelly
Speaker 8: weak and ineffective and born with a very small brain.
Speaker 8: You called your acting White House Chief of Staff Mick
Speaker 8: Mulvaney a born loser. You called your first Secretary of
Speaker 8: State Rex Tillerson, dumb as a rock, and your first
Speaker 8: Defense Secretary of James mattis the world's most overrated general.
Speaker 8: You called your White House Press Secretary of Kather Nanny
Speaker 8: Milk toast, and multiple times you've referred to your Transportation
Speaker 8: Secretary Elaine Choo as Mitch McConnell's China loving wife. So
Speaker 8: why did you hire all of them?
Speaker 3: How good is that? And he's like, so that, why
Speaker 3: did you hire? Why did you?
Speaker 2: And what I love about Trump is he's just asserted,
Speaker 2: like nods along.
Speaker 3: He's like, yeah, you said that, a small brain.
Speaker 4: He's like admiring his work. He's like, that's good material.
Speaker 2: I always say this to the people who you know,
Speaker 2: we had on a Trump guy here on the show
Speaker 2: with during the panel with Ryan Gerdusky, and I was like, man, look,
Speaker 2: why do you have confidence is going to be different
Speaker 2: this time around. You know, he doesn't care. Like, at
Speaker 2: what point are people just going to at that through
Speaker 2: their heads?
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: I've told this story before. I interviewed Trump several times.
Speaker 2: He literally acts like a child, you know, whenever you're
Speaker 2: in the Oval office. I remember I was asking him
Speaker 2: a question and he was sitting there. He literally got
Speaker 2: distracted by a piece of paper on his desk and
Speaker 2: he like picked it up in a tactile way that,
Speaker 2: you know, like a child would, and just was like mystified,
Speaker 2: like what this certificate.
Speaker 3: Was that he had to sign as president.
Speaker 2: And I'm like asking him about Kuwait or so, you know,
Speaker 2: like bases in Bahrain or something like.
Speaker 3: And I was like, wow, dude, I was like, you know,
Speaker 3: you don't care about this at all.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe that's my fault, you know, like I
Speaker 2: should have been engaging him whenever I was talking to him.
Speaker 2: Certainly I believe that you should try and do that,
Speaker 2: but more so in terms of his personal character, like
Speaker 2: that's who he is, that he doesn't care about staff
Speaker 2: and governing in the moment. As long as you're willing
Speaker 2: to kiss his ass, he'll hire you. Happily, you know,
Speaker 2: con and then the moment you depart, it's like, oh,
Speaker 2: he was always a loser, you know, And it's just
Speaker 2: but at the same time, who are we Ryan? People
Speaker 2: don't care? At this point seven years, everybody knows what
Speaker 2: they're buying. Everybody knows what they're getting, and the Republican
Speaker 2: base has made clear we love Trump, we don't care
Speaker 2: about that. And I just think a lot of people
Speaker 2: don't need to be honest when they're like, oh, he's
Speaker 2: going to select the best people and he's really going
Speaker 2: to get done.
Speaker 3: What he says.
Speaker 2: I'm just like, okay, you know, I mean, if that
Speaker 2: makes you sleep better at night, that's fine, but you know,
Speaker 2: it's just not true. I get what they're really saying is, well,
Speaker 2: the one thing he promised me is to make libs mad,
Speaker 2: and guess what, he's very successful at that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4: And the other element of his answer is that, well,
Speaker 4: ten of the people that I hired were good for
Speaker 4: every one bozo and the result is this incredible Economy's
Speaker 4: like basically just listed all of your tough people over
Speaker 4: the course of four years. But again, like, yeah, people,
Speaker 4: if you're a Trump supporter, you're like who cares.
Speaker 3: He's right about it. He's right, he's the guy.
Speaker 4: He does have a small brain, right, the guy is
Speaker 4: like the worst general, most overrated general ever.
Speaker 3: Whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you know, over and over again you
Speaker 2: see what Trump He's like, I believe in X. And
Speaker 2: we'd be like, well, okay, well why are you hiring
Speaker 2: people that don't believe that? And he'd be like, well,
Speaker 2: you know they're working against me. I'm like, yeah, but
Speaker 2: you hired that. We're not talking about permanent people in
Speaker 2: the bureaucracy, right, like, we're talking about people you literally hired.
Speaker 3: Why did you do that?
Speaker 2: And it just it never has a good answer. You
Speaker 2: blame it on us, someding like, oh that was Ryan's previouses. Guy,
Speaker 2: I'm like, yeah, but you're the president, dude, Like you
Speaker 2: can decide whether you want to hire somebody or not.
Speaker 2: And I love too. He's got all these Twitter videos
Speaker 2: that are coming out now. He's like we need space
Speaker 2: travel and flying cars and all. I'm like, dude, you're
Speaker 2: just talking like you were the president. Man, like you
Speaker 2: are you. We know exactly what you're gonna do. The
Speaker 2: one piece of good news for if he does potentially
Speaker 2: win the presidency. Guys, can we put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen? This is the best news for the
Speaker 2: country I've ever seen. Would you want Jared and Ivanka
Speaker 2: to serve in a sucking Trump administration?
Speaker 9: No?
Speaker 3: I said, that's enough for the family. You know why.
Speaker 2: It's too painful for the family. My family has been
Speaker 2: through a lot. So he's not firing Jared and Ivanka
Speaker 2: for the right reason. But you know what, I think
Speaker 2: we're all better off than little boy Wonder playing diplomat,
Speaker 2: playing criminal justice reform, and playing whatever the hell else
Speaker 2: he was supposed to be doing in the White House
Speaker 2: at the time. Genuinely one of the most unimpressive people
Speaker 2: to ever have it the residents of the White House.
Speaker 3: He'll find a way to cash in. Yeah, I'm sure
Speaker 3: you're right. He's already cash in. What are you talking about.
Speaker 2: He's got two billion dollars from Saudi Arabia, So yeah,
Speaker 2: you're right.
Speaker 3: Why should he come back?
Speaker 2: He got exactly what he needed. All right, let's go
Speaker 2: to the next one. This is a very interesting I
Speaker 2: want to spend some time on this, guys. QUI put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen, please. JP Morgan's internal
Speaker 2: report about its ties to Jeffrey Epstein actually just leaked
Speaker 2: out yesterday. This was the twenty nineteen report that was
Speaker 2: compiled around the time of the Epsteine arrest and whenever
Speaker 2: he died in prison a note I said, died in prison,
Speaker 2: not committed suicide in prison. And in that report they
Speaker 2: reviewed its ties to Jeffrey Epstein. They found quote that
Speaker 2: he had regularly given business advice to the one time
Speaker 2: JP Morgan executive Jess Staley and invited him to meetings
Speaker 2: with senior officials in foreign governments. So that's why I
Speaker 2: wanted to spend time on this anytime we get lee.
Speaker 2: I mean, of course, you know Staley's disgusting behavior. I've
Speaker 2: talked to you about before. He sent Epstein an email
Speaker 2: after he left the island and he said that was
Speaker 2: fun say hi to snow White for me. Okay, disgusting
Speaker 2: And you know what, Epstein replied, He said, which character
Speaker 2: would you like to try out? And it's just like
Speaker 2: it makes me want to throw up. But importantly, is
Speaker 2: not just the crimes, the heinous crimes that were competed
Speaker 2: against these young girls and some of these women, is
Speaker 2: the level of penetration that he had with not only
Speaker 2: our business elites, but our foreign.
Speaker 3: Governments and possible intelligence services.
Speaker 2: And actually we got some of the names of these
Speaker 2: government officials of which had come out here. I'm going
Speaker 2: to go ahead and shave some of them here for you.
Speaker 2: So they include the Dubai Sulkan Ahmed bin Suleiman so
Speaker 2: a senior member of the Emarati royal family. The British
Speaker 2: politician Peter Mendelssohn, so Are Mandelssohn. Mandelssohn importantly is not
Speaker 2: just a member of the House of Lords, actually very
Speaker 2: wealthy businessman. And Epstein was trying to connect associates for
Speaker 2: the bank and Internet to finance international expansion. He wrote
Speaker 2: emails actually to Bin Suleiman and to Staley to set
Speaker 2: up meetings between them and advised him Staley the banker,
Speaker 2: on how to conduct himself, what to expect from him,
Speaker 2: And in one email he said that the Sultan is
Speaker 2: laying the groundwork for you to establish a serious presidence.
Speaker 2: They need your reputation in the region right now is poor.
Speaker 2: So Bin Suleiman importantly is the port operator for one
Speaker 2: of the largest companies in the Emirates. End quote had
Speaker 2: several visits scheduled to the Epstein townhouse between twenty eleven
Speaker 2: and and fourteen, and after his conviction after I mean,
Speaker 2: of course, all of this happened after the conviction, after
Speaker 2: he was a registered sex offender. When it comes to
Speaker 2: the House of Lords Member two, he says, I very
Speaker 2: much regret ever.
Speaker 3: Being introduced to him. That's what they always say.
Speaker 2: He never had any but I never had any business
Speaker 2: or professional relationship. But they say and actually show emails
Speaker 2: private bankers advise Epstein's on how to structure a deal
Speaker 2: for an unnamed client to actually buy a painting from
Speaker 2: the lord. That client was actually Leon Black, who was
Speaker 2: the member of the head of Apollo Management, who was
Speaker 2: one of the wealthiest financiers in the entire world and
Speaker 2: a great fan of Jeffrey Epstein, who had funneled some
Speaker 2: hundred billion dollars one hundred million dollars or so to
Speaker 2: him for quote unquote tax advice, which I'm sure that's
Speaker 2: what he needed from him. And look, I mean, I
Speaker 2: just think that this is really this is pure speculation.
Speaker 3: It's not a confirmation.
Speaker 2: But you know, his benefit to foreign intelligent services and
Speaker 2: his ability here to clearly to not only connect business
Speaker 2: elites and financial elites with foreign governments does show you
Speaker 2: that there was something going on else behind the scenes,
Speaker 2: because of course foreign intelligence service would have a tremendous
Speaker 2: interest in the comings and goings of the members of
Speaker 2: the House of Lords of you know, Emarati princes and
Speaker 2: their business dealings, things like that. And then even more
Speaker 2: so Ryan, what we would see is that his ability
Speaker 2: to connect into influence the said policy through money and
Speaker 2: all that would of course also be of great.
Speaker 3: Interest to them. Right, And we should never forget a
Speaker 3: couple of things.
Speaker 4: One that the prosecutor who went soft on him said,
Speaker 4: I was told that he was intelligence, so therefore I.
Speaker 3: Should go soft on him.
Speaker 4: We have a remarkable number of just on the record,
Speaker 4: you know, confessions around this.
Speaker 3: And then there was that critical.
Speaker 4: Reporting from when his townhouse was rated that the FBI
Speaker 4: had told CNN or somebody else that they had gotten
Speaker 4: a safe that was filled with CDs that had name
Speaker 4: of high profile person and then girl and age. And
Speaker 4: so they found his compromot, they found his blackmail. They
Speaker 4: we already knew that it was the most wired up
Speaker 4: townhouse ever. You can imagine that his plane, boat's eye,
Speaker 4: all these other venues are also completely wired with you know,
Speaker 4: video and audio, and so then we know that there
Speaker 4: are these CDs.
Speaker 3: Where are those CDs?
Speaker 10: Like?
Speaker 5: What what happened with that?
Speaker 3: Like that? That was like, if you're a credible law.
Speaker 4: Enforcement agency that is actually trying to unravel this child
Speaker 4: sex ring, you just opened a safe and found all
Speaker 4: of the evidence that you need to round everybody up.
Speaker 4: Not one single person gets rounded up as a result
Speaker 4: of all of those leads.
Speaker 2: My bet is that whatever that CD is doesn't exist anymore,
Speaker 2: probably was set.
Speaker 3: There's a fire or a flood or something.
Speaker 2: Real, really crazy stuff happens in some of these evidence rooms. Shocking,
Speaker 2: you know, you know, don't they have disaster plans something
Speaker 2: going on, like with Trump when they fake flood something
Speaker 2: they actually followed that is confirm right, They never confirmed
Speaker 2: that they flooded that. And also it turns out I
Speaker 2: didn't even do anything fundily enough, So I guess they're
Speaker 2: even you know, bad at covering it enough. But listen,
Speaker 2: that's the latest from the report inside of JP Morgan.
Speaker 2: I think it just confirms multiple things. They knew exactly
Speaker 2: was a sex offender. They kept doing business with them
Speaker 2: for existence and ties to foreign clients, but the foreign
Speaker 2: government piece, to me is the single most important one
Speaker 2: because that shows you a much higher level of involvement,
Speaker 2: not just of corruption amongst the high financiers and the
Speaker 2: highest elite on Wall Street, but of direct ties to
Speaker 2: very very senior government officials, former presidents of the United
Speaker 2: States like Bill Clinton, and more impossible compromising information.
Speaker 3: So the more that we get on that.
Speaker 2: We'll keep everybody updated. It remains one of the most
Speaker 2: important stories in the entire country. Okay, next part this.
Speaker 2: I cannot tell you Ryan, how obsessed I am with this.
Speaker 3: Guys. Let's put this up on the screen please.
Speaker 2: Pod News Industry Trade Journal gives us a little bit
Speaker 2: of the scoop on Megan Markle and her breakup with Spotify. So,
Speaker 2: for those who don't know, the Duke and Duchess as
Speaker 2: they style themselves, have a podcast company. It was called
Speaker 2: Archiwell they are not their contract renewed from Spotify. Not
Speaker 2: only that, they may not actually actually even get the
Speaker 2: full twenty million dollars full of the contract because they
Speaker 2: did not meet their productivity clauses.
Speaker 3: What they now say is.
Speaker 2: One of the most insane things I've ever heard, Ryan.
Speaker 2: This woman was paid twenty million for twelve episodes, even
Speaker 2: that she could not do the work in the correct way.
Speaker 2: Pod News has heard from multiple sources that some interviews
Speaker 2: on her show were done by other staffers with her
Speaker 2: questions edited in afterwards. So mechanically, let's explain this, everybody.
Speaker 2: It would be as if there were only two shots
Speaker 2: in this show, one of you and one of me.
Speaker 2: You talk, you know, you give answers and all that,
Speaker 2: and somebody, one of our producers, let's say Griffin is
Speaker 2: standing in here for me, and then they were I,
Speaker 2: because my schedule is so important, I would come in
Speaker 2: later after I got my beauty sleep, and then I
Speaker 2: would sit here like I am right now, and I'm like, yes, run,
Speaker 2: I'd be looking at you, and nobody would be People
Speaker 2: would be numb the wiser, right, especially if we're only
Speaker 2: doing a audio. I mean, what is this an animated movie? Like, like,
Speaker 2: what are we doing?
Speaker 3: We're doing a podcast. You don't have an hour to
Speaker 3: sit down and to interview somebody. And here's the thing.
Speaker 3: It wasn't even good. It didn't even chart your questions. Yeah,
Speaker 3: somebody will write question.
Speaker 2: When you're this rich and you're famous and you're doing
Speaker 2: twenty million, you know, for some BS deal plus a
Speaker 2: Netflix deal and also the nonsense you could pay people.
Speaker 3: All you've got to do is sit down in the chair.
Speaker 3: You don't do anything. Put a prompter up in front
Speaker 3: of you.
Speaker 2: We do so much work over here, and I just
Speaker 2: want to know, Ryan, how do I get paid twenty
Speaker 2: million dollars to not to not do anything?
Speaker 3: You got to know what is happening. You got to
Speaker 3: be former royalty. You're right, I have to be a
Speaker 3: divorce who breaks up the royal family.
Speaker 4: But this is this is going to be very difficult news.
Speaker 4: I think the Breaking Points community because you know, you
Speaker 4: can go into the back end and see, you know
Speaker 4: which shows your audience also listens to. That's right, And
Speaker 4: there's about one hundred sent overlap, oh with the Megan Markle.
Speaker 4: So all of you out there, we know, we know
Speaker 4: how that you actually loved all twelve of these episodes,
Speaker 4: five stars across the you know.
Speaker 3: I will tell you I love looking at our also
Speaker 3: listens to. It is all over the map.
Speaker 2: Man, It's like Ben Shapiro and like some you know,
Speaker 2: crazy leftist channel I literally had never heard of, and
Speaker 2: I was like, man, I bet you there's no other
Speaker 2: YouTube channel on Earth that the mega Markele.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then Meghan Markle. Of course.
Speaker 2: Look, the reason why this is so hilarious is that
Speaker 2: it has been an open secret inside of the company,
Speaker 2: apparently now for months about how much of a grifter
Speaker 2: this woman is. Enough for Bill Simmons over at The
Speaker 2: Ringer Podcast, which was acquired by Spotify, to call Harry
Speaker 2: and Megan quote a fucking grifter on his latest podcast.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 2: I wish I had been involved in the Megan and
Speaker 2: Harry leave Spotify negotiation.
Speaker 3: The grifters. That's the podcast we should have launched with them.
Speaker 2: So Bail actually reveals that not only did he all
Speaker 2: of that, he reveals that he did a private zoom
Speaker 2: call with Harry about ideas.
Speaker 3: For how their podcast could go.
Speaker 2: And Ryan, this is the late you know, just this
Speaker 2: the latest in a series of in I don't understand
Speaker 2: how these people get these deals, like Bruce Springsteen and Obama.
Speaker 2: Nobody listen, guess what, guys. Obama, he's never gonna let
Speaker 2: his hair down. He's got way too much.
Speaker 3: Riding on this.
Speaker 2: He got Obama, he's a multimillion dollar enterprise. He can't
Speaker 2: be talking, you know, for real, because he's not a man,
Speaker 2: he's a brand. Him and Michelle becoming you know, the
Speaker 2: tour and all of that. All right, So that's Obama
Speaker 2: and Springsteen. I just saw this morning Trevor Noa was
Speaker 2: getting a big Spotify deal. He literally flamed out and
Speaker 2: failed on The Daily Show, one of the great platforms
Speaker 2: that exists in comedy, and now apparently it gets a
Speaker 2: great big deal. This isn't even necessarily out of envy. Look,
Speaker 2: it's fine. You know, we love our business. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: mean a little bit.
Speaker 3: I mean, here's the thing.
Speaker 2: We work very hard here over at breaking points. Okay,
Speaker 2: we you know, our business pro our premium program, we're
Speaker 2: constantly monitoring and you know, very proud of the fact
Speaker 2: they were built this set one hundred percent with a
Speaker 2: dollar a premium subscriber dollars.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's for real though. I mean, you know, it
Speaker 3: never ends.
Speaker 2: Here for us, Like we take it very seriously, and
Speaker 2: we take our customers and we you know, we look
Speaker 2: at them. You know, every time somebody has a complaint
Speaker 2: or a connection issue or something. We're always doing our
Speaker 2: best in order to make sure that it gets resolved.
Speaker 3: And then I watch these.
Speaker 2: People printing you know, tens of millions of dollars doing
Speaker 2: no work.
Speaker 3: And you know, we see and it's not just us.
Speaker 2: I see so many different independent podcasts in the top ten,
Speaker 2: especially on Spotify. Our show is very popular on Spotify
Speaker 2: in the News and Politics category.
Speaker 3: And you know, I'll.
Speaker 2: Watch these people rate at number fifty five and all that.
Speaker 2: But we know what they're getting paid.
Speaker 3: You don't think Mac and Markle's taking the ticket requests and.
Speaker 2: Yeah, try to help people exactly, thank you. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: like you know me, we personally are running down and
Speaker 2: be like, hey, why is this person's.
Speaker 3: Premium feed not because oh man, you know we sent our.
Speaker 2: Email eleven eighteen Pam And I'm like me and you
Speaker 2: you know, I'm riding the step and like, all right, guys,
Speaker 2: we gotta get this out at eleven a m. This
Speaker 2: is what people are promised for. But apparently now that's
Speaker 2: not the great.
Speaker 3: Line of work.
Speaker 2: What I need to do is move to the UK
Speaker 2: Mary Princess, get them to divorce or prance.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Maybe, honestly, you're right, you know, interracial couple, interracial gay
Speaker 2: couple who leaves.
Speaker 3: You're probably right, that would be even better.
Speaker 2: Branding fake a poparazzi, chase and claim a near death
Speaker 2: experience and then sign a twenty million dollar deal. So look,
Speaker 2: I don't even know what else to say, because the
Speaker 2: crazy thing to me is that this era has not ended.
Speaker 2: You know, you would think that this would be some
Speaker 2: zero interest rate phenomenon. We're actually in the middle of
Speaker 2: an ad of recession apocalypse. You know, if you look
Speaker 2: at the way that ad rates have plunged, this is
Speaker 2: why the news media, which is generally you know, other
Speaker 2: than us, who is predominantly reliant on advertising revenue, they're
Speaker 2: making a hell of a lot less money right now.
Speaker 2: Where we lost more media jobs in twenty twenty three
Speaker 2: than we did in all of twenty twenty two already,
Speaker 2: it's only half the year.
Speaker 3: Hundreds of people, thousands of people actually lost their jobs
Speaker 3: in the industry. And yet people like this always.
Speaker 2: Seem to be able to squeeze money out of executives
Speaker 2: at big companies, and it has nothing to do with
Speaker 2: whether people like it or not.
Speaker 3: It's stunning. It really is.
Speaker 5: Just do your own podcast if you're gonna get twenty
Speaker 5: million dollars.
Speaker 3: Yeah right, I don't even know even ask you to
Speaker 3: write the question. Yeah, all right, so be there when
Speaker 3: it's happening.
Speaker 2: That's our Meghan Marko update. Our next podcast should be
Speaker 2: called We Want Privacy?
Speaker 5: What about Harry here?
Speaker 3: What's Is this a Harry podcast too? Or is this
Speaker 3: just supposed to be? I don't know, actually I think
Speaker 3: it was a Megan Markele podcast.
Speaker 4: I'm sure he had some Our audience knows, because there
Speaker 4: are you guys follow this podcast.
Speaker 2: Comment let us know how Prince Harry did in his
Speaker 2: in his podcasting journey Creator journey?
Speaker 3: Isn't that what they call it? There? Online? Breaking news, everybody.
Speaker 2: Just as I was about to do my monologue, this
Speaker 2: came across the wire. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. Hunter Biden pleading guilty to three federal charges.
Speaker 3: So I have the charges here in front of me.
Speaker 2: The information charge, which is the defendant with tax offenses,
Speaker 2: namely two counts of willful failure to pay federal income
Speaker 2: tax and violation of twenty six USC. Seventy two oh three.
Speaker 2: The defendant has agreed to plead guilty to both counts
Speaker 2: of tax information. The second information charges the defendant with
Speaker 2: the firearm offence, namely one count of possession by a
Speaker 2: firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of
Speaker 2: or addicted to a controlled substance in violation of eighteen Usc.
Speaker 2: Nine to twenty two G three and nine twenty four
Speaker 2: A two twenty eighteen. This defendant has agreed to enter
Speaker 2: pre trial diversion agreement with respect to the firearm information.
Speaker 2: The parties jointly request the court schedule a consolidated in
Speaker 2: appearance on the firearm and initial appearance on the charge
Speaker 2: the plea hearing of the tax information charges. Ryan, can
Speaker 2: you break this down for us? What are the specific
Speaker 2: charges that we should remember and relate to here.
Speaker 4: So, in the midst of Hunter Biden's bender, he went
Speaker 4: and bought a firearm, Yes, since when he bought the
Speaker 4: firearm there was a form that he was required to
Speaker 4: fill out that asks if he was a drug user?
Speaker 3: Base Oka, was he using drugs?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 3: He checked? No.
Speaker 4: He has said in interviews he left crack pipe at
Speaker 4: a rental car. Well, we have multiple pikes. There's no questions.
Speaker 4: It's all over the laptop.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's no.
Speaker 4: Question that he was using drugs and so boom, he
Speaker 4: lied and that is the felony gun charge because by lying,
Speaker 4: he then becomes an illegal possessor of firearms. Yes, they've agreed,
Speaker 4: they've allowed they are going to allow him to enter
Speaker 4: into pre trial diversion, which is which basically says, look,
Speaker 4: you're going to take some courses, You're going to do
Speaker 4: some probably some community service or some probation, some other things.
Speaker 4: And if you successfully complete all of these tax tasks
Speaker 4: for you, you stay sober. You you know, sometimes you
Speaker 4: have to go to AA or ANA as a result
Speaker 4: of is then the charges might not ever actually be filed.
Speaker 4: Then there's the two tax charges, which are misdemeanors, which
Speaker 4: are willful failure to pay taxes, which suggests that it's
Speaker 4: not just as a result of his vendor that he
Speaker 4: had somebody.
Speaker 2: This tax investigation is one of the most insane things
Speaker 2: that I've ever read, because I remember covering this. At
Speaker 2: the time, Hunter had two million dollars. Do you know
Speaker 2: how much money you have to make to pay two
Speaker 2: million in income tax? That's thirty percent of your income.
Speaker 2: So you guys do the math here, and that was
Speaker 2: just over two years. That's a hell of a lot
Speaker 2: of money here that Hunter found himself. It's good work
Speaker 2: if you can get it, isn't it. Ryan, Yeah, just
Speaker 2: to buy yourself a little Malibu mansion with your latest
Speaker 2: female love interest.
Speaker 10: You know.
Speaker 2: The craziest part, too, is how shady this all was,
Speaker 2: because all of the tax was paid was paid back
Speaker 2: delinquent taxes not by him by a Hollywood lawyer who
Speaker 2: apparently was just a friend and supporter of President Biden
Speaker 2: and decided the entertainment attorney his name is Kevin Morris,
Speaker 2: novelist who earned a fortune representing the creators of South
Speaker 2: Park and the Book of Mormon, decided to pay the
Speaker 2: overdue taxes totaling over two million dollars for Hunter Biden
Speaker 2: the previous The problem for him, though, is it seems
Speaker 2: that the irs was able to basically prove or at
Speaker 2: the very least, was able to show you that you
Speaker 2: that they were able to show Ryan that they had
Speaker 2: made they that he had willfully not paid that tax.
Speaker 2: So you knew it wasn't just a matter of I
Speaker 2: forgot to pay the tax. That he knew he hadn't
Speaker 2: paid the taxesn't only after that he needed to pay
Speaker 2: it that he had to come forward and to find
Speaker 2: this two million, you know, miraculously somewhere, I mean, who,
Speaker 2: what is this is the sweetest gig on the planet Earth.
Speaker 2: You get to make millions of dollar, even make so
Speaker 2: much money, you got to pay two million dollars in
Speaker 2: federal taxes. And then when you don't pay your tax
Speaker 2: because you spend all the money, you go to one
Speaker 2: of your rich friends. He's a supporter of your dad
Speaker 2: as the president, and he pays your tax bill for you,
Speaker 2: and presumably you'll eventually pay him back, but you never
Speaker 2: ever have to. I mean, Kate, what a good fortune
Speaker 2: that this man is fine.
Speaker 5: He's doing better than me and Markle.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but what's as important as what's being charged here
Speaker 4: as what's not being charged. Yeah, And this this is
Speaker 4: coming after all the heat around the confidential human source.
Speaker 4: It was relaying to the FBI back in June twenty
Speaker 4: twenty that a Bearisma executive that's said to be the CEO,
Speaker 4: was claiming that Hunter Biden was splitting a ten million
Speaker 4: dollars bribe with his father, Vice President Biden, and Republicans
Speaker 4: have been asking the question, where is this, And the
Speaker 4: FBI has been saying, well, this is part of an
Speaker 4: active ongoing investigation, so therefore we can't comment on it.
Speaker 4: So clearly they did not charge in connection with this
Speaker 4: bribery scandal that's been alleged. It also suggests that now
Speaker 4: they should be able to comment on it, that they
Speaker 4: can no longer say that there's an active ongoing investigation
Speaker 4: unless there is another one that they're going to say
Speaker 4: that they have going on, but I doubt it.
Speaker 2: And here's the other thing, in terms of the plea
Speaker 2: agreement and all of that. I mean, can you imagine
Speaker 2: what what did Wesley Snipes do. Let's let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and get this up there right, Like Wesley Snipes tech,
Speaker 2: I believe he actually did serve a sentence here. So
Speaker 2: they charged at Snipes had spent fictitious bills of exchange
Speaker 2: for fourteen millions of dollars to the irs. The government
Speaker 2: charged at Snipes failed to file tax returns for the
Speaker 2: years nineteen ninety nine through two thousand and four. The
Speaker 2: government charged him with this crime. He responded to this
Speaker 2: indictment in two thousand and six saying that he actually
Speaker 2: wasn't a citizen, that was all this other stuff. He
Speaker 2: was sentenced to three years in prison for willful failure
Speaker 2: to file federal income tax. Now, obviously it does look
Speaker 2: like he went out of his way to you know,
Speaker 2: make sure that he didn't pay his taxes. And it
Speaker 2: was a little bit of different situation because he didn't
Speaker 2: actually plead guilty was found guilty as a result of this.
Speaker 2: But at a very basic level, you and I, you know,
Speaker 2: I was just a gun show this weekend. You go
Speaker 2: into the if I walked into there and I filled
Speaker 2: out that form and I lied, and I also didn't
Speaker 2: pay you know, if I didn't even pay a fraction
Speaker 2: of my income tax, you know whatever, and all of
Speaker 2: that to the no way, and then I went to
Speaker 2: some shady character and had them pay the bill for me.
Speaker 2: You think the Feds aren't going to lock me up?
Speaker 2: Of course they are. Any normal person who doesn't have
Speaker 2: this level of any normal person who doesn't have this
Speaker 2: level of connection to the elite that people in power
Speaker 2: wouldn't be getting.
Speaker 3: Off scott free. So if he doesn't serve a day
Speaker 3: in jail, I would say it's a complete injustice.
Speaker 4: But it also shows how easy it is to get
Speaker 4: away with a lot of this stuff too, because if
Speaker 4: it weren't for the attention that was brought.
Speaker 3: About by every what happened is right.
Speaker 4: If his father didn't run for election in twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 4: and he just continued doing what he was doing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the chance that.
Speaker 4: They actually, I mean, maybe the algorithm catches that he
Speaker 4: didn't pay his taxes, but because he's got so many
Speaker 4: different bank accounts and income from so many different countries
Speaker 4: that probably the IRS is not catching.
Speaker 3: Oh I bet you're exactly right.
Speaker 2: Which is the more complicated your taxes are, the less
Speaker 2: likely you are to get audited because the IRS they
Speaker 2: instead they audit poor people who make less than twenty
Speaker 2: five thousand.
Speaker 3: Dollars a year. It's five times the rate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, cashing in on They're like, oh, you're falsely
Speaker 2: cash in on the EITC. This guy can't pay two
Speaker 2: million dollars and he doesn't even get caught until years later.
Speaker 2: So look, I mean, we'll stop talking. We'll just let
Speaker 2: you digest the news. I guess for yourself, but it
Speaker 2: certainly look we'll find out whether he actually serves any
Speaker 2: time in jail or no.
Speaker 3: That's what we know so far. We'll see you guys later.
Speaker 2: The Internet is a flame right now in debate discourse
Speaker 2: after OURFK Junior's recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast.
Speaker 2: Not from the podcast itself, but from the fallout of
Speaker 2: a previous JI guest their criticism of the RFK interview.
Speaker 2: The previous guests, as you've probably heard by now, doctor
Speaker 2: Peter Hotez at one point appeared on the JRE to
Speaker 2: publicize his book refuting claims that vaccines cause autism. Since
Speaker 2: though it has morphed into a full fledged warrior for
Speaker 2: the establishment view on COVID. Now, Hotz, despite his previous
Speaker 2: appearance on the JRE, has criticized Rogan vociferously for airing
Speaker 2: a different view on COVID and now platforming RFK Junior himself.
Speaker 2: Hot has reacted to the interview by advocating for censorship
Speaker 2: by quoting a Vice article saying, quote Spotify has stopped
Speaker 2: even sort of trying to stem Joe Rogan's vaccine misinformation,
Speaker 2: to which Rogan lit the flame with the response I've
Speaker 2: rarely seen him engage with someone else on Twitter. He responded, quote, Peter,
Speaker 2: if you claim what RFK Junior is saying is misinformation,
Speaker 2: I'm offering you one hundred thousand dollars to the charity
Speaker 2: of your choice if you're willing to debate him on
Speaker 2: my show with no time limit. The offer was then
Speaker 2: increased by subsequent offers from billionaire hedgehunder, Bill Ackman, venture
Speaker 2: capitalists and others, nearing some six hundred thousand dollars to charity.
Speaker 3: So the question is will hots do it? Should he
Speaker 3: do it? Two questions?
Speaker 2: Those are what everyone's talking about right now, and it
Speaker 2: raises a lot of interesting questions. First and foremost, will
Speaker 2: he do it? The answer appears to be no. Hotess
Speaker 2: has offered himself up on Rogan's show, but it only
Speaker 2: seems as a singular guest. He doesn't want to do
Speaker 2: a debate. He explained himself on MSNBC to Meddie Hassen
Speaker 2: on Sunday Night. Let's take a listen to what he said.
Speaker 11: That's why we have to have that discussion. And I
Speaker 11: offered to come and talk to Go Gone Joe Rogan again.
Speaker 11: I've been on a couple of times and have that
Speaker 11: discussion with it, but not to turn it into the
Speaker 11: Jerry Springer Show with having RFK Junior on.
Speaker 2: So Hotest says going on with Rogan's podcast with rf
Speaker 2: K Junior would be like Jerry Springer. I'm assuming because
Speaker 2: he thinks that the format wouldn't be right now as
Speaker 2: a debate.
Speaker 3: The issues are a few.
Speaker 2: Number one, Rogan has already hosted multiple debates that were fair.
Speaker 2: They have borne fruit and actually show him offering grace
Speaker 2: to those that he disagrees with. The one that really
Speaker 2: comes to mind is the twenty nineteen debate on marijuana
Speaker 2: and whether it is dangerous or not That included Alex
Speaker 2: Berenson and a doctor who advocates for cannabis use. Joe
Speaker 2: obviously an avid cannabis user, but he gave Berenson the
Speaker 2: time to talk to air his views. In some cases
Speaker 2: he even agreed with him. Not that narrative that most
Speaker 2: people would think going into that. Now, Joe is all
Speaker 2: ready offered to go as long as he needs for
Speaker 2: the debate, so there's no problem in terms of timing.
Speaker 2: As an RFK appeared on our show, for example, he
Speaker 2: had a set time that he had to go. That's
Speaker 2: a mechanical objection. But now what about the moral one.
Speaker 2: This is where things get interesting and actually very very revealing.
Speaker 2: The elites who back ho tests are united in their
Speaker 2: view that he should not deign to debate RFK Junior,
Speaker 2: the so called experts should not do so. This view
Speaker 2: was now best shown by Tom Nichols of Resistance fame.
Speaker 2: He says, quote, no medical professional should ever agree to
Speaker 2: do this, never it elevates the conspiracy guy. It demeans
Speaker 2: the medical professional will only convince the kooks out there.
Speaker 2: RFK Junior is right because a real doctor took the
Speaker 2: time to debate him. Interesting, no medical professor professional should
Speaker 2: ever agree to do this because it elevates RFK Junior.
Speaker 2: First of all, RFK is pulling at some twenty percent
Speaker 2: in the Democratic primary. He's got one of the most
Speaker 2: famous last names in American history. He is a bona
Speaker 2: fide political candidate no matter what they do. He doesn't
Speaker 2: need HOTS to elevate him or anyone else. But more so,
Speaker 2: it gets to the fundamental hypocrisy of Hotez and the
Speaker 2: other vaccine scientists who are refusing to debate RFK Junior.
Speaker 2: In one breath, they say that the science does not
Speaker 2: happen by debates. It happens by peer review and by journals,
Speaker 2: and thus debating that person would be inappropriate. It's not
Speaker 2: the way that science is done. But then in the
Speaker 2: same breath, these people are appearing on public shows like
Speaker 2: Mehdi Hassen on MSNBC or Hots in the past on
Speaker 2: rogan to push a specific line of argumentation and.
Speaker 3: Talk to the public in public policy debate.
Speaker 2: Hotez not only has been a vocal opponent of claims
Speaker 2: of vaccines cause autism, but he has literally been going
Speaker 2: on TV now for three years constantly advocating for the
Speaker 2: establishment of view of COVID. He defended lockdowns, he defended
Speaker 2: masters for children. He pushed booster shots on kids and
Speaker 2: COVID vaccines with underlying claims that have turned out to
Speaker 2: be flat out false. Whenever it comes to efficacy, he
Speaker 2: cannot use his so called secret none knowledge of science
Speaker 2: to advocate for public policy and effectively enter the public square,
Speaker 2: then take his toys and go home when he's challenged
Speaker 2: by someone else who wants to talk in that square.
Speaker 2: It is that view of the scientific establishment right now
Speaker 2: that when it's time to debate, oh then they're scientists.
Speaker 2: But when they're just scientists, they're doing review. But when
Speaker 2: it comes to advocacy for something that they agree with,
Speaker 2: oh forget.
Speaker 3: The scientific method.
Speaker 2: I'll end with this. Vene Persod observed this nearly two
Speaker 2: years ago. The scientific establishment has nobody but themselves to
Speaker 2: blame for vaccine skepticism. Today, people like cot Has use
Speaker 2: their credentials to push childhood masking and lied about efficacy,
Speaker 2: and they justify their lockdowns, all of which were anti
Speaker 2: science policies.
Speaker 3: Though don't be surprised.
Speaker 2: A few years later there's a huge proliferation of questions
Speaker 2: around vaccines and about the approval process for drugs. Generally,
Speaker 2: if someone has told you a lie once, the odds
Speaker 2: are they've probably lied to you before. That's a natural
Speaker 2: human judgment, and if they want to see their trust
Speaker 2: restored in their authority, they owe it to the public
Speaker 2: make their case with one of their opponents. If you can't, well,
Speaker 2: it tells a hell of a lot about them. And Ryan, Ryan,
Speaker 2: what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 4: So when Daniel Ellsberg made the decision to leak the
Speaker 4: Pentagon papers, he did so believing that he would spend decades,
Speaker 4: if not the rest of his life in prison, and
Speaker 4: one man did everything he could to make sure that happened,
Speaker 4: and ironically, in the process accidentally assured that he remained free.
Speaker 3: That man, of course, was Richard Nixon.
Speaker 4: And because he recorded everything he did in the Oval Office,
Speaker 4: we actually have tape of him first learning of the
Speaker 4: leak in nineteen seventy one. Here's Richard Nixon being briefed
Speaker 4: by General Alexander Haig.
Speaker 9: Nothing else of that in the world, and they are
Speaker 9: very significant. This goddamn New York Times expose of the
Speaker 9: most highly classified documents of the war.
Speaker 7: All that I see that, I didn't read the story.
Speaker 7: But do you mean that that was leaked out of
Speaker 7: the Pentagon, Sarah.
Speaker 9: The whole study that was done for McNamara and then
Speaker 9: carried on after McNamara left by Clifford and the peace
Speaker 9: nakes over there. This is a devastating security breach of
Speaker 9: the greatest magnitude of anything.
Speaker 7: Ill, Well, what what's being done about it? Then? I mean,
Speaker 7: I didn't Did we know this was coming out?
Speaker 9: No, we did not. Sure there are just a few
Speaker 9: copies of this.
Speaker 7: So what about the volume report? But what about the
Speaker 7: Let me ask you this though, what about the What
Speaker 7: about Lard? What's he going to do about it?
Speaker 5: Is?
Speaker 6: Well, I did not.
Speaker 7: I just start right at the top and fire some people.
Speaker 7: I mean, whoever whatever department came out about fire the
Speaker 7: top guy?
Speaker 9: He said, well, I'm sure it came from Defense, and
Speaker 9: I'm sure it was stolen. It at the time of
Speaker 9: the turnover of the administration. It's two years old, I'm
Speaker 9: sure it is, and they've been holding it for a
Speaker 9: juicy time, and I think they've thrown it out to
Speaker 9: effect hatfield of government. That's my own astimate, but it's
Speaker 9: it's something that it's a mixed bag. It's a tough
Speaker 9: attack on Kennedy. It shows that the genesis of the
Speaker 9: war really occurred during how sixty one.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's Clifford, I see.
Speaker 9: And it's brutal on President Johnson. They're going to end
Speaker 9: up in a massive gut fight in the Democratic Party
Speaker 9: on this thing, are they. There's some very but also
Speaker 9: massive against the war, against the war.
Speaker 7: It's a Pentagon study, huh.
Speaker 4: So, after The New York Times was briefly blocked from
Speaker 4: publishing the Pentagon papers, Elsburg managed to get them to
Speaker 4: the Washington Post, which pushed ahead in the face of
Speaker 4: the White House demand that newspapers ceased publication. From there,
Speaker 4: Ellsburg went to the Saint Louis Post, Dispatch and elsewhere,
Speaker 4: making sure that no matter how successful the administration could
Speaker 4: be against an individual paper, that somebody could keep pumping
Speaker 4: them out.
Speaker 5: Eventually, he turned himself in.
Speaker 6: In the fall in nineteen sixty nine, I took the
Speaker 6: responsibility on my own initiatives, of delivering to the Chairman
Speaker 6: the Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate O R.
Speaker 6: The information contained in the so called Pentagon papers, including
Speaker 6: the several studies on negotiations, which.
Speaker 10: Have not been given to any newspapers.
Speaker 12: I could only wrote that that I had not at
Speaker 12: that same time release that information to the American public
Speaker 12: through the newspapers.
Speaker 6: I have now done, so I can no longer cooperate
Speaker 6: in concealing this information from the American public.
Speaker 4: I could no longer participate in concealing this information from
Speaker 4: the American public. I want to pause on that last point,
Speaker 4: because it often said of whistleblowers that they deserve prosecution
Speaker 4: because they didn't take legal avenues available to them to
Speaker 4: disclose the information. If you remember that was said repeatedly
Speaker 4: about Snowden, that he should have gone to Congress or
Speaker 4: to the inspector General or some such But Ellsberg tried everything,
Speaker 4: and all those institutions did is sit on what he
Speaker 4: gave them. That's worth remembering the next time a senator
Speaker 4: asks why somebody didn't come to them first.
Speaker 5: Now, when asked why he finally.
Speaker 4: Decided to go to the press, Elsberg pointed to a
Speaker 4: factor not many people may remember. While his ultimate goal
Speaker 4: was indeed to end the war, his real fear was
Speaker 4: the cycle of escalation Nixon had ratcheted up.
Speaker 12: Why did I put it out at all, because by
Speaker 12: the spring of nineteen seventy one, I was feeling that
Speaker 12: with the attack, actually from the fall of nineteen seventy
Speaker 12: with the Sante raid, I saw the escalation which had
Speaker 12: been foreshadowed in Cambodia as speeding up and moving toward
Speaker 12: probably an all out escalation, which I wanted to avoid
Speaker 12: at all costs.
Speaker 4: Ask if he regretted his decision, Ellsberg offered what has
Speaker 4: become the model answer for whistleblowers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, having any second thoughts about your action there, Sara, Oh,
Speaker 2: certainly not.
Speaker 13: I'vesberg at a recent press conference, you said you were
Speaker 13: willing to accept any responsibility or anything that came to
Speaker 13: your part of the Pentagon papers. The latest indictment says
Speaker 13: one hundred and fifteen year of prison term and one
Speaker 13: hundred and twenty thousand dollars fine for maximum Are your
Speaker 13: thoughts still the same that you're willing to accept any consequences.
Speaker 10: I have two thoughts about that. I go back to
Speaker 10: my earlier answer, how can you measure the jeopardy that
Speaker 10: I'm in, whether it's ten years, twenty years, one hundred
Speaker 10: and fifteen years, or other ludicrous months like that, to
Speaker 10: the penalty that has been paid already by fifty thousand
Speaker 10: American families here and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese families.
Speaker 10: It would be absolutely presumptuous of me to pity myself
Speaker 10: in that context. Then I certainly don't, and I'd be
Speaker 10: ashamed of myself.
Speaker 4: And meanwhile, he never forgot two things, First, the extreme
Speaker 4: nature of the threat that he faced from the Nixon
Speaker 4: White House, which broke the laws so severely in its
Speaker 4: pursuit of him that the federal courts threw out his charges.
Speaker 4: And also that systematically things have gotten much worse for
Speaker 4: whistleblowers since then.
Speaker 12: Caught there, But I'm saying I was the subject of
Speaker 12: a White House hit squad and effect. And when I
Speaker 12: asked their prosecutor later, what do those words mean to
Speaker 12: kill me? And he said, well, the words were to
Speaker 12: incapacitate you totally. But he said, these guys never used
Speaker 12: the word kill. They all worked for the CIA. They
Speaker 12: used euphemisms neutralize, incapacitate, terminate, with extreme prejudice. That was
Speaker 12: one term. They don't like the word kill. He thought
Speaker 12: that the intent was to kill me. So my judgment
Speaker 12: in short, that Snowden or Manning, had she been not
Speaker 12: arrested right away, She's probably safer being arrested than simp
Speaker 12: being eliminated. I think if Snowden went back to the
Speaker 12: United States, the idea that he'd be free to speak
Speaker 12: to the public. As I was out on bond for
Speaker 12: almost two years before my trial, my charges were dismissed.
Speaker 12: I was able to speak freely at rallies everywhere else.
Speaker 12: Manning was held in isolation for ten and a half
Speaker 12: months until a public protest got her into a general
Speaker 12: prison population. I think Snowden would be in isolation for
Speaker 12: the rest of his life.
Speaker 3: Very interesting stuff. Thank you, Ryan, appreciate it, and thanks
Speaker 3: for sitting in today. We had a lot of fun.
Speaker 2: We had the Hunter Biden news break during the show.
Speaker 2: It's always fun to do breaking news together. We will
Speaker 2: have counterpoints. You guys will be in the desk tomorrow
Speaker 2: and then Crystal and I will be back on Thursday.
Speaker 3: We'll see you then