Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 2: What do we have, gristle, There.
Speaker 1: Is a lot going on, so indeed we do have
Speaker 1: a huge show for you. So first of all, we
Speaker 1: are back on Trump indictment watch. Looks like that could
Speaker 1: be coming really anytime, so we'll give you all of
Speaker 1: the details everything we know.
Speaker 3: At this point.
Speaker 1: We got some new contenders in the twenty twenty four race,
Speaker 1: Mike Pence and Chris you've both taken some big shots
Speaker 1: at Trump. Will play that for you. Also, the latest
Speaker 1: fallout from the PGA Live Golf Nightmare hypocrisy disaster, we'll
Speaker 1: play that for you as well. We got some news
Speaker 1: from the UFO world that is actually for real tripping
Speaker 1: me out on multiple fronts. Additional confirmation of that whistleblower report,
Speaker 1: a new inexplicable sighting in Las Vegas, including some body
Speaker 1: camera footage that you're definitely going to want to see.
Speaker 1: We also have a new escalation in the war between
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson and Fox News, So some big developments on
Speaker 1: the media front as well.
Speaker 3: And we have some new major developments here at breaking
Speaker 3: Points which we.
Speaker 1: Are very excited about, which is after we wrap here,
Speaker 1: Sager and I are going to go over to the
Speaker 1: Shiny Brand News studio and we're going to record a
Speaker 1: special video for our premium subscribers with their sneak peak reveal.
Speaker 1: You will get to see what this new stet we
Speaker 1: have been obsessively talking about actually looks like that's right.
Speaker 2: Okay, So for the premium subscribers, look for an email.
Speaker 2: It's going to be sometime in the afternoon Eastern Standard time.
Speaker 2: We will have a video revealing the entire set, all
Speaker 2: of the new technology, everything that you guys helped pay for,
Speaker 2: you helped build this set, is literally your hard earned
Speaker 2: money that you helped us out with to build this.
Speaker 2: I'm we are so so proud of this. We've got Crystal,
Speaker 2: the new logo, We've got some new cameras, some new angles,
Speaker 2: new graphics. Everything. We are also going to reveal exclusively
Speaker 2: our launch week guests. We have a huge guests that
Speaker 2: we really want to announce it, which I'm still can't
Speaker 2: believe that happened. We're really excited. Again, all of that
Speaker 2: will be revealed to our premium subscribers, So check your
Speaker 2: guys's email if it's not too late. Actually you can
Speaker 2: still sign up from whenever the show comes out Breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot Com to go ahead and get on our email
Speaker 2: list to be able to see it. We also will
Speaker 2: be releasing our new Merge store and make it available
Speaker 2: only to our premium subscribers who are going to get
Speaker 2: a fifteen percent discount for the next seventy two hours.
Speaker 2: So again, if you want to see the new logo
Speaker 2: by merch with the new logo, we worked very very hard.
Speaker 2: Every piece that we sell on our website Crystal made
Speaker 2: in the USA and uh in a union by Union Labor,
Speaker 2: which we're so proud of. It was very difficult to
Speaker 2: put all this together. I want to give so many
Speaker 2: props to our team, but if you're not a premium member,
Speaker 2: you can wait till Monday, and then you can see
Speaker 2: the new set and you can see all of the
Speaker 2: new merch yep and.
Speaker 1: Sager even and I even did a little modeling photo shoot.
Speaker 2: Yes, you can see how much of an idiot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I thought you looked in the hat. Sorry, the
Speaker 1: market hat was a little tough for either one of
Speaker 1: us to pull off.
Speaker 2: The bucket hat is. We have gen z people who
Speaker 2: watch the show. You got to give them what they
Speaker 2: want to watch. Anyways, Breaking Points dot Com, it's not
Speaker 2: too late, Okay, So why don't we get to the
Speaker 2: breaking news just this morning?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we've got a major Trump indictment watch on
Speaker 1: once again. A number of outlets are reporting that he
Speaker 1: has been officially informed that he is a target of
Speaker 1: investigation of those grand juries. We now know there is
Speaker 1: a grand jury in Florida as well as the one
Speaker 1: in DC. Now, this is not like a big surprise
Speaker 1: that Trump was a target of these investigations, but the
Speaker 1: fact that he's being officially informed is one indication that
Speaker 1: they may be moving close to an indictment. There's at
Speaker 1: least one outlet that has gone even further than that.
Speaker 1: Let's put this first tear sheet up on the screen
Speaker 1: from the Independent. They say that an indictment is actually imminent.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors ready to ask Trump ask for Trump indictment on
Speaker 1: obstruction and Espionage Act charges. Let me read you a
Speaker 1: little bit of this report. Now, I have not seen
Speaker 1: the specifics of this report confirmed anywhere else, so just
Speaker 1: keep that in mind in terms of the details here.
Speaker 1: But what they say is that Independent has learned prosecutors
Speaker 1: are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment
Speaker 1: against mister Trump for violating a portion of US Criminal
Speaker 1: Code known as section seven ninety three, with prohibits gathering, transmitting,
Speaker 1: or losing any information respecting the national defense. They mentioned
Speaker 1: that this is something that we talked about at the time.
Speaker 1: Section seven ninety three does not actually make reference to
Speaker 1: classified information. Specifically, that is seen as an attempt to
Speaker 1: short circuit mister Trump's ability to claim that he use
Speaker 1: his authority as president to declassify documents. So that is
Speaker 1: also very noteworthy. And also in this report they indicate
Speaker 1: that there would be charges with regards to obstruction as well.
Speaker 3: We told you earlier in the week there's this new report.
Speaker 1: About like the full flooding and that potentially compromising surveillance
Speaker 1: footage potentially intentionally, and they have even lied about whether.
Speaker 3: The surveillance footage is actually damaged.
Speaker 1: And we already knew that they had sub poenad some
Speaker 1: of that surveillance footage that showed people moving boxes away
Speaker 1: in a way that was.
Speaker 3: Also veryious, suspicious. Let's put this.
Speaker 1: Next piece up on the screen from Maggie Haberman, who
Speaker 1: of course speaks to Trump regularly as well sourced within
Speaker 1: Trump world. She's says, Trump tells me minutes ago he
Speaker 1: has not been told that he's getting indicted. When contacted,
Speaker 1: it's not true, he said, adding again he hasn't done
Speaker 1: anything wrong. When I asked if he had been told
Speaker 1: he's a target, he demurred, saying he doesn't talk directly
Speaker 1: to prosecutors. So you can take that as basically a confirmation.
Speaker 1: John Solomon, who is a close Trump ally, he's the
Speaker 1: one that had that report that the Feds had informed
Speaker 1: Trump that he is the target and likely to be indicted.
Speaker 3: So Trump is denying those claims.
Speaker 1: Specifically, put the next piece up on the screen here
Speaker 1: as well, and he weighed in on truth social the
Speaker 1: man himself. Trump said, no one has told me I'm
Speaker 1: being indicted and I shouldn't be because I've done nothing
Speaker 1: in all caps wrong, but I've assumed for years that
Speaker 1: I am a target of the weaponized DOJ and FBI
Speaker 1: is starting with the Russia Russia Russia hoax, the no Collusion
Speaker 1: Mellor Report, impeachment hoax, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. So what we
Speaker 1: know this morning Suger is that he's been informed he's
Speaker 1: a target.
Speaker 3: He's denying that he's been informed that he's.
Speaker 1: Actually in going to be indicted, but there are a
Speaker 1: lot of medications that are headed in that direction, including
Speaker 1: the fact that a lot of his top aides at
Speaker 1: this point have either been by or I've already testified.
Speaker 1: You have Steve Bannon who's now been subpoena and we
Speaker 1: know Mark Meadows has also testified. So it feels like
Speaker 1: this thing is building to a crescendo.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it certainly does. I mean, we're all on tea
Speaker 2: leave watch. This is basically exactly what happened last time around.
Speaker 2: We know the grand jury has been you know been
Speaker 2: has been has been called to action. We have seen
Speaker 2: multiple instances of grand jury witnesses being presented. There's a
Speaker 2: lot of speculation, as you said, around Mark Meadows, the
Speaker 2: information that he might have provided to the grand jury,
Speaker 2: what that will look like, whether he has gotten either
Speaker 2: reached some secret plea deal. We had the Trump lawyers
Speaker 2: that were spotted at the Department of Justice where they
Speaker 2: Derek met directly with Jack Smith, the special prosecutor. So
Speaker 2: everything is pointing in that direction, you know. And also
Speaker 2: with terms of Trump and what he told Maggie Haberman,
Speaker 2: he has been informed, you know, he's being indicted or not.
Speaker 2: That's actually really not the question, as you said, the
Speaker 2: targeting is the question. In the Times, I believe we're
Speaker 2: able to confirm via Trump's own legal team that he
Speaker 2: had been informed of that, and usually you're not informed
Speaker 2: of that until I wouldn't say imminent as in twenty
Speaker 2: four hours, but very close to what a potential indictment
Speaker 2: would look like. So it looks like they're zeroing in
Speaker 2: on indicting the former president, zeroing in on the documents
Speaker 2: charge and all that. So our team will be on
Speaker 2: the watch over the weekend just to make sure and
Speaker 2: make sure that everybody can get coverage of that if needed,
Speaker 2: should something break on Friday. I did hear that Friday,
Speaker 2: maybe even more likely, just because they like to do
Speaker 2: these things on the weekend apparently, So yeah, that could be.
Speaker 2: That's something that a friend of mine familiar with some
Speaker 2: types of proceedings inform me.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you'll remember how this unfolded last time around,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of rumblings and then there was
Speaker 1: sort of like pause in the action where people even
Speaker 1: starting to say like, maybe this was not actually maybe
Speaker 1: this is not.
Speaker 3: Even going to happen.
Speaker 1: Maybe at the last minute, you know, the grand jury
Speaker 1: said no, and maybe they're not moving forward with an indictment,
Speaker 1: and then out to know where the indictment came down.
Speaker 1: So very hard to predict the timing on these things,
Speaker 1: but you know, I think it seems very very likely
Speaker 1: that Trump is going to face charges with regards to
Speaker 1: the classified document situation and with regards to obstruction. You know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting because in terms of the politics we've talked
Speaker 1: about it before. Certainly in terms of the Republican primary,
Speaker 1: I think it probably only helps him, you know, much
Speaker 1: more ambiguous impact in terms of the general election.
Speaker 3: I do not think it helps them in terms of
Speaker 3: the general election. How much it hurts them.
Speaker 1: It's very hard to say, but I do think because
Speaker 1: these aren't the first charges to drop, it feels like
Speaker 1: the impact, like the bombshell impact that might have been
Speaker 1: if these were the first charges to Trump, has been
Speaker 1: somewhat blunted. And on the other hand, it's possible that
Speaker 1: if the other charges hadn't been dropped first, you know,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of nervousness around indicting him at
Speaker 1: all when that happened, and the country didn't like come
Speaker 1: apart at the steams, that may.
Speaker 3: Have encouraged them to move forward with it.
Speaker 2: Let's go on.
Speaker 1: That's yeah, that's everything we know at this point. You know,
Speaker 1: we're watching it super closely. It certainly seems like things
Speaker 1: are building and they're coming close to some sort of
Speaker 1: conclusion here. Of course, that's just really the sort of
Speaker 1: like you know, end of the beginning, and then there'll
Speaker 1: be a.
Speaker 3: Whole trial process, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But we're going to be following it closely and bringing
Speaker 1: you everything that we know as soon as we know it.
Speaker 1: So we now have former Vice President Mike Pence officially
Speaker 1: jumping into the twenty twenty four race, and it was
Speaker 1: kind of interesting, you know, prior to this moment, he
Speaker 1: mostly hasn't said a lot about the whole January sixth situation.
Speaker 1: And you know the fact that he didn't do Trump's
Speaker 1: bidding on that day and in cited a lot of anger,
Speaker 1: to the extent that there were people running around the
Speaker 1: Capitol saying they wanted to hang him. He did make
Speaker 1: some comments previously that were, you know, a little critical
Speaker 1: of Trump, but very very carefully, very very gingerly interestingly,
Speaker 1: in his launch, he was much more direct with regard
Speaker 1: to how he felt about it and how he felt
Speaker 1: that he did the right thing on that day. I
Speaker 1: would certainly agree with that assessment. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to a little bit of what he had to say.
Speaker 4: As I've said many times, on that fateful day, President
Speaker 4: Trump's words were reckless, endangered my family and everyone at
Speaker 4: the Capitol. But the American people deserve to know that
Speaker 4: on that day, President Trump also demanded that I choose
Speaker 4: between him and the Constitution. Now voters will be faced
Speaker 4: with the same choice.
Speaker 5: Four years earlier.
Speaker 4: I swore an oath with my hand on my Bible
Speaker 4: and on Ronald Reagan's Bible to support and defend the Constitution.
Speaker 4: The Bible says he keeps his oath even when it hurts,
Speaker 4: and I know something about that. My son, the Marine,
Speaker 4: once reminded me, you took the same oath I took, Dad,
Speaker 4: So I did.
Speaker 3: What do you think of that, Zager?
Speaker 2: Well, it's an interesting strategy. I mean, there's here's the thing.
Speaker 2: I mean, on the merits, I think he's right, like
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of recklessness, in terms of whether
Speaker 2: he did the right thing. Do I think that GOP
Speaker 2: primary voters agree with him? No, And that's just the
Speaker 2: biggest problem for all of these you know, almost anti
Speaker 2: Trump candidates. DeSantis, you know, is leaning into an anti
Speaker 2: Trump case which has nothing to do with kind of
Speaker 2: the liberal case against Trump, which is part of why
Speaker 2: I think it's more interesting and may have a chance
Speaker 2: of success, although I am still, you know, kind of
Speaker 2: dubious of that with Pence and with Christy, who are
Speaker 2: going about to talk about there is literally no evidence
Speaker 2: at all that the people who are with Trump aren't
Speaker 2: going to be swayed in any way by his critique
Speaker 2: because they've heard it a million times for the last
Speaker 2: two years from CNN and from the mainstream media. I mean,
Speaker 2: we should all recall that panel that happened that we
Speaker 2: played for everyone from Newsmax where whenever Josh Hammer, who
Speaker 2: had on the show was advocating for DeSantis, was talking about,
Speaker 2: you know, relitigating the last election, immediately the Trump person
Speaker 2: just came over the top and said, you sound like
Speaker 2: a Democrat. You sound like a Democrat. And to a
Speaker 2: lot of primary voters, that is an attack that is
Speaker 2: going to ring very true. They're going to cast Pence
Speaker 2: as like an agent of, you know, the Democratic establishment.
Speaker 2: And even though it may sound ludicrous, that's just how
Speaker 2: this type of rhetoric is going to code. So politically,
Speaker 2: any voter who is swayed by this is already not
Speaker 2: with Trump. There's just not that many of those people.
Speaker 2: We know that from the data.
Speaker 1: I mean, on the politics, it's impossible to disagree.
Speaker 3: Like you just look at the numbers.
Speaker 1: I mean, an overwhelming majority of the Republican base still
Speaker 1: thinks that the election was still in there with Trump
Speaker 1: on this, they agree with him, et cetera. I guess
Speaker 1: what I would say is, Mike Pence is not going
Speaker 1: to win the nomination anyway, so he may as well
Speaker 1: conduct his campaign in an honorable way that allows him
Speaker 1: to be honest to maintain his dignity. I mean, it
Speaker 1: was so embarrassing when he was so nervous about calling
Speaker 1: out Trump for January sixth, given that not only himself
Speaker 1: but his family was legitimately like put at risk on
Speaker 1: that day, and Trump didn't seem to care whatsoever, If anything,
Speaker 1: he reveled in it. So if you are most likely
Speaker 1: going to lose anyway, you might as well go out
Speaker 1: with your dignity intact. So that was sort of how
Speaker 1: I felt about it is and I do think, you know,
Speaker 1: all these things are complex. Does the GP base agree
Speaker 1: with Mike Pence on this? No, But is it also
Speaker 1: sort of emasculating and embarrassing for him, given the events
Speaker 1: of that day, to be unable to condemn Trump for
Speaker 1: his actions. Yeah, that is the case too, So you know,
Speaker 1: I do think it's probably it's definitely not helpful to
Speaker 1: him politically, but he was also not really in a
Speaker 1: position to win anyway.
Speaker 3: On his message.
Speaker 1: He's obviously very much to throwback. He talked about Ronald
Speaker 1: Reagan's Bible. You know, he's really trying to reclaim that
Speaker 1: sort of like Reaganite conservative brand, both in his affect
Speaker 1: and also in a specific policy positions like Rhonda Santis.
Speaker 1: In terms of policy, he is to the right of
Speaker 1: Trump on issues like cutting social security and medicare certainly
Speaker 1: on the issue of abortion. I suspect that those are
Speaker 1: things that he will talk about a lot. And we
Speaker 1: should also say to play Devil's advocate hair and make
Speaker 1: the best case for Mike Pence that we can. Iowa
Speaker 1: has a history of looking at Iowa Republicans have a
Speaker 1: history of looking very favorably on candidates that are from
Speaker 1: the religious right. So you know, Mike Huckabee does very
Speaker 1: well there. Rick Santorum does very well there. So he
Speaker 1: has that ideological, social cultural positioning that some Iowa Conservatives
Speaker 1: will find very appealing, and he has deep ties in
Speaker 1: that community. So that's kind of the best case that
Speaker 1: I can make for him. Do I think that that's
Speaker 1: a case that will enable him to defeat Donald Trump?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 1: Do I think that that's kind of a problem for
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis though that he's in the race and will
Speaker 1: have some modicum of support in the critical early state
Speaker 1: that Ron DeSantis really has to win in order to
Speaker 1: have a shot.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I do actually think that that is an issue
Speaker 3: for DeSantis.
Speaker 2: No question. Hence Christie. Anybody who is having a critique
Speaker 2: of Trump directly is stealing from DeSantis's lane. And this
Speaker 2: also really hit home to me with Chris Christy and
Speaker 2: the way that he's been going after because he's also
Speaker 2: going after Trump. Not here, he's not going after him
Speaker 2: on January sixth, although he did also as well. He's
Speaker 2: going after his personal conduct, which you know, one of
Speaker 2: the ways that DeSantis has been trying to sell himself
Speaker 2: is I'm a serious person. I'm actually focused on policy.
Speaker 2: Me and my family are not trying to enrich ourselves.
Speaker 2: This isn't just about me, this is about you. Christy
Speaker 2: really hit with that again. It's Jared and Ivanka calling
Speaker 2: them grifters on the campaign trail. Here's what he had
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 5: Just let me tell you something, everybody, The grift from
Speaker 5: this family is breathtaking. It's breathtaking. Jared Kushner and Avanka
Speaker 5: Kushner walk out of the White House and months later
Speaker 5: get two billion dollars from the Saudis two billion dollars
Speaker 5: from the Saudis. You think it's because he's some kind
Speaker 5: of investing genius or do you think it's because he
Speaker 5: was sitting next to the president of the United States
Speaker 5: for four years doing favors for the Saudis. That's your money,
Speaker 5: that's your money. He stole and gave it to his family.
Speaker 4: You know what.
Speaker 5: That makes us a banana republic. That's what it makes us.
Speaker 5: So he may get thirty percent again, I'm not sure.
Speaker 5: Maybe he'll get more, maybe he'll get less. But let
Speaker 5: me tell you what he'll know in twenty twenty four
Speaker 5: that he had no idea of in twenty sixteen. He's
Speaker 5: in for a fight to get it oo.
Speaker 2: I mean, I mean, look, you can never deny that
Speaker 2: Christy magic. I guess he always he's undeniably. I think
Speaker 2: he's always been a talented politician. He's just played many
Speaker 2: cards completely the wrong way. Again, I just got to
Speaker 2: come back to and look, I think he's one hundred
Speaker 2: percent correct. Weich on multiple segments here about Jared and
Speaker 2: Sumi Rabia. I think it's outrageous. We'll talk to a
Speaker 2: little bit about in Ega. Yeah, it is gross. It
Speaker 2: is banana Republic, asks do people care? Not a lot
Speaker 2: of evidence. Unfortunately, Again, it's like many Republican primary voters,
Speaker 2: many Republican voters, they've heard it all before and they
Speaker 2: just decided I don't care. They'll just say, but what
Speaker 2: about Hunter Biden? And I would say, well, you know,
Speaker 2: two wrongs don't make it right. I agree, we cover
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden a lot here. There's a whole whistleblower thing
Speaker 2: going on right now. We'll cover it soon. The important
Speaker 2: thing always understand is you need to read these not
Speaker 2: in the way that they resonate with you, but in
Speaker 2: the way that it's going to resonate with all of
Speaker 2: the primary base who gets to decide who the actual
Speaker 2: nominee is. I also, you know, it's always so complicated
Speaker 2: and difficult to cover these things, Chris, because you know
Speaker 2: Pence and Christy will make two good points. But then
Speaker 2: also in the very same night he goes and he
Speaker 2: says that Putin is just as bad as Hitler and
Speaker 2: basically advocates for like unhinged US support to Ukraine. And
Speaker 2: so it's one of those where it's like on the
Speaker 2: on some policy or you know, Mike Pence, like pushing
Speaker 2: a national abortion band, you're like, you're just as out
Speaker 2: of your mind on different things. But then you know,
Speaker 2: on these, on these critiques of Trump, then okay, that's
Speaker 2: the one where you sound reasonable. So it's it's almost
Speaker 2: like an it's a total no win scenario. And so
Speaker 2: many of these, especially also on areas where the base
Speaker 2: and where primary voters are too. You know, they arguably
Speaker 2: are going to be way more with Trump on some
Speaker 2: of those issues than they are with Mike Penston with
Speaker 2: Chris Christy was probably why he's going to win.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean on policy, I personally think, and the
Speaker 1: Republican base also like Trump is better on policy, is
Speaker 1: more moderate on those security and medicare. I'm very consistent
Speaker 1: and saying he doesn't want to cut either one of them,
Speaker 1: either one of them. You know, it's been very like
Speaker 1: clear in Ukraine. Although his foreign policy when he was
Speaker 1: in office was very different from what he said it
Speaker 1: was going to be in the way that his defenders
Speaker 1: try to portray it after the fact as well. So
Speaker 1: you never know what you're going to get with this
Speaker 1: guy in office. But in terms of how he's positioning himself,
Speaker 1: you know, he's also always understood, instantly understood what a
Speaker 1: problem abortion was for the Republican Party and has tried
Speaker 1: to be, you know, as moderate as he possibly can
Speaker 1: be on that issue. Given the fact that he put
Speaker 1: in place the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe versus Weighed.
Speaker 1: So he has this advantage of because he does have
Speaker 1: so much grassroots support, he can afford to be at
Speaker 1: odds with the Republican donor base. And that's a real
Speaker 1: advantage because that just gives you freedom to move around
Speaker 1: the ideological field to the position that you think is
Speaker 1: actually ideal.
Speaker 3: And I really thought it was telling we mentioned this.
Speaker 1: There was a poll that came out out that, you know,
Speaker 1: ask voters where they consider themselves to be on an
Speaker 1: ideological spectrum, and the Rhonda Stantis team is trying to
Speaker 1: make the case that like, oh, we will voter see
Speaker 1: Rhonda Stantis is being more conservative than Trump. And so
Speaker 1: that's a real advantage for him, and that's why he's
Speaker 1: going to run to Trump's right in terms of the issues,
Speaker 1: in terms of ideology, and that was true. But the
Speaker 1: problem for him was that even voters who said I'm
Speaker 1: very conservative, they still were majority going for Trump. So
Speaker 1: even voters that may disagree with him on some of
Speaker 1: the issues, he's just one of these politicians who can
Speaker 1: kind of get away with it. Now, let me just
Speaker 1: as I played Devil's advocate for Mike Pence and his
Speaker 1: you know, best case in this race and how he
Speaker 1: could be impactful in this race. Let me make the
Speaker 1: best case I can also for Chris Christy, which is
Speaker 1: that he is a talented person. And again, do I
Speaker 1: think that he has what it takes to win a
Speaker 1: Republican nomination. No, but he's pretty explicitly gotten in this
Speaker 1: race as an attack dog to try.
Speaker 3: To ding up Trump. And you know, if anyone, given that.
Speaker 1: He has very little credibility with the Republican base, if anyone,
Speaker 1: given that they have that hand to start with, could
Speaker 1: ding up Trump and create problems with for him and
Speaker 1: you know, kind of muddy the waters in a way
Speaker 1: that Trump famously is able to do. I do think
Speaker 1: that Christy is the type of political talent who has
Speaker 1: a shot to be able to do that. And then
Speaker 1: maybe that bolster's Wanda Santis's case that you know, this guy,
Speaker 1: you may like him, but it's just chaos, it's just
Speaker 1: a mess. It's just exhausting to have to deal with
Speaker 1: him in the news cycle every single day. And so
Speaker 1: maybe that does play in a sense into Rondo Santis's
Speaker 1: hands and the implicit case that he is attempting to
Speaker 1: make against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: It's possible. That's my only you know, Yeah, I personally
Speaker 2: don't see it.
Speaker 3: Like I said, I'm trying to make the best case
Speaker 3: I can.
Speaker 2: It's just tough. I mean, you know, it's at a
Speaker 2: certain point, you know, with these guys are so delusional.
Speaker 2: It's like, guys, we ran this whole experiment, Chris Christy,
Speaker 2: you literally ran in twenty sixteen, you got fifth in
Speaker 2: New Hampshire. You imploded your whole shtick. It didn't work,
Speaker 2: and that's when people were uncertain about Trump. People are
Speaker 2: even more enthused about Trump. Yeah, today you've got a
Speaker 2: same divided field.
Speaker 1: Do you think Christy actually thinks he could win or
Speaker 1: you think he's just in there like I'm gonna mess
Speaker 1: up Trump.
Speaker 2: I don't think you can ever underestimate the egos on
Speaker 2: every single one of these people. Every they are.
Speaker 3: They all think they're God's shift to the world.
Speaker 2: They really do Titanic And you know, whenever you have
Speaker 2: that type of ego, you can convince yourself of anything.
Speaker 2: You know, being humble is one of those where if
Speaker 2: you are even a little bit compared to the other guy,
Speaker 2: they're probably gonna win. You know, in the long run,
Speaker 2: to get to the point of where they are. They've
Speaker 2: all had to sacrifice and give up so much, you
Speaker 2: know that they all think like, hey, there's a shot,
Speaker 2: and the shot is enough, you know if you care
Speaker 2: about power. So yeah, that's the way I see it.
Speaker 3: True, very true.
Speaker 1: And then in modern presidential politics, the worst that happens
Speaker 1: is like you lose, but you get a lot of
Speaker 1: media attention. Then you can go work for CNN or
Speaker 1: Fox News or who however you position yourself. There's some
Speaker 1: internal Desantist polling that they gave to the New York
Speaker 1: Post that is interesting in a number of ways. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. So they say that
Speaker 1: DeSantis is gaining on Trump, that he's in a virtual
Speaker 1: tie in Iowa. This is according to his internal polls. Okay,
Speaker 1: So first of all, with regard to internal polls, you
Speaker 1: always got it. This is like the best of the
Speaker 1: best case scenario for the candidate that is leaking the polls,
Speaker 1: So keep that in mind. To start with, they show,
Speaker 1: if you had in Iowa a head to head matchup,
Speaker 1: DeSantis is still losing to Trump, but within the margin
Speaker 1: of air, they have Trump at forty five percent support
Speaker 1: in Iowa. And DeSantis at forty three percent support. This
Speaker 1: is an improvement from a previous poll that they say
Speaker 1: had Trump at fifty three percent and DeSantis at thirty
Speaker 1: nine percent before he entered the race. This is clearly
Speaker 1: an attempt from the DeSantis camp to regain some kind
Speaker 1: of momentum, some kind of media narrative after most of
Speaker 1: the polls showed his launch resulted in no poll gains
Speaker 1: for him, which is a real you know, that's a
Speaker 1: real problem for him. But the problem is that it's
Speaker 1: not going to be a head to head race in Iowa.
Speaker 1: So this very same poll, when you open it up
Speaker 1: and you include the full cavalcade of candidates who are
Speaker 1: actually running in the race, you still have Trump winning.
Speaker 1: You've got Trump at thirty nine percent support, to Santus
Speaker 1: at twenty nine Tim Scott at seven percent, Nikki Haley
Speaker 1: at six percent, Pence and Ramaswami at four percent, and
Speaker 1: nobody else cracking one percent. So even in the best
Speaker 1: case scenario, internal poll from the DeSantis campaign that they're
Speaker 1: putting out to the press in the state where he
Speaker 1: is probably performing the best, even with all of those
Speaker 1: factors still going his way, you still have Trump on
Speaker 1: top by ten points.
Speaker 2: Yep, there you go. That's the ultimate Gordian knot, as
Speaker 2: we will continue to describe it.
Speaker 1: Yes, I will say, you know, I'm again trying to
Speaker 1: like trying to make the other side of the case
Speaker 1: this show. But DeSantis did get handed one positive piece
Speaker 1: of news, which is that the governor of New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: Krista Nunu, is taking a pass.
Speaker 3: He is not running.
Speaker 1: And that's important for DeSantis because New Hampshire is obviously
Speaker 1: a very critical early state as well, where DeSantis also
Speaker 1: needs to win. Krista Nunu nationally may not be all
Speaker 1: that well known, but in the state of New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: he has very high approval ratings. I think I consistently
Speaker 1: see him rated as one of the most popular governors
Speaker 1: in the country. Even though New Hampshire, you know, bess
Speaker 1: is a swing state, is really more sort of leaning
Speaker 1: towards the blue. As a Republican governor, he's very popular there,
Speaker 1: so he would have probably done pretty well in that primary.
Speaker 1: That would have been a problem for DeSantis. So he
Speaker 1: did get that piece of good news. But we got
Speaker 1: to bring you know, the real big breaking news. We're
Speaker 1: sort of bearing the lead here for all of the
Speaker 1: Doug Burgum Bros That are out there, which is that
Speaker 1: the governor of North Dakota, whose name is Doug Bergen,
Speaker 1: he has officially jumped into the race as well. Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen to a little bit of his pitch
Speaker 1: to the voters.
Speaker 6: My dad died when I was fourteen, freshman year of
Speaker 6: high school. They pulled me off our basketball team bus
Speaker 6: and told me the news. I grew up in a
Speaker 6: tiny town in North Dakota. Woke was what you did
Speaker 6: at five am to start the day, a place where
Speaker 6: neighbors rally around you. My mom was our rock, our hero.
Speaker 6: I started a shoeshine business, worked at the Grain elevator,
Speaker 6: and has a chimney sweep, paid my way through college,
Speaker 6: then earned an MBA from Stamford. I ignored those who
Speaker 6: said North Dkota was too small, too cold, and too
Speaker 6: remote to build a world class software company. So I
Speaker 6: literally bet the farm to help build a tiny startup
Speaker 6: into a billion dollar company with customers in one hundred
Speaker 6: and thirty two countries.
Speaker 1: I also trying to do the like Reagan throwback pitch,
Speaker 1: and I will say he does have one thing going
Speaker 1: for him. I asked my fifteen year old what her
Speaker 1: take was on this video, and she said that he
Speaker 1: looks like a patriotic eagle and that that seems like
Speaker 1: a good thing in terms of presidential candidate. That he
Speaker 1: looks the role. So he does have that going for him.
Speaker 1: But you know, this is another one where it's like,
Speaker 1: where does your confidence come from? Because no one knows
Speaker 1: who you are. Right, yes, you're governor of a state.
Speaker 1: It's a state with a very small population, and word
Speaker 1: of your doings there haven't really escaped the North Dakota corridor.
Speaker 1: But I think not only is he, you know, a governor,
Speaker 1: which certainly seems to feed these people's egos, but he's
Speaker 1: also a wealthy tech executive and a lot of times
Speaker 1: these business guys think like, oh, well, if I could
Speaker 1: start a company, I can do absolutely anything. Let's go
Speaker 1: to the last element in hear A six and put
Speaker 1: up on the screen. One question that I think a
Speaker 1: lot of Republican primary voters are probably going to have
Speaker 1: for him is there was a big controversy within North
Speaker 1: Dakota about his dealings with regards to Bill Gates. To
Speaker 1: go ahead and put this tear sheet up on the screen,
Speaker 1: so they say, this North Dakota farmland purchase is sturring
Speaker 1: a lot of emotion. The sale of a couple thousand
Speaker 1: acres of prime North Dakota farmland to a group tied
Speaker 1: to Bill Gates has stirred emotions over a depressionaire law
Speaker 1: and meant to protect family farms and raise questions about
Speaker 1: whether the billionaire shares the state's values.
Speaker 3: They go on to.
Speaker 1: Talk about how Gates is considered the largest private owner
Speaker 1: of farmland in the country, with some two hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty nine thousand acres across dozens of states, which is
Speaker 1: something we've talked about here on the show as well.
Speaker 1: And Saber the rub comes in because Bergham is a
Speaker 1: former Microsoft executive, he received campaign contributions from Bill Gates
Speaker 1: though he has, you know, direct ties to Gates, and
Speaker 1: then allows this massive farmland sale to go through and
Speaker 1: North Dakota's are very uncomfortable with this.
Speaker 3: Obviously, the Republican base not a.
Speaker 1: Big lover of Bill Gates at this point, so I
Speaker 1: think there will probably be some questions about these dealings
Speaker 1: in terms of his prospects in the race.
Speaker 2: They should be and you know, where does this confidence
Speaker 2: come from. I looked it up. He's worth one point
Speaker 2: five billion dollars, so you know that's again he can
Speaker 2: never underestimate the egos on some of these people. I
Speaker 2: made a billion, so that means I can do this,
Speaker 2: and it's like, well, you know, sometimes those skills are
Speaker 2: not linked. And you know, the sale of this farmland
Speaker 2: is no joke. We're talking about thousands of prime North
Speaker 2: Dakota farmland that was given to this Gates aligned group
Speaker 2: and helping him become one of the largest private owners
Speaker 2: of farmland in the entire country. Entire question, but like,
Speaker 2: what do you want that for. He's been tied, you know,
Speaker 2: previously to like the whole meatless agenda, and like what
Speaker 2: does he want? Why is he controlling all of this?
Speaker 2: He's got enough money. The Agricultural Commissioner and others said
Speaker 2: that people were in North Dakota were very upset by
Speaker 2: this because they felt like they were being exploited by
Speaker 2: out of state you know, the ultra rich who are
Speaker 2: acquiring these very precious assets. And he's somebody who was
Speaker 2: intimately and deeply linked to it. So if I was him,
Speaker 2: I would want to keep my head down amongst Republican
Speaker 2: voter being some you know, tech billionaire with ties to
Speaker 2: Bill Gates and direct like at least shady you know,
Speaker 2: sales of land. But again, you can never underestimate just
Speaker 2: how titanic the ego is for these people.
Speaker 3: I think that is right. So anyway, that's all your
Speaker 3: your Bergenbro News. That's what you get. We got for you.
Speaker 1: We'll see if the launch, you know, gives them a
Speaker 1: big bump in the polls from the zero percent he's
Speaker 1: at to maybe like one percent as people learn about him.
Speaker 3: But that's what we got for you. On the twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four watch.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's go to the PGA. So I don't golf.
Speaker 2: I've been to the driving range twice. But you know,
Speaker 2: obviously we've covered PGA live golf and everything that's been
Speaker 2: happening there now for quite some time. Here, especially the
Speaker 2: hypocrisy of so many of the players and others who
Speaker 2: say that they are going to stand up. You know,
Speaker 2: they're American, all America, all that, and they're willing to
Speaker 2: take millions of dollars from the Saudi's one of those individuals. Bryson. Okay,
Speaker 2: I want to make sure I say this correct the
Speaker 2: golf guys, otherwise we'll get mad, Crystal Yea and check me.
Speaker 2: Bryson de Schambeau correctly Dhammad d Chambo so Bryson d
Speaker 2: Schambeau star golfer attached to the Live Golf I guess
Speaker 2: Tour took a huge payout from them. Appeared recently on
Speaker 2: CNN after the announcement of the PGA and Live Golf
Speaker 2: potential merger. He was asked about Saudi Arabia and its
Speaker 2: ties to nine to eleven and specifically the criticism of
Speaker 2: nine to eleven families, and his response is everything as
Speaker 2: to how people can get completely bought off and start
Speaker 2: talking in circles and just sound like complete idiots. Here's
Speaker 2: what he had to say.
Speaker 7: Well, I think we'll never be able to repay the
Speaker 7: families back for what exactly happened just over twenty years ago.
Speaker 7: And what happened was is definitely horrible. And I think
Speaker 7: his time has gone on. Twenty years is passed and
Speaker 7: weren't a place now where it's time to start trying
Speaker 7: to work together to make things better together.
Speaker 1: As a whole.
Speaker 7: I have deep sympathy. I don't know exactly what they're feeling.
Speaker 7: I can't ever know what they feel, but I have
Speaker 7: a huge amount of respect for their position and what
Speaker 7: they believe, nor do I ever want anything like that
Speaker 7: to ever occur again. I think as we move forward
Speaker 7: from that, we've got to look towards the pathway to peace,
Speaker 7: especially in forgiveness, especially if we're trying to mend the
Speaker 7: world and make it a better place.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I mean, look, it's unfortunate what has happened, and that's
Speaker 7: something I cannot necessarily speak on is I'm a golfer.
Speaker 7: But what I can say is that what they're trying
Speaker 7: to do, what they're trying to work on, is to
Speaker 7: be better allies, because we are allies with them. And look,
Speaker 7: I'm not going to get into politics of it. I'm
Speaker 7: not specialized in that. But what I can say is
Speaker 7: they are trying to do good for the world and
Speaker 7: showcase themselves in a light that hasn't been seen in
Speaker 7: a while. And nobody's perfect, but we're all trying to
Speaker 7: improve in life.
Speaker 2: Nobody's perfect, We're all trying to improve in life. We've
Speaker 2: got to find the path to forgiveness. For helping support
Speaker 2: the murder of three thousand American citizens on nine to eleven,
Speaker 2: how did these just say they paid me a ton
Speaker 2: of money. I'm not going to sit here a talk
Speaker 2: about nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: Just say it exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: See, that's the thing that drives me crazy, is that
Speaker 1: there is no justification for this.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: They asked him about Caitlyn Collins there, asked him about
Speaker 1: nine to eleven, also asked him about Jamal Kashogi, you know,
Speaker 1: the brutal dismemberment of by the way, a Washington Post journalist.
Speaker 3: I think that was the answer when.
Speaker 1: He gave like it nobody's perfect, Like, dude, there is
Speaker 1: no justifying it.
Speaker 3: Just be honest.
Speaker 1: It irritates me so much when they pretend to have
Speaker 1: all these high minded values like, oh, we really want
Speaker 1: to grow the game and make it a global sport,
Speaker 1: and they really have these high minded ideals about like
Speaker 1: expanding the No, they want to use you to sports
Speaker 1: wash their reputation and you want the money, you want
Speaker 1: your bag. Okay, it would be a lot less gross
Speaker 1: if you were just honest about what is clearly the
Speaker 1: nature of your dealings here. Now, as you know, Sagar,
Speaker 1: I've become an accidental like go expert because of Kyle.
Speaker 1: He tells me that Bryson is kind of an odd dude,
Speaker 1: even with regards to like his game is unusual. He
Speaker 1: was one of the he's one of the sort of earliest,
Speaker 1: most aggressive live golf sellouts, and I would also recommend
Speaker 1: to live golf like this guy is not doing you
Speaker 1: any favors. Clearly he's incapable of doing the spin that you.
Speaker 3: Need him to do.
Speaker 1: You should definitely not encourage him to do these sorts
Speaker 1: of appearances because he's not helping out live golf, he's
Speaker 1: not helping out the PGA. It's just creating even more
Speaker 1: embarrassment and making manifest and making even more plain the
Speaker 1: insane hypocrisy here, especially listen on the PGA side with Monahan.
Speaker 1: It's unbelievable because he was willing to use these nine
Speaker 1: to eleven families back when he was at war with
Speaker 1: Live to say look at you know, the human rights atrocities,
Speaker 1: and no PGA golfer has ever had to apologize for
Speaker 1: their association and then just discards them and makes clear
Speaker 1: that he actually had no human rights concerns. It was
Speaker 1: just all about the money all along. And it's so
Speaker 1: gross to see the whole thing unfold.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Bryson Dishambo got one hundred and twenty five million.
Speaker 2: He should just say, listen, this is an opportunity to
Speaker 2: accumulate generational wealth for me and my family, and I'm
Speaker 2: not going to pass up on that. I understand that
Speaker 2: some people are upset, but if you were in a
Speaker 2: similar position, I bet you would do the same thing.
Speaker 2: Guess what, you should have just said that, and I
Speaker 2: think a lot of people would have been like, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know what. I get where the guy is coming from.
Speaker 2: It's the government's job to keep Saudi Arabia out if
Speaker 2: they're going to be in. Well, you no, don't hate
Speaker 2: the player, hate the game. Let's move to the next part.
Speaker 2: As you alluded to with the PGA commissioner and the
Speaker 2: way that these guys have twisted themselves into notts J
Speaker 2: Monahan around nine to eleven is they use these people.
Speaker 2: As you said, they literally used the nine to eleven
Speaker 2: families as props. They held them up in their criticism
Speaker 2: of live Golf. They said no PGA two players ever
Speaker 2: had to apologize. They alluded to the immorality of live
Speaker 2: golf beforehand and before they announced their surprise potential merger
Speaker 2: between the PGA and Live also going for profit again,
Speaker 2: showing that it is all about the money. And what
Speaker 2: I want people to understand is we're not exaggerating when
Speaker 2: we say that they use them. They said it multiple
Speaker 2: times on camera when they were at war with Live Golf.
Speaker 2: Here's what Monahan had to say.
Speaker 8: Well, I talked to players, I've talked at a player meeting,
Speaker 8: and I've talked to a number of players individually for
Speaker 8: a long period of time, and I think you'd have
Speaker 8: to be living under a rock to not know that
Speaker 8: there are are significant implications. And as it relates to
Speaker 8: the families of nine to eleven, I have two families
Speaker 8: that are close to me that lost loved ones, and
Speaker 8: so my heart goes out to them, and I would ask,
Speaker 8: you know, any player that has left, or any player
Speaker 8: they would ever consider leaving, have you ever had to
Speaker 8: apologize for being a member of the PGA Tour?
Speaker 2: Okay, So that's what he had to say. Then that's
Speaker 2: that was his original criticism of which, by the way,
Speaker 2: okay got people close to him. We lost people on
Speaker 2: nine to eleven. So immediately after the merger, he goes
Speaker 2: on the Golf Channel where they ask him like, Hey,
Speaker 2: what about these nine to eleven families? Who are pissed off.
Speaker 2: Look at him now, look how much he's changes to Jay.
Speaker 9: The nine to eleven Families United made a strong statement yesterday.
Speaker 8: They said, you co opted the nine to eleven community
Speaker 8: and taking a moral stance against live.
Speaker 2: How would you respond to that group?
Speaker 8: Well, I I read Terry's comments. I I, you know,
Speaker 8: obviously acknowledge her loss and completely understand her position. And
Speaker 8: to the question that you were just asking, you know,
Speaker 8: I wish I think about the fact that I allowed
Speaker 8: confidentiality to prevail here, and in allowing confidentiality to prevail,
Speaker 8: I did not communicate to very important constituents, including the
Speaker 8: families of nine to eleven, and I regret that I
Speaker 8: really do. But as we sit here today, you know,
Speaker 8: I think I think it's important to, you know, to
Speaker 8: reiterate that I feel like the move that we've made
Speaker 8: and how we move forward is in the best interests
Speaker 8: of our sport. We've eliminated those fractures. But for for
Speaker 8: any any difficulties I've caused in that front, again, I
Speaker 8: have to own that as well. And that comes back
Speaker 8: to communication.
Speaker 2: Just tell the truth, don't just say listen, it was
Speaker 2: about the money they paid me A ton of money.
Speaker 2: We're all going to get filthy, fantastically rich. There was
Speaker 2: no way to outspend them. And I apologize, or maybe
Speaker 2: don't even say that, and be like, I have nothing
Speaker 2: to apologize for. I did what was in the best
Speaker 2: interest of myself and of the players monetarily. But because
Speaker 2: that is such a disgusting and moral thing, he can't
Speaker 2: he can't find a way to actually tell the truth.
Speaker 2: It just obfuscates and goes around like, well, you know, understanding,
Speaker 2: and I have empathy, but you know, it's like, what
Speaker 2: are we doing here? This is just all so gross.
Speaker 1: Right, And what it shows you is, you know, these
Speaker 1: guys who are high level sports executives and running major
Speaker 1: sports leagues. Part of how they get in that position
Speaker 1: is by being very effective spin masters. So when even
Speaker 1: someone like him cannot do anything other than stumble and
Speaker 1: bumble around and fumble over his words and offer ultimately
Speaker 1: zero justification, it tells you what a grotesque, hypocritical place
Speaker 1: they've gotten themselves into.
Speaker 3: Because part of the issue for him Soger.
Speaker 1: Is he can't now go and say, well, we just
Speaker 1: you know, couldn't beat him, so we'll join them.
Speaker 3: And there's a lot of money at stake. So that's
Speaker 3: what we're doing.
Speaker 1: Because he tried to take the moral high ground so
Speaker 1: aggressively when this was all unfolding and when it was
Speaker 1: to his benefit. So for him, it's an impossible position.
Speaker 1: There really is no going back. And you know, I
Speaker 1: have no insight into like the internal politics of how
Speaker 1: this all works, but I wonder if he's going to
Speaker 1: be able to hold onto this position because and we're
Speaker 1: going to get to this in a minute, but if
Speaker 1: you're one of the players that didn't take the bag
Speaker 1: that got offered hundreds of millions of dollars, and you
Speaker 1: actually believed in the principles, and you thought that Monahan
Speaker 1: was sincere in his sort of like virtuous stand against
Speaker 1: just taking this money from this uh, you know, authoritarian,
Speaker 1: human rights abusing regime, and you said no to that.
Speaker 1: And now the guys who did sell out, who did
Speaker 1: take the bag, like they're laughing all the way to
Speaker 1: the bank, and you know, ultimately like winning this whole exchange.
Speaker 3: I don't know how you. I don't know how you
Speaker 3: get over that.
Speaker 2: I really, I'm one hundred percent with you. The one
Speaker 2: thing that's given me some hope is the I would
Speaker 2: call it bro media. The sports guys, they are livid
Speaker 2: with him with moin ahand let's gohea and put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. Dave Portnoy put this out
Speaker 2: a quote. Again, I don't know how Ja Monhan sleeps
Speaker 2: at night. He co opted nine to eleven victims for
Speaker 2: the moral high ground. He clearly didn't give a shit
Speaker 2: about them. He's just using their pain as a marketing tactic,
Speaker 2: special type of hell for guys like that. Klay Travis
Speaker 2: over at OutKick also came out, you know, just savaging
Speaker 2: the PGA commissioner. And I think that is what you know,
Speaker 2: really grinds a lot of people, is that you use
Speaker 2: these people literally as pawns, as props for your business
Speaker 2: dealings and for somebody like that, yeah, you should burn.
Speaker 2: You should absolutely burn in hell. And you know, for
Speaker 2: exactly for example, as you alluded to, let's put this
Speaker 2: up there. You know, Tiger Woods turned down between seven
Speaker 2: hundred to eight hundred million dollars to play for Live Golf.
Speaker 2: Now we don't exactly know why exactly he decided to
Speaker 2: do so, but it's very possible that one of the
Speaker 2: reasons that he did so was not only out of
Speaker 2: you know, loyalty or whatever to the PGA where he
Speaker 2: started his career. But you know, Tiger is an American
Speaker 2: icon and has one of the most famous He's probably
Speaker 2: one of the most famous athletes in American history. And
Speaker 2: you know, you can't say that the Saudi connection didn't
Speaker 2: have at least some sway maybe in his decision not
Speaker 2: to do so, you know, from an overall branding perspective.
Speaker 2: And by the way, look, it's not like the guy.
Speaker 2: You know, it's not like the guy wasn't you know,
Speaker 2: he's on his second act, Like he's lost a lot
Speaker 2: of his blue chip sponsors and all that. Obviously he's
Speaker 2: got a turmoil in his personal life, so he would
Speaker 2: be within his you know rights to secure another bag
Speaker 2: for his family and just say, look, you know, this
Speaker 2: is it. I'm going to die a multi billionaire, this
Speaker 2: is my last chance. This is guaranteed cash. And he
Speaker 2: decided not to do it. And you know, he turned
Speaker 2: that down. At least somewhat of the decision, hopefully, was
Speaker 2: about principles. So how can they look them in the eyes?
Speaker 2: How can they look at any of the PGA to
Speaker 2: players that turned down massive offers in the eyes because
Speaker 2: now they missed out on a generational payout and they
Speaker 2: might end up working for the same boss. That is,
Speaker 2: do what. It's just a thing not right.
Speaker 1: You're forcing all of these guys to get in bed
Speaker 1: with this dirty money, and at least if they were
Speaker 1: going to sell out, they could have sold out for
Speaker 1: the much higher price than than were being offered up front.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean Tiger obviously already very wealthy man,
Speaker 1: you know, but even for someone who's already very wealthy,
Speaker 1: seven one hundred and eight hundred million dollars is a
Speaker 1: whole lot of freaking money that he turned down, you know,
Speaker 1: to to stay loyal to the PGA tour.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: There's one more piece of this that we wanted to
Speaker 1: to make sure to note, and our friend and friend
Speaker 1: and partner Matt Stiller has certainly been highlighting, which is
Speaker 1: that there are questions about how this deal is structured
Speaker 1: and whether it is going to survive anti trust scrutiny.
Speaker 1: Put this last part up on the screen. This was
Speaker 1: a report from Bloomberg. They say that this marriage risks
Speaker 1: scrutiny from anti trust authorities both here and also in Europe,
Speaker 1: because there's a European PGA tour that is involved in
Speaker 1: this transaction as well.
Speaker 3: One of the things Soger.
Speaker 1: That's interesting is they've gone out of their way not
Speaker 1: to actually call it a merger. They also note in
Speaker 1: this report they didn't even consult with an anti trust lawyer,
Speaker 1: which seems kind of foolish if we're being honest. And
Speaker 1: you also have a lot of Democratic senators and other
Speaker 1: representatives who are already saying they've got a problem with this,
Speaker 1: and they've got a problem with it from an anti
Speaker 1: trust perspective. We know that the Biden administration and with
Speaker 1: Lena Khan involved and other you know, trustbusting type regulators
Speaker 1: have taken have been much more skeptical of major mergers
Speaker 1: and have you know, pursued legal action in a much
Speaker 1: more aggressive way than past administrations in recent memory. So
Speaker 1: there is still an open question of whether this thing,
Speaker 1: at least in its current form, even ultimately goes through.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah, we want to make sure we flag that
Speaker 2: there's no guarantee that this actually goes through at all.
Speaker 2: But regardless, the nine to eleven families were betrayed, and
Speaker 2: so were many of the players. I hope that they
Speaker 2: revolt at leads in some way. You know, I don't
Speaker 2: know what recourse that they have, but they've got to
Speaker 2: have some something where. And yeah, I hope, I know.
Speaker 1: There was some talk of maybe they're going to form
Speaker 1: the players will form a union now and they have
Speaker 1: more power in any of these future negotiations.
Speaker 3: So we'll see where it goes.
Speaker 2: Okay, now, let's go to the next part here. I
Speaker 2: have been salivating to get to this. Michael Schellenberger over
Speaker 2: at his newsletter publishing an absolutely shocking new reports. Go
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen. Quote. US
Speaker 2: has twelve or more alien spacecraft, according to military and
Speaker 2: intelligence contractors. So Michael is reporting this after Dave Grush
Speaker 2: came forward to give us the broad contours of the program.
Speaker 2: He said, the United States government is lying to the
Speaker 2: American people. There are multiple alien spacecraft which are in
Speaker 2: the possession of the United States government, of which they
Speaker 2: have covered up now for decades, and which they have
Speaker 2: obfuscated from Congress. Crimes themselves have been committed. Here is
Speaker 2: why this is very important, Michael writes. Quote, multiple sources
Speaker 2: close to the matter have come forward to tell public
Speaker 2: the Grush's core claims are accurate. The individuals are all
Speaker 2: either high ranking intelligence officials, former intelligence officials, or individuals
Speaker 2: that we could verify were involved in the US government
Speaker 2: uapaka UFO efforts for three or more decades. Each. Two
Speaker 2: of them have even testified as recently as last year
Speaker 2: to both the committee investigating this inside the penic On
Speaker 2: and to the United States Congress. The individual says they
Speaker 2: have been presented with credible and verifiable evidence the US
Speaker 2: government and US military contractors possessed at least twelve or
Speaker 2: more alien spacecraft, some of which have been shared with
Speaker 2: the Pentagon office responsible for testifying before Congress, and which
Speaker 2: they have refused to currently provide. Now, this is very important.
Speaker 2: They are putting a number twelve or more that is
Speaker 2: either true or it's not true. That's something that Congress
Speaker 2: can look into and tell us whether this claim is
Speaker 2: accurate or it's not accurate. The more specific that these
Speaker 2: things get, the more it becomes difficult for them to
Speaker 2: deny or not. This also comes on the heels of
Speaker 2: a statement actually from the Pentagon directly refuting this claim.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead, guys and put the Fox News tearsheet
Speaker 2: here up on the screen, because after Dave Grush came forward,
Speaker 2: the Pentagon released a very lengthy statement. Susan Go, who
Speaker 2: UFO people will be familiar with, said directly, there is
Speaker 2: quote no verifiable information to substantiate the claims she says,
Speaker 2: quote to date arrow, this office has not discovered any
Speaker 2: verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the
Speaker 2: possession of reverse engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in
Speaker 2: the past or exist currently. She also said that they
Speaker 2: welcome the opportunity to speak with any former or current
Speaker 2: government employee or contractor who believes they have information relevant
Speaker 2: to the historical review. Now, the reason why I think
Speaker 2: this is important is there was the one caveat word
Speaker 2: in there, verifiable. And the reason why is because verifiable
Speaker 2: is one whereas long as there is plausible deniability at
Speaker 2: least somewhere baked into the documents, they can come forward
Speaker 2: and say there's no verifiable information that this program has
Speaker 2: existed or whatever in the past, as long as it's
Speaker 2: even one percent in their dispute. There are always holes
Speaker 2: in these words and in their denials that have come
Speaker 2: forward around this office that they say they haven't been
Speaker 2: presented to. But also there's a formal presentation process. They
Speaker 2: can say that it wasn't done in the right way.
Speaker 2: There are all many different holes that they can jump
Speaker 2: their way through, Crystal. So I think if you pair
Speaker 2: a couple of things together, Dave Grush is obviously an
Speaker 2: incredibly highly credible person. I encourage people watch the News
Speaker 2: Nation document documentary. Dave Grush is grilled. He's asked very
Speaker 2: specific and difficult questions. He handles them well. People who
Speaker 2: knew him while he was in the office have come
Speaker 2: forward to testify this is not a crank, this is
Speaker 2: a real person. You need to take what he's saying
Speaker 2: very seriously. On top of that, we have this new
Speaker 2: report from Michael Schellenberger making things even more specific, saying
Speaker 2: multiple intelligence former contractors coming forward talking to them, talking
Speaker 2: to him about what has inside of this office, and
Speaker 2: we continue to see the Pentagon they're not budging at all.
Speaker 2: And look, someone is lying. Either Grush is lying and
Speaker 2: sources to Michael S. Shellenberger are lying, or the Pentagon
Speaker 2: is lying. And I'll let people make up their minds.
Speaker 2: So what do you make of this this new breaking
Speaker 2: material for Michael S.
Speaker 1: Shellenberger, Crystal, I mean, I'm trying as hard as I
Speaker 1: can to keep my skeptic hat on, because I think
Speaker 1: it's important to do that.
Speaker 3: And it is becoming very difficult.
Speaker 1: It's becoming very difficult because good, okay, it's one thing,
Speaker 1: if it's just if it's just one guy, right, that's
Speaker 1: one thing. You can dismiss him. Oh sure, you know
Speaker 1: his colleague said that he was upstanding. But you never know,
Speaker 1: people can like lose their marbles and you can, yeah,
Speaker 1: or indulge some sort of fantasy or whatever. Like you
Speaker 1: could potentially dismiss one person, and the US government could
Speaker 1: potentially dismiss one person. Lord knows, I'm sure they're in
Speaker 1: the process of digging up every you know, rent bill
Speaker 1: that was laid, or time he didn't mow the lawn
Speaker 1: or whatever they can find on this man. Right, So
Speaker 1: one person is one thing. When you start to have
Speaker 1: other people who say, yeah, he's right, I you know,
Speaker 1: saw evidence of the exact same thing. And when you
Speaker 1: start to get this level of specificity, I don't know,
Speaker 1: it becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss, especially given some of
Speaker 1: the things that we're about to show you new reports
Speaker 1: coming out, you know, as we speA can just on
Speaker 1: the number of anomaloust events that already the government admits
Speaker 1: like they can't really explain. Now they'll try to spin
Speaker 1: it with their press allies of like, well, we you know,
Speaker 1: we haven't been able to rule in that this is extraterrestrial,
Speaker 1: but they haven't been able to rule it out either or.
Speaker 3: Explain what these objects specifically are.
Speaker 1: So I think the job of the skeptic is becoming
Speaker 1: increasingly difficult to maintain over time.
Speaker 2: And listening to the level of specificity they gave Michael quote,
Speaker 2: every five years we get one or two recovered for
Speaker 2: one reason or another, from either a landing or that
Speaker 2: we catch or that they just crash. A different contractor
Speaker 2: says quote, there were at least four morphologies different structures.
Speaker 2: Six were in good shape, six were in not good shape.
Speaker 2: They were cases where the craft landed the it's left
Speaker 2: the craft unoccupied. There have been high level people, including generals,
Speaker 2: who have placed their hand on the craft. I have
Speaker 2: no reason to disbelieve them. One source described having seen
Speaker 2: three kinds of craft, including one shaped like a triangle.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't know where I've seen that one before. Another
Speaker 2: that quote looked up like a chopped up helicopter with
Speaker 2: the front bubble of a hueye with the plastic windows,
Speaker 2: or like a deep sea submarine with a thick piece
Speaker 2: of glass bubble shaped, and where the tail rudder should
Speaker 2: have been it was black egg shaped pancake and instead
Speaker 2: of landing gear, it had upside down rams horns that
Speaker 2: went from the top to the bottom and rested on
Speaker 2: the ends of the horns. Wow. I mean, look, this
Speaker 2: person either is either schizophrenic or they're telling the truth.
Speaker 2: And it's one of those where I don't know, I
Speaker 2: don't know. I mean the most common again, let's play
Speaker 2: the skepticat it could be the Dave Grush and all
Speaker 2: of these other people are delusional, are literally psychotic. And
Speaker 2: I think anybody who has ever who has ever interacted
Speaker 2: with someone who generally has mental illness Christ, a lot
Speaker 2: of them send us to emails about things that we
Speaker 2: just have to report on. It's possible they believe it.
Speaker 2: It's one of those where you know, you can look
Speaker 2: in their eyes and you're like, yeah, you believe what
Speaker 2: you are saying. Doesn't mean that's true. But this is
Speaker 2: such a credible person evidence coming forward with their resume.
Speaker 2: I mean, just listening to the level of specificity that
Speaker 2: I just gave everyone. And the problem is that for people,
Speaker 2: you know, the radar just has to go up of like,
Speaker 2: come on, you know, this is so fantastical. And you know, look,
Speaker 2: I agree, and I was that way for a long time.
Speaker 2: But you know, so many of these people are so credible,
Speaker 2: people like Commander David fravor people like Ryan Graves who
Speaker 2: we've had here on the show. I mean, you really
Speaker 2: are going to tell me that they're crazy. I just
Speaker 2: don't believe you. And this is where, you know, the
Speaker 2: human instinct has to come into play. And then we
Speaker 2: also have to combine all of the knowledge that we
Speaker 2: have outside of the UFO issue about the way that
Speaker 2: Pentagon lies. They obfuscate, you know, you know, obfuscate information.
Speaker 2: They withhold things from the American public for decades, like
Speaker 2: the Pentagon papers, like Afghanistan, you know, Afghanistan, Vietnam. There's
Speaker 2: no reason to believe that on a highly secret topic
Speaker 2: like UFO, something would literally shatter the earth if something
Speaker 2: came forward, you know, in terms of our understanding and
Speaker 2: consciousness of human nature, that yeah, they could pull it off,
Speaker 2: and they absolutely would lie to us. So I don't know,
Speaker 2: you know, I continue. I try my best to play skeptic,
Speaker 2: but I've yeah, I don't see the holes in the
Speaker 2: way that a lot of other people do.
Speaker 1: The part that's the hardest maybe well, I mean, just
Speaker 1: the whole idea is pretty hard to wrap your head around.
Speaker 1: But in terms of, you know, our knowledge of our government,
Speaker 1: our government operates, et cetera. Like we know certainly they
Speaker 1: will lie to you every day of the week and
Speaker 1: not think twice about it, and typically do lie to
Speaker 1: us every day of the week and not think twice
Speaker 1: about it. But we also know that there's an operating
Speaker 1: level of incombonence. And that's the piece that you know,
Speaker 1: does keep me somewhat skeptical because what they're positing here
Speaker 1: is a multi decade, multi generational cover up not only
Speaker 1: from our own government, but in concert with other governments
Speaker 1: around the world, again over decades and decades, Like would
Speaker 1: they really be able to orchestrate that? Would they really
Speaker 1: be able to keep everybody silent? Would they really be
Speaker 1: able to keep all of this hidden? All of these
Speaker 1: you know, twelve plus crafts that they have, and those
Speaker 1: are just the ones in US government possession. Who knows
Speaker 1: what you know?
Speaker 3: Russia? The form former Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: Or Brazil or whoever else whatever they've been able to
Speaker 1: get their hands on. That's a part where I'm like, God,
Speaker 1: it's just hard for me to imagine that they would
Speaker 1: be able to so effectively keep this all under wrapped
Speaker 1: for all of these years. So that's the part that
Speaker 1: I always get tripped up on, is that's it's hard
Speaker 1: for me to believe that they could really effectively do
Speaker 1: that over all of this time.
Speaker 2: Again, you know, I agree, and then you know, I
Speaker 2: point back to Charlie manson point, or think about this
Speaker 2: if you want an international conspiracy, Enigma, the Enigma program
Speaker 2: from Alan Turing cracked the Nazi code. They didn't reveal
Speaker 2: that they had cracked that till the nineteen seventy three
Speaker 2: or something like that, the decades after they had done so.
Speaker 2: And that was literally an international conspiracy spanning multiple different governments,
Speaker 2: and a lot of people worked on it and knew
Speaker 2: that it existed, and it never came out till the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of stuff like that where you know, look,
Speaker 2: if you do it the right way, you can keep
Speaker 2: it a secret. I mean, we spent ten billion dollars
Speaker 2: or whatever on the Manhattan Program. It didn't leak until
Speaker 2: we dropped the bomb. So it's not like things can't
Speaker 2: be done. It just takes a high level of sophistication,
Speaker 2: the right people in charge. And you know, maybe they
Speaker 2: can't do it in a huge government wide scale, maybe
Speaker 2: they were able to do it on a UFO wide scale.
Speaker 2: In other words, Transformers was a documentary. It's a joke.
Speaker 2: All right, Let's go to the next part here. This
Speaker 2: is this again. I keep getting pulled in. This one
Speaker 2: is stunning. We have a shocking nine to one one
Speaker 2: call made by Las Vegas residents about a craft and
Speaker 2: alien beings that apparently landed in their vicinity. And before
Speaker 2: once again, don't keep keep my reminder, some people are crazy,
Speaker 2: some people are psychotic. But you have body camera footage
Speaker 2: of a police officer in the Las Vegas area who
Speaker 2: actually sees something up in the sky that uh lit
Speaker 2: light up and actually coming down. And then you also
Speaker 2: see the police officer go and verify this information with
Speaker 2: some of the people who called in the nine to
Speaker 2: one one and said that they had seen something. And
Speaker 2: I'm going to let you all judge this for yourself.
Speaker 2: We've got the clip here from local news from Las
Speaker 2: Vegas media around what happened. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: I swear to gods as an adult, this is actually so.
Speaker 3: There's two people or two subjects matter in your backyard.
Speaker 9: Correct, And they're very large.
Speaker 7: They're Nicelius was.
Speaker 9: Big eyes that have big eyes like like I get
Speaker 9: excited and big got mouth.
Speaker 10: There are tiny eyes and and they're not human one
Speaker 10: hundred percent of a humans.
Speaker 9: Well, the eighthes that investigators obtaining video as officers then
Speaker 9: responded to the call you just heard. You'll see the
Speaker 9: officers also saw something in the sky that night. But
Speaker 9: the big question is what was it and is it
Speaker 9: all connected. It's almost midnight on May first, when a
Speaker 9: Las Vegas Metro Police officer's body cam catches this something
Speaker 9: flashing low in the sky. Minutes later, there's a there's
Speaker 9: like an eight school person beside it and another one's
Speaker 9: inside and it has big eyes.
Speaker 7: They're looking at us, and it's through there.
Speaker 9: Someone calls nine to one one reporting two large figures
Speaker 9: in their backyard. I'm so nervous right now. The eighties
Speaker 9: Now investigators obtaining another officer's video as he sent to
Speaker 9: the Northwest Valley home.
Speaker 2: I have butterflies, bro, I saw the shooting stars. These
Speaker 2: people say there's aliens in their backyard.
Speaker 9: By now, it's more than an hour after that bright
Speaker 9: light officers meeting up with the collar and his family.
Speaker 2: Would you see it was like it was like a
Speaker 2: big creature, A big creature.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like a textism.
Speaker 10: I'm not gonna be yes, you guys. One of my
Speaker 10: partners said they saw something following this guy too, So
Speaker 10: that's why I'm kind of curious. Did you see anything
Speaker 10: Bryant in your backyard?
Speaker 5: Or they see like a big They say they see
Speaker 5: like a big.
Speaker 3: Like a big something with late But I sat right now,
Speaker 3: I do believe in it.
Speaker 9: Police walk into the backyard to investigate, but Metro blocked
Speaker 9: out that part of the video because it's considered private property.
Speaker 2: What's clear they're taking this call seriously.
Speaker 10: Hey, this might sound like a really dumb question, but
Speaker 10: did you guys see anything fall out of the sky?
Speaker 2: Asking others what they saw, I mean.
Speaker 10: Normally discount as nothing. However, seeing as one of my
Speaker 10: partners said they saw it too. The only reason I'm
Speaker 10: actually investigating a part.
Speaker 9: That investigation turning up no concrete answers as a Wednesday,
Speaker 9: whatever or whoever fell into that yard long gone within minutes.
Speaker 2: Okay, Crystal once again. You know, look, maybe all these
Speaker 2: people are crazy. Maybe it's a highly secret government black
Speaker 2: program from Area fifty one. But let's combine it with
Speaker 2: all the other UFO lore that we know. Obviously, Area
Speaker 2: fifty one is nearby Bob Latar himself, you know, he's
Speaker 2: somebody who was in the area who allegedly at the
Speaker 2: or sorry, yeah, allegedly you know, saw some of these
Speaker 2: craft and tests and all these other things that were
Speaker 2: being blown and thrown about there. It's a long part
Speaker 2: of UFO lower this area of the country, or it's
Speaker 2: a highly secret government black program. But what gets me
Speaker 2: is the level of seriousness which wish this family is describing,
Speaker 2: you know, this incident, and also the fact that the
Speaker 2: Las Vegas PD kind of blacked out, you know, whatever
Speaker 2: they did see there in the backyard. So, I don't know,
Speaker 2: what did you make of this one?
Speaker 3: I mean, what can you make of it?
Speaker 1: Like the only thing you could Maybe it's like at
Speaker 1: a lab or hoax and we're just being totally taken
Speaker 1: in by it, right between these cops and the local family.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's the only explanation I could come up with that
Speaker 1: isn't just what they claimed that it is on its face.
Speaker 1: So that's a that's a weird one. That's a hard
Speaker 1: one to dismiss. And you know, you've really brought me
Speaker 1: into this world. And the more that I see these
Speaker 1: like the what happened in Bargia, Brazil, all of this Marginia,
Speaker 1: all these you know, corroborating accounts and all these just
Speaker 1: regular people, like not weirdos or obsessed with UFOs. Not
Speaker 1: that you have to be weirder to be obsessed with UFOs,
Speaker 1: no offense UFO community.
Speaker 3: But these aren't cranks.
Speaker 1: They're normal people who didn't even want to talk about
Speaker 1: what had happened and had to be like dragged to it.
Speaker 1: And then their stories all line up, and you know,
Speaker 1: you see this one, it's the same thing.
Speaker 3: You've got it. You're literally seeing the body camp footage
Speaker 3: of something happening.
Speaker 1: And then in the same area, family being like, there's
Speaker 1: these nine foot tall things in my backyard.
Speaker 3: I don't know what to do. I don't know, Sager,
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know either. Uh yeah, look, they could all
Speaker 2: be nuts. It could be a hoax. They could be
Speaker 2: completely mistaken, could be an animal, could be you know, burglars.
Speaker 2: The mind wants to think linearly. The mind wants to think, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, in terms of what easily it's been in
Speaker 2: the most of the time that is true. But some
Speaker 2: things are fantastical and actually do happen and have happened,
Speaker 2: you know, in the past. And you know, at a
Speaker 2: certain point you got to you got to take people
Speaker 2: also at their word. You've got to disprove, and you
Speaker 2: got to or at least you've got to prove and
Speaker 2: rule out all those other explanations. And clearly LA or
Speaker 2: Las Vegas PD, LBPD or whatever they're called, they also
Speaker 2: were very struck by what was happening there, and enough
Speaker 2: so the community there is clearly you know, they think
Speaker 2: that something happened. So maybe it did, maybe it didn't.
Speaker 2: Every once in a while, these things come across our radar,
Speaker 2: like the pilots, you know, seven eighty seven pilots, seven
Speaker 2: thirty seven pilots, like, man, there's something crazy going on
Speaker 2: up here. And then the audio gets leaked and everyone's like,
Speaker 2: oh my gosh, and then everyone moves on. So look,
Speaker 2: you know, well maybe we'll find out.
Speaker 3: Can I ask you you probably thought this through.
Speaker 1: Like, let's say it's all true, craft, the investigation, the
Speaker 1: you know, the sighting Las Vegas for whatever.
Speaker 3: Let's say it's all true. Like what does that mean?
Speaker 3: Like what happens that I don't know?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I I just I haven't gotten there yet,
Speaker 2: because I actually think too many people focus on that,
Speaker 2: and you know, like what is it? I have, no
Speaker 2: there's no way to predict. You know, some people predict
Speaker 2: like a great coming together. I actually don't believe that.
Speaker 2: I believe too little of humanity. I think I think
Speaker 2: it will Obviously a lot of people won't believe it.
Speaker 2: Some people it would just have to be so ironclad
Speaker 2: the way that it comes through. Again, I honestly have
Speaker 2: not spent too much time thinking about that because I'm
Speaker 2: just so focused on whether it's true or not and
Speaker 2: actually getting that information out. And I just think that
Speaker 2: we have humanity is too complex of a system to
Speaker 2: actually predict. I've read enough sci fi to see it
Speaker 2: go multiple different ways. My personal favorite, if anybody wants
Speaker 2: to know, is the three body problem that the book
Speaker 2: out of China, which to me that one actually kind
Speaker 2: of nailed the way that I think some of this
Speaker 2: might all go down, but who knows. We absolutely have
Speaker 2: no idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because you have people obviously, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: people who already believe are feel like we have enough
Speaker 1: evidence to say like this is happening.
Speaker 3: It's an ongoing reality.
Speaker 1: You have a lot of people who even if the
Speaker 1: government was like, all right, you got us, like.
Speaker 3: Here's the craft, let me put it on TV, they'd.
Speaker 1: Still be like, no, no way, not possible. So yeah,
Speaker 1: wild times, wild times. It does literally feel like we're
Speaker 1: living in a simulation. Sometimes it's hard to wrap your
Speaker 1: head around, especially if you look outside and the sun
Speaker 1: is like blotted out and it looks like we're literally
Speaker 1: living on Mars.
Speaker 2: So possible.
Speaker 1: All right, let's talk about a very depressing and very
Speaker 1: human earthly story here about the social network Instagram and
Speaker 1: a new report about the way that they have made
Speaker 1: it very easy and enabled a massive ring of pedophiles
Speaker 1: to seek out, you know, horrible child pornography on their service.
Speaker 3: God and put this up on the screen. This is
Speaker 3: from the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: Their headline is Instagram connects vast pedophile network. Let me
Speaker 1: read you a little bit of as they say, Instagram,
Speaker 1: the popular social media site owned by meta platforms, helps
Speaker 1: connect and promote a vast network of accounts openly devoted
Speaker 1: to the commission and purchase of underage sex content. For
Speaker 1: an investigation by The Wall Street Journal and researchers at
Speaker 1: Stanford University and the University of Massachusetts Amherst, so this
Speaker 1: is hardly some crank conspiracy. This was serious research and
Speaker 1: test accounts were set up. Researchers found that if they
Speaker 1: viewed a single account in this pedophile network, they were
Speaker 1: immediately hit with suggested for you recommendations of purported child
Speaker 1: sex content, sellers and fires, as well as accounts linking
Speaker 1: to off platform content trading sites. Following just a handful
Speaker 1: of these recommendations was enough to flood a test account
Speaker 1: with content that sexualized children. The Stanford Internet Observatory used
Speaker 1: hashtag associated with underage sex to find four hundred and
Speaker 1: five fellers of what researchers labeled self generated child sex material,
Speaker 1: or accounts purportedly run by children themselves.
Speaker 3: Some saying were as young as twelve.
Speaker 1: According to some of the data that was gathered, one
Speaker 1: hundred and twelve of those sellers collectively had twenty two
Speaker 1: thousand unique followers. Current and former Meta employees estimate the
Speaker 1: number of accounts that exist primarily to follow such content
Speaker 1: is in the high hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Speaker 1: You know, they used this thinly veiled lingo and emojis.
Speaker 1: They'd share an image of a map, which is shorthand
Speaker 1: for minor attracted person, they'd share the cheese pizza emoji,
Speaker 1: which is you know, CP child pornography. Many declare themselves
Speaker 1: lovers of the little things in life, and what makes
Speaker 1: this report, I mean, everything about it is just deeply
Speaker 1: disturbing and grotesque. Obviously, this is a problem that every
Speaker 1: single social media site has to deal with. But what
Speaker 1: they go to great length to point out soccer in
Speaker 1: this report is that the problem appears to be far
Speaker 1: worse on Instagram. You know, they were able to search
Speaker 1: for all of these you know, blatantly horrific hashtags with
Speaker 1: no problem and turn up all sorts of content just immediately.
Speaker 1: Then the Instagram algorithm would kick in because it's learning like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is the kind of content you're after, Well, here's
Speaker 1: one hundred more accounts that you can go to to
Speaker 1: find exactly what you want. And after the researchers turned
Speaker 1: over all of this information to Instagram and they went
Speaker 1: about taking down a bunch of these accounts and doing
Speaker 1: what they could to clean it up. Well, they haven't
Speaker 1: fixed the algorithm. So the minute that the accounts reappear,
Speaker 1: which they oftentimes do, the algorithm is helping the people
Speaker 1: who are trying to view this type of content and
Speaker 1: purchase this type of content. They're helping them in real
Speaker 1: time rebuild out that network by serving them Okay, well
Speaker 1: here's you lost that account.
Speaker 3: Here's the new.
Speaker 1: Account that's going to give you exactly what you want.
Speaker 1: So they have apparently done a horrific job of trying
Speaker 1: to tant down on this type of child sex abuse
Speaker 1: and exploitation.
Speaker 2: You know what really shocked me was that they almost
Speaker 2: they even say in here documents previously reviewed say that
Speaker 2: they have actually done work like this successfully in the
Speaker 2: past to try and suppress accounts on elections like the
Speaker 2: January sixth denialism. So they basically did more. Well, yeah,
Speaker 2: so they did more on January sixth and preventing like
Speaker 2: election denialism on Instagram than literally cracking down on child
Speaker 2: on literal child you know, predators, I don't know I mean,
Speaker 2: it's sickening, and the fact that this even exists is gross.
Speaker 2: Matt Stoller had a joke, It's like, yeah, we have
Speaker 2: an economy of scale for mass pedophilia. Apparently, you know,
Speaker 2: congratulations to Instagram. Some of this is probably intrinsic to
Speaker 2: the Internet. And you know, sickness is going to breed
Speaker 2: sickness and people are going to congregate. But you obviously
Speaker 2: need to make it as difficult as possible. And also,
Speaker 2: I will say there's actually good laws on the books
Speaker 2: specifically around preventing this type of behavior and making sure
Speaker 2: that social media companies, websites and others do their absolute best.
Speaker 2: The fact is, if you can get around calling yourself
Speaker 2: a seller of this type of repulsive, you know, content,
Speaker 2: just by putting a three instead of an E, that's insane.
Speaker 2: You know, how how is it that easy to make
Speaker 2: it on the Internet. I mean that's just absolutely absurd.
Speaker 2: So look, I mean I'm personally a member of the
Speaker 2: t cap community. For anybody who doesn't know what that is.
Speaker 2: As to Catch a Predator, fans of the Catch a
Speaker 2: Predator franchise that was back in two thousand and six,
Speaker 2: and you know, people were like, oh, you know, things
Speaker 2: have gotten better since then, I don't know, I mean
Speaker 2: reading stuff like this. Maybe it's just gotten way worse
Speaker 2: and people are better at covering their tracks using the
Speaker 2: dark web. But it's just look the FBI. I hope
Speaker 2: that you people are all over this, you know, instead
Speaker 2: of doing you know, instead of I don't know, focusing
Speaker 2: on whatever bs you know, entrapment schemes around politics and
Speaker 2: all this other crap. Focus this is. This is your
Speaker 2: bread and butter. Guys like this is this is what
Speaker 2: they exist for, you know. And we have good laws
Speaker 2: on the books to basically, I mean to basically make
Speaker 2: it so that if you can catch even one of
Speaker 2: these people, especially the sellers the distributors of the content,
Speaker 2: they can be locked up for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 2: And I really think that they should be. You know,
Speaker 2: it's just sick just to give.
Speaker 1: You a sense of how readily available this content was,
Speaker 1: because that's what was so shocking is it's not like
Speaker 1: they went to great lengths, these you know, sickos to
Speaker 1: cover their tracks.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: It was very like you could search really obvious hashtags
Speaker 1: and come up with all sorts of disgusting, illegal material,
Speaker 1: exploitative material to give you a sense of how sensitive
Speaker 1: the algorithm is and how you know much it does
Speaker 1: not discriminate over whether your interests.
Speaker 3: Are legal or illegal.
Speaker 1: A woman who runs a community on Instagram that's dedicated
Speaker 1: to fighting child tex trafficking and exploitation. She received a
Speaker 1: tip that there was an account out there called incest Toddler,
Speaker 1: which is exactly what you think it is.
Speaker 3: She went to look it up to verify to them.
Speaker 1: Report and because her account interacted with this account, her
Speaker 1: followers all start getting recommended incest Toddler for their recommendation.
Speaker 1: That's how sensitive this algorithm is and how much if
Speaker 1: you express even a pathing interest in this type of
Speaker 1: horrific material, it'll serve you up one hundred accounts that
Speaker 1: are say you know here, go here, take a look
Speaker 1: at this, here's you know where you can go. So
Speaker 1: now that can be very useful if you have a
Speaker 1: healthy and normal interest, and obviously it can be horrifically
Speaker 1: damaging when it comes to something like this and they
Speaker 1: have not cared to do the work to make sure
Speaker 1: that you know this type of these type of searches
Speaker 1: get shut down, that this type of content gets shut
Speaker 1: down and continue even after receiving this information in this research,
Speaker 1: they say that they're working on changes to the algorithm,
Speaker 1: so this stops happening. But as of today it's nothing
Speaker 1: significant has changed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, there you go. Okay, all right, let's let's
Speaker 2: move on from this, just so don't feel Let's.
Speaker 3: Move on, I know. Yeah, all right.
Speaker 1: So we've got an escalation in the war between Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson and his former employer Fox News. As you guys know,
Speaker 1: Tucker launched his new show on Twitter this week with
Speaker 1: I guess roughly ten minute monologue. And this is no surprise,
Speaker 1: but it is the major development. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. Fox News has officially informed Tucker that he
Speaker 1: is in breach of his contract. You know, all of
Speaker 1: these media contracts come with non compete clauses, which I
Speaker 1: think should be illegal, and the Biden administration agrees with
Speaker 1: us that.
Speaker 3: They should be illegal.
Speaker 1: Biden and Tucker teaming up on this the horseshoe no
Speaker 1: one expected. But let me just read you a little
Speaker 1: bit of this report.
Speaker 3: They say.
Speaker 1: On Wednesday, Fox News notified Tucker's lawyers that the former
Speaker 1: primetime anchor violated his contract with the network when he
Speaker 1: launched his on Twitter show on Tuesday.
Speaker 3: According to a copy of a letter obtained by.
Speaker 1: Axios, Carlson's lawyers told Axios any legal action by Fox
Speaker 1: would violate violate his.
Speaker 3: First Amendment right.
Speaker 1: Carlson, Axios reported, had since accuse Fox of fraud, has
Speaker 1: argued Fox breached his contract. What senior executives reneked on
Speaker 1: promises made to Carlson quote intentionally and with reckless disregard
Speaker 1: for the truth, apparently, Sager. Part of the dispute here
Speaker 1: revolves around how the dominion settlement ended. So apparently there
Speaker 1: are reports, and I think Axios is one of the
Speaker 1: outlets that reported that as part of the settlement agreement Tucker,
Speaker 1: they had a verbal commitment that Fox News would let
Speaker 1: Tucker go and that a big part of the reason
Speaker 1: he was pushed out was because this was a handshake
Speaker 1: agreement within the dominion settlement. Now, Carlson apparently had extracted
Speaker 1: a promise from Fox not to settle with dominion voting
Speaker 1: systems quote in a way which would indicate wrongdoing on
Speaker 1: the part of himself.
Speaker 3: And so he clearly views, you.
Speaker 1: Know, the fact that these reports came out, the fact
Speaker 1: that he was let go allegedly reportedly as part of
Speaker 1: this settlement as indicating wrongdoing and a breach of the
Speaker 1: agreements that.
Speaker 3: He had with Fox. So that seems to be the
Speaker 3: nub of.
Speaker 1: The disagreement, at least that it's been reported by Axios.
Speaker 1: A source told Axios Carlson was told by a senior
Speaker 1: Fox executive the network's goal is to keep him sidelined
Speaker 1: until twenty twenty five. Obviously, they want to keep him
Speaker 1: out until after the presidential elections.
Speaker 3: That's their goal.
Speaker 1: And they also have this note in here, which is
Speaker 1: kind of gross, that Tucker has been leveraging allies like
Speaker 1: former NFL quarterback Brett Farv to put pressure on the
Speaker 1: network to let him out of his contract.
Speaker 2: Okay, yeah, I would say talk, let that one go,
Speaker 2: get some better friends. Let's not get Brett farb this one.
Speaker 2: Look on the merits. It's ridiculous. I think this should
Speaker 2: be one hundred percent illegal that a company can basically
Speaker 2: sign you or voice away, you know, for your likeness,
Speaker 2: and then can basically restrict your free speech rights. That's
Speaker 2: actually something that he is arguing that his lawyers say
Speaker 2: that effectively they're trying to silence him on all of
Speaker 2: social media and claiming that any of his communications are
Speaker 2: effectively in some way a threat to Fox and a
Speaker 2: violation of their agreement. Now, I will also say, until
Speaker 2: these are finally made illegal, let's just not go ahead
Speaker 2: and sign these deals because inside, you know, they even
Speaker 2: quote from some of the agreements that they have in
Speaker 2: here where quote pursuant to the agreement, mister Carlson's quote
Speaker 2: services shall be completely exclusive to Fox. That's a real
Speaker 2: issue because that could literally mean anything. And that Crystal,
Speaker 2: this is exactly why you and I walk away from
Speaker 2: mainstream media and from corporate media, is because they try
Speaker 2: to ensnare you and I exactly in these same problems
Speaker 2: where you know it's ambiguous. He probably could win in court,
Speaker 2: but it becomes a total nightmare. And look, by the way,
Speaker 2: from Fox's perspective, they're not wrong. This is a disaster.
Speaker 2: The show or his Tucker on Twitter has one hundred
Speaker 2: and two point seven million views as of this morning
Speaker 2: when we're looking at it, and it was just posted
Speaker 2: two days ago at six pm. Now, of course, you
Speaker 2: know Twitter view is not necessarily analogous to the same
Speaker 2: time view, but you know, you can't deny that it
Speaker 2: was seen and was distributed at least in part by
Speaker 2: a ton of people and had organic interests, so they
Speaker 2: at the same time, you know, their primetime is a disaster.
Speaker 2: They've locked over a million viewers overall, their key demographic
Speaker 2: viewers have been a disaster. And if he truly was unchanging,
Speaker 2: it would be also a benefit to Twitter, especially if
Speaker 2: they can improve their overall video product. So I think
Speaker 2: this is gross that these types of agreements even exist
Speaker 2: in the first place. I think people should be allowed
Speaker 2: to speak. And the fact that they can drag his
Speaker 2: you know, drag him through the mud basically for the
Speaker 2: next two years in an attempt try and silence him
Speaker 2: through twenty twenty five, that's insane. You know, even if
Speaker 2: you don't like Tucker Carlson like you should not be
Speaker 2: allowed to do this as a major corporation.
Speaker 3: Tucker is.
Speaker 1: As part of his argument, he's claiming Twitter is not
Speaker 1: a competitor to Fox. I think it's hard to make
Speaker 1: that case, though to me, the stronger case is on
Speaker 1: the merits of like these non competes shouldn't be a thing.
Speaker 1: Ye potentially Fox violated some other aspects of his agreement,
Speaker 1: but given the reality of the media landscape, today, I
Speaker 1: don't think you can really say that Twitter or Rumble
Speaker 1: or YouTube or podcast or whatever are not.
Speaker 3: A competitor to cable news.
Speaker 1: I mean Tucker certainly, I thought he sent out like
Speaker 1: some instructions for his older fans to try to figure
Speaker 1: out how to find the video on Twitter and how
Speaker 1: to be able to consume his show. Like he clearly
Speaker 1: sees the audience as that he's trying to reach as
Speaker 1: having a lot of overlap with the audience that he
Speaker 1: was reaching at Fox.
Speaker 3: And to me, I mean the fact listen, I want.
Speaker 1: To take Tucker out of it, because you all know
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan, but to me, the fact that
Speaker 1: that is the media landscape and that these are all competitive,
Speaker 1: you know, competitive outlets one with another, I actually think
Speaker 1: that's a positive thing. I think it underscores the fact
Speaker 1: saga that we've been predicting, which is that cable news
Speaker 1: is not going to have these big stars anymore because
Speaker 1: why would you, Why would you if you have the
Speaker 1: ability to generate this type of following and audience, why
Speaker 1: would you subject yourself to these types of onerous contract
Speaker 1: requirements than the dude who's going to tell you like
Speaker 1: to wear the sweater or what you know, all of
Speaker 1: the nonsense that comes with cable news and an incredibly
Speaker 1: limiting format. I mean, the cable news format is so
Speaker 1: like stultifying, and you know it's just just by the
Speaker 1: nature of the way the programming is done, it really
Speaker 1: limits what.
Speaker 3: You're able to do.
Speaker 1: Why would you impose that type of top down control
Speaker 1: on your creative and on the content that you, as
Speaker 1: a performer want to put out, Like you just it
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense anymore. Now if you're someone who's yeah,
Speaker 1: if you're someone who's like a company person and you're
Speaker 1: you know, sort of like middle tier in terms of
Speaker 1: you can capably serve the news, but you're never going
Speaker 1: to be that person that generates a following based on
Speaker 1: your like or is me or the depth death of
Speaker 1: your knowledge, your skill and presentation or whatever. Okay, then
Speaker 1: cable news makes sense. You know, this is a stable
Speaker 1: platform and an eyeballs and a paycheck and whatever, and
Speaker 1: you benefit from whoever's in the chair before you in
Speaker 1: the hour before, and you benefit from this huge cachet
Speaker 1: in terms that still exists in terms of American culture
Speaker 1: and what the elites are watching. Like that's a then
Speaker 1: that's a proposition that makes sense, but increasingly, for top talent,
Speaker 1: this is just not going to be where they want
Speaker 1: to be.
Speaker 3: The other thing I was.
Speaker 1: Thinking about soccer is you covered earlier this week, I
Speaker 1: guess the Rumble CEO complaining about the way that Twitter
Speaker 1: community notes are done, which really got me thinking. I mean,
Speaker 1: the people who really stand to suffer from Tucker and
Speaker 1: Daily Wire and others launching video on Twitter is Rumble.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: So it's a real it's a real issue for them
Speaker 1: because they've positioned themselves as this free speech platform for video.
Speaker 1: And you know, I don't think Elon Musk has any
Speaker 1: commitment to free speech.
Speaker 3: I think that's clearly demonstrated by.
Speaker 1: His action, But there's clearly an audience that does believe
Speaker 1: that Twitter has become a free speech platform. You've already
Speaker 1: got a huge network, tons of eyeballs there, way more
Speaker 1: than you have at Rumble on Rumble at this point.
Speaker 1: So I think, you know, this is a problem for
Speaker 1: Fox News, it's a problem for MSNBC and CNN. We've
Speaker 1: documented that, you know, clearly. But I think it also
Speaker 1: is an issue for some of the new media platforms
Speaker 1: that have tried to be the you know, Twitter and
Speaker 1: other social media competitors based on free speech principles.
Speaker 2: Well, see, here's the reason why I wouldn't bet against Rumble,
Speaker 2: which is, at the end of the day, Rumble's design
Speaker 2: for video, and it's like, is just not designed for video.
Speaker 2: And look, it's certainly possible they could turn it around,
Speaker 2: but I'm not sure. I can't be the only guy
Speaker 2: who got annoyed watching a ten minute monologue on Twitter.
Speaker 2: You know, it's just not that's not what the platform
Speaker 2: is designed to do. It doesn't pause properly, you can't
Speaker 2: come back to where you were, you can't see, you know,
Speaker 2: the area. If you accidentally scroll out of it, it
Speaker 2: takes up your whole screen. I mean, there's just so
Speaker 2: much about it where the functionality itself is not hardwired
Speaker 2: into the app. Now can that change, Yes, it certainly can.
Speaker 2: How much of that is a priority to Twitter? I
Speaker 2: don't know are they going to be actually investing resources
Speaker 2: into it? So if I were a Rumble, I wouldn't
Speaker 2: be actually too worried about it, because you know, it's
Speaker 2: just look. Elon would actually have to dedicate a ton
Speaker 2: of resources to make it a multifunctional app. Given the
Speaker 2: fact that what it's currently worth like one third of
Speaker 2: what he bought it for, you know, and fired the
Speaker 2: vast majority of the staff. We'll see that. That's my
Speaker 2: only thing, Pete. You know, I saw this isn't you know,
Speaker 2: this isn't just a crap on Matt Wallace or whatever.
Speaker 2: But they were touting like how many people had watched
Speaker 2: their dot documentary and I was like, yeah, but did
Speaker 2: they really watch all of it? Like it's Twitter really
Speaker 2: the place you want to watch a forty five minute documentary,
Speaker 2: Like I just I don't know. And you know what
Speaker 2: you and I know, Crystal, is there's a big difference
Speaker 2: between a view and retention. And also one of the
Speaker 2: reasons why YouTube is so great is they don't recommend
Speaker 2: videos based upon the overall number of views. They recommend
Speaker 2: videos based on the amount of people actually staying and
Speaker 2: watching said video, called the retention h Now, if anything
Speaker 2: that actually matters even more than your overall view count.
Speaker 2: That's what you and I look at, you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of people actually sitting and watching our stuff. I
Speaker 2: don't even care that necessarily about the views. We care
Speaker 2: much more about retention. And also they are, you know,
Speaker 2: have a real relationship. So that's something that also Twitter
Speaker 2: and also Rumble has that too in terms of it's
Speaker 2: you know, it's recommendations and and what exactly it prioritizes
Speaker 2: as well. There's just a difference between a video platform
Speaker 2: and then an overall like text based platform decide to
Speaker 2: show you as much info as possible. These are kind
Speaker 2: of hardwired in there.
Speaker 3: That's a fair point. Yeah, those are fair points.
Speaker 1: I mean, Rumble definitely has better tech at this point, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, more intentional like video geared tech, but Twitter
Speaker 1: definitely has more people and more more visibility. So I
Speaker 1: think that's kind of that's kind of the battle. But
Speaker 1: to your point, you know, take all of these view
Speaker 1: numbers for what does a woman or for Tucker shar
Speaker 1: for anything, any of the Twitter video that he's posted,
Speaker 1: take it with a lot of grains of salt, because
Speaker 1: they count as a view. If someone just scrolls by
Speaker 1: the tweet, that's not a view in any real sense
Speaker 1: of the word.
Speaker 3: And we've said this before, like even on v post videos.
Speaker 1: The numbers that you see, the views that you see
Speaker 1: generated there are not really reflective of much of anything meaningful.
Speaker 3: Now, I don't doubt a lot of people watch.
Speaker 1: Definitely millions of people watched Tucker's monologue and his opening show.
Speaker 3: There's huge interests.
Speaker 1: There's obviously huge commentary about it, coverage of it, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But just like, understand what the numbers actually mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's smart, Okay, Crystal, what do you take a
Speaker 2: look at?
Speaker 1: Well, Guys, if you live basically anywhere on the East Coast,
Speaker 1: you already probably know quite a bit about the topic
Speaker 1: I will be delving into today, which is the absolutely
Speaker 1: horrific air quality due to wildfires raging in Canada. Just
Speaker 1: take a look at what New York City looked like
Speaker 1: this week. You know, if you are anywhere on the
Speaker 1: East Coast, you have experienced these acrid smells, stinging eyes,
Speaker 1: these dystopian healthscape appearing landscapes ahead of you. You know
Speaker 1: here in DC would have it quite as bad as
Speaker 1: they had it in New York City, or I think
Speaker 1: today Philadelphia is getting hit the hardest.
Speaker 3: But still yesterday I was, as I was.
Speaker 1: Driving into the city, you had you know, you could
Speaker 1: look directly at the sun.
Speaker 3: It's like bright orange sky.
Speaker 1: It just looks so incredibly bizarre, And obviously there are
Speaker 1: huge potential health consequences for spending any significant time outside
Speaker 1: when you have this type of particulate matter in the air,
Speaker 1: especially for people who have asthma or have other sensitivities.
Speaker 1: The air quality was so bad that New York City
Speaker 1: had the distinction of being the most polluted city, the
Speaker 1: worst air quality in the entire world in terms of
Speaker 1: major cities, including topping places that are famously have for
Speaker 1: air quality like Delhi, where residents can expect to live
Speaker 1: nine years shorter just because of the persistent impact.
Speaker 3: Of this type of air pollution.
Speaker 1: So, as I mentioned before, the cause of this is
Speaker 1: historic and stunning wildfires across the country of Canada and
Speaker 1: half of provinces there.
Speaker 3: Go ahead and put this up on the screen, guys.
Speaker 1: More than four hundred wildfires burning across our neighbors to
Speaker 1: the north. More than half of those are considered to
Speaker 1: be out of control. And of course, you know wildfires
Speaker 1: this type of year, this type of year, whether it's
Speaker 1: in Canada or whether it's in California, is nothing, I'm usual,
Speaker 1: but the size and the scope and the fact that
Speaker 1: it's all happening simultaneously, that is very unusual. And that's
Speaker 1: why the East Coast is suffering with this type of
Speaker 1: air pollution, while you know, probably our friends over on
Speaker 1: the West Coast are saying welcome to the club because
Speaker 1: they've been dealing with this type of persistent air pollution
Speaker 1: from wildfires for any number of years. Now, let's go
Speaker 1: and put this next piece up on the screen. It's
Speaker 1: no accident that we're facing this type of cataclysm right now.
Speaker 3: Canada has been suffering through what they call a hot drought.
Speaker 3: You read from this Washington Post report. They say, persistent
Speaker 3: and off.
Speaker 1: In extreme words in the high latitudes is among the
Speaker 1: clearest signals of climate change. The Arctic and its surroundings
Speaker 1: have been found to be warming much faster than most
Speaker 1: of the planet, so you can see Canada would be
Speaker 1: disproportionately affected.
Speaker 3: They say.
Speaker 1: Pulse after pulse of record heat has helped fuel the
Speaker 1: extreme fire situation. You had heat spreading across Nova Scotia
Speaker 1: again on Thursdays. Thursday, temperatures rose to ninety one degrees
Speaker 1: in Halifax. That's more than eighteen.
Speaker 3: Degrees above average.
Speaker 1: You had record highs in many eastern cities, including Ottawa
Speaker 1: at ninety five degrees, in Montreal at ninety four degrees,
Speaker 1: Toronto at eighty eight degrees. Those have affected a lot
Speaker 1: of Canada and parts of the northern US as well,
Speaker 1: and there's an expectation that these hot temperatures will continue
Speaker 1: along with significantly less than usual rainfall, creating just a
Speaker 1: tinderbox effect where you end up with these wild buyers
Speaker 1: raging out of control across Canada. So all of these
Speaker 1: you cannot tie any particular wildfire to the climate crisis,
Speaker 1: But when you look at this confluence of factors, you
Speaker 1: can say for sure the fact that we have had
Speaker 1: so many wild buyers, historic wildfires year after year in California,
Speaker 1: now year after year in Canada, this is directly attributable
Speaker 1: to rising temperatures and extreme conditions caused by the climate crisis,
Speaker 1: and it's already having a huge impact on obviously our lives.
Speaker 3: It's having a huge impact on our economy.
Speaker 1: Actually highlighted last week that in the state of California,
Speaker 1: major insurers are pulling out of the state all together.
Speaker 3: Put this next piece up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Because the impact predominantly of wildfires in California has made
Speaker 1: it so it is not it does not make any
Speaker 1: market sense to ensure homeowners in much of the state.
Speaker 1: This is not just a situation unique to California. This
Speaker 1: is the case in states across the country, including Florida,
Speaker 1: has a huge issue with this as well due to
Speaker 1: their own extreme weather crises and repeated hurricanes. Flooding has
Speaker 1: increased and caused other states sort of from the center
Speaker 1: of the country to have issues with homeowners insurance. And
Speaker 1: that's just one aspect of this crisis. Obviously, when extreme
Speaker 1: weather hit, the cost of people's lives, to upending their dreams,
Speaker 1: the economic damage, the cost to reconstruct, I mean, all
Speaker 1: of this has become incalculable. And this is a part
Speaker 1: of our reality right now. David Wallace, well, as I thought,
Speaker 1: had a really effective and frankly quite dystopian column that
Speaker 1: he wrote in the New York Times. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen about how this is just the
Speaker 1: new normal now. Is is that as smoke darkens the sky,
Speaker 1: the future becomes clear, and in many ways the future
Speaker 1: is already a ride. There's now nowhere to hide. So
Speaker 1: even if you live in New York City, or if
Speaker 1: you live in Washington, d C. Or if you live
Speaker 1: anywhere in the country, you may not have a wildfire
Speaker 1: next door, but the smoke in the air. Pollution from
Speaker 1: what's going on in California, or what's going on in Canada,
Speaker 1: or what's going on in other places could very directly
Speaker 1: impact your life. And just to keep in mind some
Speaker 1: statistics about how this is not normal, This is not
Speaker 1: part of a normal cycle. This is a very unusual
Speaker 1: and dystopian historic time that we're living through. Every one
Speaker 1: of California's fifteen largest recorded buyers has taken place.
Speaker 3: In the past two decades.
Speaker 1: Of the seven largest wildfires in California have burned since
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. David Wallace Wells quotes an author who just
Speaker 1: wrote a book about this new reality that we're living
Speaker 1: with with regard to wildfire, and he says, fire isn't
Speaker 1: going away. We're going to be burning for this entire century.
Speaker 1: The Alberta fires had only just begun to rage, but
Speaker 1: he saw the course of change quite clearly. This is
Speaker 1: a global shift, it's an apocle shift, and we happen
Speaker 1: to be alive for it. And Sager, I think this is.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 3: All Right, Sager. What you're looking at.
Speaker 2: Ron and Emily did a great job yesterday talking a
Speaker 2: little bit about what the new news is on the
Speaker 2: Nordstream pipeline. But I wanted to make sure that we
Speaker 2: fully brought a rundown for everybody. So let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen. A classic
Speaker 2: and insane reminder from a new report from the Washington Post.
Speaker 2: To be fair, this is coming from the quote discord
Speaker 2: leaks that were given to the Washington Post after they
Speaker 2: gained exclusive access to the original hundreds of files that
Speaker 2: were leaked by airman Jack Tahara. Inside of those files
Speaker 2: was a revelation that the United States had intelligence three
Speaker 2: months before the bombing of the nord Stream pipeline, which
Speaker 2: had a detailed Ukrainian plot to blow it up. Three months,
Speaker 2: as they write, before Savageur's bombed the Nordstream natural gas pipeline,
Speaker 2: the Biden administration learned from a close ally that the
Speaker 2: Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea
Speaker 2: network using a small team of divers who reported directly
Speaker 2: to the commander in chief of Ukrainian Armed Forces. So
Speaker 2: let's really let all of this sink in and try
Speaker 2: and understand what it is. There's a couple of possibilities,
Speaker 2: as I pointed out, let it sink in that either
Speaker 2: the Biden administration had knowledge of this plot, allowed it
Speaker 2: to happen, continued to provide Ukraine with basically a blank
Speaker 2: check at this time leading up to the actual bombing
Speaker 2: of the pipeline, and then turned around and did everything
Speaker 2: but blame Russia except in name only said we'll get
Speaker 2: to the bottom of it. We had all these leaks
Speaker 2: from the intelligence community and others saying, oh, clearly was Russia.
Speaker 2: All signs point to Russia. Anybody who insinuated that it
Speaker 2: wasn't Russia was tarred and feathered, you know, by the
Speaker 2: mainstream media. And it was only basically almost a year
Speaker 2: later that enough intelligence has come out, both from the
Speaker 2: European countries and others that it's very obvious that it
Speaker 2: almost likely was not only not Russia, but very likely
Speaker 2: either Ukraine or with some help from the United States directly.
Speaker 2: We had the report also from independent journalist Seymour Hirsh.
Speaker 2: So you could read this really in one of two ways,
Speaker 2: which is either it was Ukraine and we allowed it
Speaker 2: to happen. We knew it was going to happen, and
Speaker 2: we turned around and lied to the American public, or
Speaker 2: we're the ones who did it, and I guess maybe
Speaker 2: we're just going to push it off onto Ukraine. Both
Speaker 2: are terrifying possibilities. If we accept the Ukraine explanation, this
Speaker 2: is equally terrified because what they say in the report,
Speaker 2: according to this intelligence, is that the Ukrainian government actually
Speaker 2: structured this entire attack on the North Stream pipeline such
Speaker 2: that Zelensky would quote have plausible deniability. But they still
Speaker 2: reported the and commanded the attack by the commander in
Speaker 2: chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, who, of course we
Speaker 2: are directly funding, arming, and supporting, not only then, but
Speaker 2: continue to do so right now. So why should we
Speaker 2: believe anything that they tell us? Really let that sink in.
Speaker 2: And that's the other thing that I took away. If
Speaker 2: they have been caught now in several lives. They lied
Speaker 2: about the fact that those two missiles that fell in
Speaker 2: Poland and killed people were Russian, it immediately came out
Speaker 2: that actually they were Ukrainian. They've lied about not being
Speaker 2: involved in the North Stream pipeline. They've lied about not
Speaker 2: being behind the drone attacks on the Kremlin about multiple
Speaker 2: different attacks on Russian soil. How can we believe anything
Speaker 2: that they say? How can we believe anything in America
Speaker 2: has to say either, and don't mistake this, I don't
Speaker 2: believe anything that the Russians say. That's why we're all
Speaker 2: in such an impossible situation. Consider what happened here with
Speaker 2: the dam. You know, immediately the Ukrainians are pointing the
Speaker 2: finger at the Russians, that Russians are pointing the fingers
Speaker 2: at the Ukrainians. Both sides actually have reasons or why
Speaker 2: they would want to blow up the dam, and for
Speaker 2: who actually benefits worth? Who knows, We don't know. There's
Speaker 2: no actual confirmation. And then even if the United States
Speaker 2: comes out and blames the Russians, you can't believe them
Speaker 2: because maybe we have intelligence that it was Ukraine that
Speaker 2: was behind it. And to make this not just pass
Speaker 2: beforeward looking remember this, we did not want to give
Speaker 2: F sixteens to Ukraine because we had intelligence that we
Speaker 2: were able to show you here classified intelligence that Zelenski
Speaker 2: wants longer rage missiles and planes to bomb Russia. We
Speaker 2: didn't do it for a long time. Then we reverse
Speaker 2: course and Biden's reasoning was, they promised me, They gave
Speaker 2: me a flat promise, we won't use them to strike Russia.
Speaker 2: Why should we believe them? They have lied at almost
Speaker 2: every turn in terms of how offensive weapons will be used.
Speaker 2: They have pursued actions like bombing the North Street pipeline,
Speaker 2: the Crimean Bridge, and others which could lead to a
Speaker 2: huge escalation which draws the United States in. And obviously
Speaker 2: it's in their interest in almost every single one of
Speaker 2: their lives, especially the ones that came forward whenever the
Speaker 2: missiles fell on Poland, they immediately used that lie as
Speaker 2: a pretext to call for a no fly zone by
Speaker 2: the United States and NATO intervention. And I once again
Speaker 2: have to say I understand it. If I were them,
Speaker 2: I would do the same thing. It's the really their choice,
Speaker 2: their only chance at outright victory, because obviously there's no
Speaker 2: way that they can overpower them completely, the Russians with
Speaker 2: just the even the current amount of military support that
Speaker 2: is given to them. It just needs to have all
Speaker 2: of us ask real questions about our government, about the
Speaker 2: support that we're giving and about what the actual trade
Speaker 2: offs are. It's not costless to just give Ukraine a
Speaker 2: blank check to give them F sixteen's and perhaps one
Speaker 2: day we may have to pay that bill, and you
Speaker 2: need to ask is the bill worth it? It can
Speaker 2: seem callous whenever you're talking about human beings who are
Speaker 2: fighting for their own country. But not every cause is
Speaker 2: worth American bloodshed and cause. You need to have some
Speaker 2: real cost benefit analysis as to what exactly the US
Speaker 2: is getting out of this. And it's becoming clearer and
Speaker 2: clearer and clearer to me that the cost far outweighs
Speaker 2: any sort of benefit that might come, both from a
Speaker 2: moral level but also from a pure real politic level.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, Chrystal, what did you make of
Speaker 2: this intelligence?
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagre's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: Okay, guys, thank you so much for watching. We're really excited,
Speaker 2: but we're gonna wrap this. We're going right to the studio.
Speaker 2: We're gonna tape our big studio reveal. It's not too
Speaker 2: late to become a premium member to go ahead and
Speaker 2: sign up and to see the new reveal. So Breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot Com, we love you, guys. We'll be on call.
Speaker 2: Over the weekend, we'll have someone in our team in
Speaker 2: case Trump gets indicted and otherwise, we're very excited for
Speaker 2: the big public reveal on Monday.
Speaker 1: That's right, we will see you Monday from the new Studio.
Speaker 1: I hope you guys love it as much as we do,
Speaker 1: and super super excited about that.
Speaker 3: Till then, enjoy your weekend and we'll see you there.