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 1: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 1: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 1: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 1: it means the absolute world to have your support. What
Speaker 1: are you waiting for? Become a premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot Com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have
Speaker 1: an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?
Speaker 1: Indeed we do, guys. It has happened. Nicki Haley has
Speaker 1: officially entered the race for twenty twenty four. Get excited.
Speaker 1: We've got all the highlights. She's already embarrassing herself with
Speaker 1: Hannity last night, so we'll show you all of that. Also,
Speaker 1: President Biden's supposed to make some remarks about the UFO
Speaker 1: situation in the Chinese by balloon situation. This comes as
Speaker 1: they are also warning, you know, guys, we just may
Speaker 1: not be able to get any of that debris. We
Speaker 1: may never really know what Overen Who's to say? Ultimately,
Speaker 1: We also have an update from Ohio, actually a number
Speaker 1: of updates from Ohio, as what appears to be a
Speaker 1: potential cover up unfolding. Residents are told to drink bottled water,
Speaker 1: but assured that the air quality is perfectly fine. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Norfolk Southern, of course, that's the owner of that train
Speaker 1: that ultimately derailed because of lack's safety provisions. They bailed
Speaker 1: on a public town hall they were supposed to attend
Speaker 1: last night. People are absolutely outraged, as they should be,
Speaker 1: so we have all of the details. There also some
Speaker 1: updates on Ukraine, some indication maybe the Biden administration is
Speaker 1: thinking that they need to engage in some diplomacy at
Speaker 1: least here down the road. We'll see about that. And
Speaker 1: also Republican support for continuing to support Ukraine with the
Speaker 1: level of aid that we have has been dropping. And
Speaker 1: we've got a great moment for you from Andrea Mitchell
Speaker 1: and John Bolton that you just go. You gotta check out.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of layers there. You can't miss this one,
Speaker 1: all right. Well, let's start with the woman herself, Nikki Haley,
Speaker 1: officially launching her campaign yesterday, delivering her launch speech heavy
Speaker 1: on bio, heavy on some sort of like veiled references,
Speaker 1: maybe to Trump, definitely to Biden. Let's sigalism and take
Speaker 1: it from me, the first minority female governor in history.
Speaker 1: America is not a racist country. We're ready, ready to
Speaker 1: move past the stale ideas and faded names of the past,
Speaker 1: and we are more than ready for a new generation
Speaker 1: to lead us into the future. In the America, I see,
Speaker 1: the permanent politician will finally retire. We'll have term limits
Speaker 1: for Congress and natory mental competency tests for politicians over
Speaker 1: seventy five years old. Later that evening, she went on
Speaker 1: with Sean Hannity over at Fox News and went ahead
Speaker 1: and proved the sort of central problem of her candidacy
Speaker 1: when she was totally unable to answer how she differed
Speaker 1: on policy from former President Trump. Take a listen, what
Speaker 1: specific policy areas would you say part with Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: What I am saying is I don't kick sideways. I'm
Speaker 1: kicking forward. Joe Biden is the president, He's the one
Speaker 1: I'm running against. And what I'm saying is you don't
Speaker 1: have to be eighty years old to be president. We
Speaker 1: don't need to have these same people going back again.
Speaker 1: We need something new. We need a new generation of fighters.
Speaker 1: We need people that understand whether American, your average American
Speaker 1: is coming from and we shouldn't be afraid to fight
Speaker 1: for that. And that's what I'm willing to do. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to kick sideways. I don't have time for that.
Speaker 1: That's not my focus. I'm kicking forward. It's all about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden always kicking. Why is everything kicking the heel
Speaker 1: the heels? Why it's like a feet thing? Like why
Speaker 1: are why are we always talking about Nicky Haley's feet?
Speaker 1: I don't understand. It got worse from there because actually
Speaker 1: Hannity asked her again. He went back, He's like, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's fine kicking sideways or whatever, but President Trump is
Speaker 1: the one in the race. These things are all about contrast.
Speaker 1: What is a policy difference that you have? And she
Speaker 1: just went back to that same like, I'm not kicking sideway?
Speaker 1: Is I kicking forward? Which means I mean it was
Speaker 1: a very like it's like the Marco Rubio moment with
Speaker 1: Chris Christy. Yeah, he says over it's like, oh, you
Speaker 1: memorize this one line and you literally have nothing else
Speaker 1: to say about it. And listen if you can't say
Speaker 1: Trump's name, if you can't lay out how you're different
Speaker 1: from him, don't waste your time. And that's to you,
Speaker 1: Nicky Haley, that's to all of these people. If you
Speaker 1: can't directly challenge this guy and lay out some reason
Speaker 1: other than your age, that you are different from him
Speaker 1: and that you have a different policy vision. I don't
Speaker 1: know why you're bothering. Oh. Absolutely. You know. The funny
Speaker 1: thing is is they don't want to mention Trump. Trump
Speaker 1: is fine mentioning that. Yeah. Immediately he's taunting her being
Speaker 1: like she said she would never run against me. I
Speaker 1: guess she maybe she needs to answer why she broke
Speaker 1: her promise. We have this, you know, let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and put this up there on the screen. Immediately after
Speaker 1: she makes her announcement. Yeah, yeah, here you have that
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, that moment where she actually outright comes
Speaker 1: out and says, yeah, this is why I'm not going
Speaker 1: to vote against Trump, or why I'm against Trump. We
Speaker 1: need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down
Speaker 1: a path that he shouldn't have and he shouldn't have
Speaker 1: followed him. We shouldn't have listened to him. We can't
Speaker 1: let that happen this waver again right after January exactly six.
Speaker 1: Then she goes to mar A Lago and apologize like
Speaker 1: a month later, right, and then she says, I won't
Speaker 1: ever run against him as long as President Trump is
Speaker 1: in the race. So make up your mind, lady, which
Speaker 1: is it? Like you know, and just back to the point,
Speaker 1: like Trump is willing to go after her, immediately put
Speaker 1: this next one up there. Immediately after her candidacy is
Speaker 1: announ he comes out with a scathing actual policy disagreements
Speaker 1: with Nikki Haley. Crystal, this is interesting. Let me read
Speaker 1: you some of the things that he lays out here
Speaker 1: because the line of attack, several of them are quite fascinating.
Speaker 1: First of all, he pulled this quote from her where
Speaker 1: she said the reason I ran for office is because
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton. And so his headline is Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: is an inspiration Nikki Haley. But the very next thing
Speaker 1: he leads with is Haley supported Paul Ryan's plan for
Speaker 1: entitlement reform, threatening Medicare and social Security. He also the
Speaker 1: next thing on his list is instead of finding a
Speaker 1: peaceful solution of the Ukraine Russia war, Haley has supported
Speaker 1: sending more American fighter planes to fuel the war. He
Speaker 1: goes on to talk about her differences on immigration, some
Speaker 1: transgender bathroom bill, and also, you know, takes credit for
Speaker 1: bringing out a warmber home. His mother was introducing Haley there.
Speaker 1: And then the last one is Haley flip flops on
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four race, and this is her saying
Speaker 1: I'm not going to run against Trump and then ultimately
Speaker 1: getting in the race. But Sagar, I thought this one.
Speaker 1: Two of them I thought were really interesting. One is
Speaker 1: n't going after her for saying she'd cut Medicare and
Speaker 1: social Security, which is something that he signaled he's going
Speaker 1: to go after DeSantis on as well, and almost sort
Speaker 1: of makes the case that President Biden is making about
Speaker 1: Republicans too, that there are quite a lot of Republicans
Speaker 1: who have been interested in cutting social Security and Medicare
Speaker 1: and continue to be interested in cutting social Security and Medicare.
Speaker 1: And then the other piece that we've highlighted before is
Speaker 1: Trump clearly sees a lane for himself in the Republican primary,
Speaker 1: pushing back on the direction of Ukraine aid and support,
Speaker 1: pushing more for a diplomatic solution. Now, listen, guys, you
Speaker 1: never know what this guy is actually going to do so.
Speaker 1: It's not like I take his words all that seriously,
Speaker 1: but he clearly sees the political opportunity here, and we're
Speaker 1: going to have some pulling later in the show on
Speaker 1: Ukraine that I think backs him up in that room. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: it backs him up. And beyond that, actually, let's say
Speaker 1: fifty percent of Republicans say that they don't want to
Speaker 1: continue to support Ukraine, Well, then all those people are
Speaker 1: going to support Trump because every other Republican does want
Speaker 1: to continue support Ukraine's actually very smart and savvy move.
Speaker 1: I thought that the attack was perfect actually because he
Speaker 1: led with the she's disloyal because she used to support Hillary.
Speaker 1: Then he hits her on probably the most salient policy
Speaker 1: difference around entitlement reform, Medicare, social Security, then Ukraine, then immigrate.
Speaker 1: It's like the greatest hits of all the things that
Speaker 1: matter most to the Republican base. I mean, look, she
Speaker 1: never had a chance in hell. The opportunity that she
Speaker 1: had to actually contrast herself with Trump just doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: And increasingly I don't believe that any of this kind
Speaker 1: of Kennedy esque attempt new frontier, new generation, it just
Speaker 1: doesn't meet the moment as much as I would like
Speaker 1: for it too, I really do, But iolytically, I guy
Speaker 1: has something more to it than just like I'm younger
Speaker 1: than you. Absolutely, but I'm saying, Okay, you know, you
Speaker 1: take the New Frontier like it was not only a
Speaker 1: new generation, but it was like new generation policy ideas
Speaker 1: didn't necessarily work out all that well. But what I'm
Speaker 1: saying is that that was at least aspirational of getting
Speaker 1: away from like the closet of the nineteen fifth and
Speaker 1: the stagnation of all of that. I'm doing some monologue
Speaker 1: on this and age and why to the extent that
Speaker 1: it matters and doesn't. But the point with this is
Speaker 1: that she's not offering anything new. It's like, Okay, you're
Speaker 1: fifty one years old, but you are a complete creature
Speaker 1: of the Washington establishment, which is what Trump is hitting
Speaker 1: her on. And that's what the fundamental disconnect is the
Speaker 1: thing with Nikki Haley. Listen, guys, y'all know, I'm not
Speaker 1: a fan of Damad Trump, but the few things that
Speaker 1: he was right about, she's wrong on. Right from a
Speaker 1: policy perspective, there is just no doubt she is way
Speaker 1: worse than Trump and rather than being actually a new
Speaker 1: generation or some sort of evolution from Trump, she's actually
Speaker 1: a regression to the Paul Ryan politics that dominated DC
Speaker 1: before Trump. And so that's what you're getting at is
Speaker 1: it'd be one thing if it was like, Okay, here's
Speaker 1: a new generation, these are fresh ideas, and here's a
Speaker 1: whole new approach and way of thinking about American the problems. No,
Speaker 1: but it's not that it's literally a throwback. The people
Speaker 1: who were upset in the Republican Party when Trump came
Speaker 1: into office and had at least some different ideas about
Speaker 1: trade and China and some other things. They want control back,
Speaker 1: and they think she might be a vessel to be
Speaker 1: able to bring the party back to where it was
Speaker 1: during the like Mitt Romney Paul Ryan era ultimately. So
Speaker 1: that's why the critique on Social Security in Medicare is
Speaker 1: really fascinating one because this is becoming a very clear
Speaker 1: and salient dividing line within the Republican Party. And my god,
Speaker 1: I mean literally ever since Social Security was passed, Conservatives
Speaker 1: have been trying to roll it back. And of course
Speaker 1: we've seen various efforts, I mean George W. Bush trying
Speaker 1: to privatize we saw Paul Ryd and Romney and Democrats
Speaker 1: have been complicit in this at many times as well.
Speaker 1: I mean during the Obama Biden administration, they actually accepted
Speaker 1: the deal that also would have cut Social Security. The
Speaker 1: Tea Party said it didn't go far enough, so it
Speaker 1: didn't ultimately happen. But it's a very new dynamic where
Speaker 1: you have all of the Democrats effectively saying no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we don't want to cut Social Security, and quite a
Speaker 1: number of Republicans saying the same thing as well at
Speaker 1: this point. Oh yeah, absolutely, And just you know, overall,
Speaker 1: I think that it just highighlights the biggest problem for
Speaker 1: all these Republicans. Put this next one on the screen
Speaker 1: from the New York Times. It just talks about all
Speaker 1: of these prospective candidates they're trying to topple Tump and Trump,
Speaker 1: and they could barely utter his name. She doesn't say
Speaker 1: his name one time at all. What's the point the
Speaker 1: pastor that is introducing her, he doesn't say anything about Trump.
Speaker 1: It's all just this vague nonsense like we gotta move on,
Speaker 1: we got to have a regeneration. And you know, also
Speaker 1: she didn't pick seventy five for no reason. You know
Speaker 1: why Trump is seventy six years old as of today.
Speaker 1: So that was like, but they're all subtle digs. People
Speaker 1: don't know. If I hadn't just told you Trump is
Speaker 1: seventy six, I don't think people know what his actual
Speaker 1: age is. But the audience mostly thought she was talking
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden. Yeah, exactly. A reporter Benji Sarlin made
Speaker 1: this point which I thought was intelligent, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: he was recalling back when Mark or Rubio was trying
Speaker 1: out a very similar line of new generation et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and taking these shots that you know, he
Speaker 1: was hoping people would interpret as being about Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: but they didn't interpret them that way. Like, you have
Speaker 1: to come out and say it, right, And if you
Speaker 1: aren't willing to come out and say it and really
Speaker 1: take him head on and layance something, I just don't
Speaker 1: know what you think you're going to ultimately accomplish here.
Speaker 1: And it's not just NICKI Haley. I mean, listen, Ron
Speaker 1: to Santa's isn't in the race yet. But he also
Speaker 1: in his rebuttals to the attacks on Trump, he also
Speaker 1: does a similar dance of just saying, well, look at
Speaker 1: the scoreboard, but not directly taking him on ultimately, and
Speaker 1: you're you're not. Maybe he's going to change once he
Speaker 1: actually gets in the race. Maybe he'll take a more
Speaker 1: direct approach. It's got to be. It's it's entirely necessary
Speaker 1: if you're ultimately going to succeed here. So the fact
Speaker 1: that none of these people can directly confront him, while
Speaker 1: Trump is happy to take them on. He also his
Speaker 1: initial comments about Nikki getting into the race, he was like,
Speaker 1: the more the mary or but he doesn't see her
Speaker 1: as a threat. And immediately he was like, she's pulling
Speaker 1: it one percent. She's got a long way to go.
Speaker 1: Something well, And he's rights and not only that, but
Speaker 1: he's also correct in the analysis that for him, the
Speaker 1: more that get into the race, it definitely ends better
Speaker 1: for him. So he is happy to see Nikki and
Speaker 1: Tim Scott and Christan Nunon, John Bolden and all these
Speaker 1: people lining up. Not to mention, you know, Ron de
Speaker 1: Santis and Mike Pence lining up to jump into the
Speaker 1: race speaking of being vague and potentially running for president,
Speaker 1: former Vice president Mike Pence laying out some also sort
Speaker 1: of like you know, vague buzzworthy consultants speak case for
Speaker 1: himself recently, take a listen to us. What we need
Speaker 1: in this country is a return to common sense of
Speaker 1: common gudness, turn for common good the overwhelming majority of
Speaker 1: and look, this is a big country, so beautifully diverse population.
Speaker 1: I'm a conservative, but I'm not a bad Some of
Speaker 1: my best friends are just as liberal. When you push
Speaker 1: back from the table, there are issues that bring us together.
Speaker 1: This is so vague, the boiler plate, boring, common sense,
Speaker 1: common common good. You know this actually for people who
Speaker 1: are in the know. The whole common good Conservatism was
Speaker 1: like a real Paul Ryan push back to two thousand
Speaker 1: eras Bush conservatism. And it's like, look guy, like how
Speaker 1: many times are we going to learn the same lesson?
Speaker 1: This stuff doesn't work. Like what the base and even
Speaker 1: the country wants has nothing to do with any of
Speaker 1: this think tank vague language. What are you going to
Speaker 1: do for me? What are you actually running on? And
Speaker 1: with Trump, to the extent that he's ever done worst
Speaker 1: in politics, it's always whenever he departs away from that,
Speaker 1: so he is right back to his strong suit attacking
Speaker 1: Republicans on Medicare and social Security. You got a very
Speaker 1: old Republican base who are hardcore with Trump on this,
Speaker 1: and they are not with the donor class. Also, actually,
Speaker 1: I think this is the biggest problem for Haley DeSantis
Speaker 1: and others. The Republican establishment wants them to win specifically
Speaker 1: because they're not Trump, and the people who back them,
Speaker 1: whether they like it or not, are exactly those who
Speaker 1: Trump vanquished in the two sixteen primary. Yes, Paul Singer
Speaker 1: was one of those people, vehemently, staunchly anti Trump all
Speaker 1: the way up until he won the nomination. Ken Griffin
Speaker 1: and many of the other billionaires that have come out
Speaker 1: that are backing that are backing Ron DeSantis are similar.
Speaker 1: I saw yesterday Bill Ackman actually endorse Vivike Ramaswami. He
Speaker 1: was like, I think Vivike is going to win out people.
Speaker 1: Vivike is a guy. He wrote the Woke Ink book.
Speaker 1: We've had him here on the show. He's been on
Speaker 1: the Realignment as well, if you want to go listen
Speaker 1: to those interviews. He apparently is thinking about running for president.
Speaker 1: But Bill Ackman is also you know, he's one of
Speaker 1: those where you might remember him for trying to crash
Speaker 1: the market during COVID and making a killing whenever he
Speaker 1: was shorting it. That's what I remember him for Private
Speaker 1: equity guy, you know, one of those Mitt Romney type Republicans.
Speaker 1: Any the more posturing that these people make, they're the
Speaker 1: ones who the voters hate. So like anytime you're backing
Speaker 1: up again, you're backing up behind them, You're actually having
Speaker 1: the opposite intended effect. It's just one of those where
Speaker 1: all their money is going to come and all of
Speaker 1: their support is going to come from fundamentally a more
Speaker 1: establishment coalition. The only one with a chance possibly of
Speaker 1: doing that is Ron de Santas. He still has a very,
Speaker 1: very tough line to walk in all of that, and
Speaker 1: the only chance he really has is if he's the
Speaker 1: only one in the race. And what you're seeing from
Speaker 1: the Tim Scott's and the Nicky Haleys and now Mike
Speaker 1: Pence is and all those is the anti Trump vote
Speaker 1: is going to be totally split, and Trump is going
Speaker 1: to use that completely to his advantage. It's the narcissism
Speaker 1: of these Republican politicians and of the establishment which will
Speaker 1: ultimately bring them down in this Yes, indeed, here's the
Speaker 1: latest to say you have a sense primary tracker for
Speaker 1: morning consult I always have to say the poles have
Speaker 1: been all over the map. So I mean, always take
Speaker 1: polining with a grain AsSalt, take it with like a
Speaker 1: lot of skepticism, because there are continuing polls that show
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis in a stronger position, and some that even
Speaker 1: show him beating Donald Trump right now. But here's Morning
Speaker 1: Consult has Trump at forty seven, Ron DeSantis at thirty one,
Speaker 1: Mike Pence at seven, Nicki Haley down at three percent,
Speaker 1: along with Liz Cheney and Ted Cruz. So and you know,
Speaker 1: when you look at the Morning Consult, they always do
Speaker 1: these trackers that are like every week they check in,
Speaker 1: and it's been pretty stable in terms of their polling.
Speaker 1: It's been basically everybody's been clustered around these same percentages
Speaker 1: the entirety of the time that they have been polling.
Speaker 1: So that's where things stand. I just thought it was
Speaker 1: remarkable in particular. I mean, number one, we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about this a little bit more later, but I
Speaker 1: also got to say, like the identity politics from Nikki
Speaker 1: Haley leaning into the bio and being a brown girl
Speaker 1: in Bamberg, South Carolina or whatever. And she even then
Speaker 1: right after she laid out one of those lines, she
Speaker 1: immediately was like, I don't believe in identity politics, Like, girl,
Speaker 1: what are you doing right now? Yeah? Exactly, just be
Speaker 1: why would't you just be a good governor for South Carolina?
Speaker 1: And yeah, look, once again you can lean into your bio.
Speaker 1: I'm also proud of being a child of Indian immigrants.
Speaker 1: I think that's fine, you know, But the trying to
Speaker 1: like cast it as part of this and then also
Speaker 1: rejecting like some of the tenets of leftism which are
Speaker 1: clearly utilizing in your own camp pain and will show
Speaker 1: you some of her merch, that is what's cringe to me,
Speaker 1: Like either do it or don't? Right, you are trying
Speaker 1: to have it both ways, and you know, broadly, part
Speaker 1: of the reason why, part of the reason why I
Speaker 1: hate it is there's nothing underneath that. It's like, okay,
Speaker 1: what else you know? I remember this all has happened
Speaker 1: during the Kamala thing in the Indian community, people were like,
Speaker 1: we got to support Kamala because Indiana. I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 1: what does she think though, Like what does she actually believe?
Speaker 1: You know? In India, Trump is more popular than Kamala,
Speaker 1: you know why because they don't care about her background.
Speaker 1: The other thing with Nikki Haley doing this is like,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think she has an awareness that this
Speaker 1: only gets her so far with the Republican base, but
Speaker 1: her whole she has no policy plan that's different or
Speaker 1: that she wants to lean into. So even the new
Speaker 1: Generation stuff is really identity based. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: literally about what, like what year you were born in.
Speaker 1: So her whole pitch is bioh is like based in
Speaker 1: her bio rather than any sort of specifig policy plan.
Speaker 1: And listen, I just don't think that that it sells
Speaker 1: with the Republican base, with the Democratic base, with the
Speaker 1: American people. You can ask Kamala Harris how well it
Speaker 1: worked out for her in the Democratic partright. Ultimately, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think that's the way it should be, yes,
Speaker 1: O Greed. Let's move on to UFO's interesting developments there.
Speaker 1: So President Biden actually broke this morning. Is scheduled at
Speaker 1: least at some point today to bring us an address
Speaker 1: on what's going on with the UFOs, specifically most likely
Speaker 1: around their version of the Chinese version of the story.
Speaker 1: But one thing that you should keep in mind is,
Speaker 1: just as we predicted here on our show on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: let's put this up there on the screen. Well, officials
Speaker 1: now say, in all three cases, these debris of these
Speaker 1: down to objects, they're never going to be recovered. The
Speaker 1: White House is trying to quote tamp down on conspiracies.
Speaker 1: They say, if it can't be recovered, it's just going
Speaker 1: to be very difficult to say with great certainty what
Speaker 1: these things actually are. So tamp down the conspiracy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that'll certainly tamp down the conspiracy. I mean, here's the thing.
Speaker 1: They've now had days in every single one of these
Speaker 1: instances I've checked in the weather conditions have been in
Speaker 1: the Yukon and in Alaska Lake Huron. So as we
Speaker 1: told you previously, first it was choppy water. Okay, that
Speaker 1: lasts for a day, all right, So what about the
Speaker 1: next day, Well, now it's too deep. I went ahead
Speaker 1: and checked. The maximum depth of Lake Huron is seven
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty four feet. That is actually quite deep. However,
Speaker 1: we have had multiple instances in our history where we
Speaker 1: have gotten stuff from far deeper. The US Navy specifically,
Speaker 1: there's actually a military base on lake here or very
Speaker 1: nearby with some capabilities. We know that the US Navy
Speaker 1: has all of these different assets that they can fly
Speaker 1: and bring from across the board, or at the very least, like,
Speaker 1: why don't you tell people we have the equipment, we
Speaker 1: have a concerted effort, it'll be up in two months
Speaker 1: something like that. They're not even coming out and saying that.
Speaker 1: They're just like, yeah, debris recovery operations are ongoing and continue.
Speaker 1: And remember, to date, we've had no images. We've had
Speaker 1: no photos. Now, look, we can wait and see for
Speaker 1: what the President says. Some pilot audio actually came out
Speaker 1: from the F sixteen. One of the things that really
Speaker 1: comes out from the pilots is they're like, we have
Speaker 1: no idea what that is. Like, I don't know what
Speaker 1: it is. I think I see some string. No, I
Speaker 1: don't see any string. I don't know how it's staying aloft.
Speaker 1: It's really small. They actually said it was, since it
Speaker 1: was moving and staying aloft at forty thousand feet and
Speaker 1: they were moving at such a high rate to speed
Speaker 1: they had difficulty even keeping a visual on it. We
Speaker 1: know that the missile actually missed over lake here on
Speaker 1: It required two missiles which actually get a target lock
Speaker 1: on them, indicating and possibly maybe have had some heat signature.
Speaker 1: And you know, look, I want to say again, it
Speaker 1: probably is a balloon. It probably is, but it's one
Speaker 1: of those where they have got to at least assure
Speaker 1: and tell the public about what's going on. And we know,
Speaker 1: we know, but all the way from over twenty years.
Speaker 1: Now that you have internal video that can be released
Speaker 1: as have been released with the UFO videos. One of
Speaker 1: the things that struck me the most where some of
Speaker 1: the comments from senators after the classified briefing, where they
Speaker 1: were honestly outraged with the Biden administration. This was bipartisan. Actually,
Speaker 1: they were like, this has been going on for years.
Speaker 1: They didn't tell us anything, We have no idea, and
Speaker 1: we have got to answer more questions about what's going on.
Speaker 1: Senator John Kennedy and others reacted immediately on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: Here's what they had to say. I just know that
Speaker 1: going into the last two hearings, I had the impression
Speaker 1: that this was something that had happened over the last
Speaker 1: two weeks, and that's not accurate. This has been going
Speaker 1: on a long time. Now that this cow was out
Speaker 1: of the barn, the President and the Director of National
Speaker 1: Intelligence needs to address it. They need to explain to
Speaker 1: the American people if they know and I'm not sure
Speaker 1: they know. If they know, they're not telling us what
Speaker 1: these things are, who put them up there? And do
Speaker 1: they pose a threat to the American people? And the
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence coordinates all that, she is a
Speaker 1: cabinet level officer. She needs to come brief the United
Speaker 1: States Congress, and then she and President Biden need to
Speaker 1: talk straight to the American people. Would answer just answered
Speaker 1: bation questions. A lot of frustration on Capitol Hill, Senator
Speaker 1: Tom Cotton saying the same thing, Senator Dick Durbin, many
Speaker 1: of these people saying the saying they're like, hey, look,
Speaker 1: we didn't learn anything. Tom Cotton was like, I learned
Speaker 1: more from reading the news than I did from the
Speaker 1: classified briefing. And I just want to say again, if
Speaker 1: they thought it was really a balloon, they would have
Speaker 1: said so. If they had any confidence that it was
Speaker 1: something that they could identify positively, they would have told Congress,
Speaker 1: what do you also learn from that? Especially from Senator
Speaker 1: Kennedy's comments, this has been going on for a long time.
Speaker 1: It's exactly what we've been saying here for years now
Speaker 1: in the discussion of this topic, and the revelations are
Speaker 1: really is that whenever you uncalibrate the radar from where
Speaker 1: it previously was, it turns out you're going to find
Speaker 1: all sorts of things that are flying up in your airsprace, Crystal,
Speaker 1: you had that idea that maybe they're just going to
Speaker 1: recalibrate back. I would not put it pass them. They're like,
Speaker 1: we don't want to deal with this, we don't want
Speaker 1: to look at it. So maybe they already did that,
Speaker 1: like liveen ignorance was blissless, just go back to that regime.
Speaker 1: I think that's very likely, yeah, I mean, and also
Speaker 1: in terms of stuff coming out on the Chinese balloon,
Speaker 1: currently Intelligence says that we actually watched the balloon take
Speaker 1: off from Hainan Island. The Chinese are saying, apparently with
Speaker 1: some earnestness, trying to tamp down the tensions, they're like, look,
Speaker 1: we only meant for it to fly over Hawaii, and
Speaker 1: like we didn't mean for it to drift well up here.
Speaker 1: I mean, according to the reporting, the US is actually
Speaker 1: actually kind of buying Yeah, they're like that that's the case,
Speaker 1: because yeah, they watched it take I guess there were
Speaker 1: unusual weather patterns and there were actually some indication that
Speaker 1: after it was spotted in Wantana or whatever the Chinese
Speaker 1: were actually trying to bring back anyway, I don't know.
Speaker 1: But the other piece that was interesting to me, I
Speaker 1: think it was in that same article that's in the
Speaker 1: New York Times about the Chinese by balloon they're getting
Speaker 1: from their administration sources that oh, we think that these
Speaker 1: other balloons were probably like weather balloons that were defunct
Speaker 1: and it was basically just like air debris or trash.
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Like, yeah, well, I mean, first
Speaker 1: of all, we need proof. Yeah, I mean that's number one,
Speaker 1: washesn't fly around the static and forty thousand feet for
Speaker 1: hours on end. Well, and also, you use two hell
Speaker 1: fire missiles to take down a frickin' dead weather balloon. Really, really,
Speaker 1: And as we have pointed out already, the fact that
Speaker 1: they are unwilling to say like, oh, it was a balloon,
Speaker 1: that one dude was like, there's a reason I'm saying
Speaker 1: it's an object not a balloon. Again, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of reason to be skeptical about any of these claims,
Speaker 1: but it's revealing the things that they leak to the Times.
Speaker 1: They can't say it outright because they have no proof,
Speaker 1: but they can suggest on background like, oh, this is
Speaker 1: what we really think it is. Judging by the reactions
Speaker 1: of members who came out of that briefing, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: put too much stock in that particular explanation. And Sener
Speaker 1: Kennedy made this very eerie comment, very cryptic comment. He
Speaker 1: was like, all I'm going to say is lock your
Speaker 1: doors tonight. Yeah, exactly, And look what from what I've tried.
Speaker 1: I've talked my people on Capitol Hill. Senator Rubio, Senator
Speaker 1: Jillibrand both have been warriors on this issue, and they
Speaker 1: are the ones who are the most read in They
Speaker 1: genuinely seem afraid of the fact that we don't know
Speaker 1: what's going on. They've pushed for transparency now for two years.
Speaker 1: At every single time, the Pentagon, the DNI, the Director
Speaker 1: of National Intelligence that he mentioned there have obfuscated and
Speaker 1: withheld evidence from them. We also from Director Ratcliffe, former
Speaker 1: director under Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo. Many of them do
Speaker 1: not report having seen any of the major intelligence. This
Speaker 1: is one of those where I really believe it is
Speaker 1: such highly special, compartmentalized information that they are willing in
Speaker 1: some ways to keep it away from leadership. And from
Speaker 1: the elected officials told us before. John Podesta, who is
Speaker 1: the White House Chief of staff, he's actually a big
Speaker 1: UFO guy. He tried to get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: this whenever he was the White House Chief of staff
Speaker 1: to Bill Clinton, and they basically were like, go away,
Speaker 1: we're not telling you anything. President Clinton is on video.
Speaker 1: You can actually go watch the clip if you're interested.
Speaker 1: Where he's like, I'm embarrassed to admit I tried to
Speaker 1: find out and they wouldn't really tell me. And so, hey,
Speaker 1: who's the commander in chief. In the nineties, things have
Speaker 1: changed somewhat in terms of some of the transparency pushes
Speaker 1: and all of that. And by the way, some indication
Speaker 1: that our show has made some difference, at least in
Speaker 1: the Pentagon. They're getting a little riled up over Jeremy
Speaker 1: Corbel's comments by specifically calling people out here on our show.
Speaker 1: So that's good. We're making a bit of a tent.
Speaker 1: I think that's great. And the point is that we
Speaker 1: have to continue to push, push and push. At the
Speaker 1: end of the day, all we really do have control
Speaker 1: over is public pressure, not just on the executive but
Speaker 1: on Congress, and Congress is pissed I really think they
Speaker 1: should be final thing. Let's put this up there. As
Speaker 1: we alluded to, the President is weighing the possibility of
Speaker 1: a Biden address on UFOs. It looks like it'll come
Speaker 1: at some time today. I don't think it's going to
Speaker 1: be a primetime address, like a nine PM type thing.
Speaker 1: Maybe he'll give a press conference, or maybe he'll just
Speaker 1: do a drop by in the White House Press briefing room.
Speaker 1: We still are awaiting whatever those details are. If they
Speaker 1: break at some point to the day, we'll try and
Speaker 1: get you some coverage on that. But that's for things
Speaker 1: stand right now. And an attempt to quote unquote tamp
Speaker 1: down conspiracy therees. You know what you could do on
Speaker 1: that regard, get the friggin debris removal going, show us
Speaker 1: what it is, give us some proof. Even then, people
Speaker 1: are going to be skeptical because they just don't trust
Speaker 1: you because of all the lives that have been told.
Speaker 1: But that would at least be some move in the
Speaker 1: right direction. Absolutely, all right, we have some significant updates
Speaker 1: for you out of Ohio with regards to that horrific
Speaker 1: train derailment that, in the words of one has Matt Expert,
Speaker 1: basically nuked an entire town with chemicals. Let's go and
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. Ohio officials are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: the air quality is fine, but don't drink the water.
Speaker 1: Ohio Department of Health Director doctor Bruce Vanderhoff said air
Speaker 1: quality testing shows it is the same as it was before,
Speaker 1: but Tiffany Cadillac, who is Chief of Division of Surface
Speaker 1: Water for the Ohio EPA, said they are watching the
Speaker 1: cloud and how it could affect water systems. Quote, we
Speaker 1: know there is a plume moving down the Ohio River.
Speaker 1: She said that water systems are being shut down as
Speaker 1: that plume goes over an area, and testing is taking
Speaker 1: place to make sure the water is safe. Residents of
Speaker 1: East Palestine are being advised to drink bottled water for now.
Speaker 1: Vanderhoff said water for the municipal system appears to be fine,
Speaker 1: but more extensive testing is ongoing. He said people with
Speaker 1: private wells should get them tested. Remediation work continues, and
Speaker 1: as a reminder something we showed you some of the
Speaker 1: dead fish from a local person who record a video
Speaker 1: for TikTok. There have been reports of dead animals being
Speaker 1: found all around the East Palestine area. The Ohio Department
Speaker 1: of natural Resources. The official source says that thirty five
Speaker 1: hundred fish from twelve different species have been discovered dead.
Speaker 1: We showed you before. Our partners over at status qu
Speaker 1: interviewed a foxkeeper. One of his foxes died, others of
Speaker 1: them were seriously ill. People are still reporting that they
Speaker 1: are nauseous, that they're getting headaches, that you can still
Speaker 1: smell the chemicals in the air. So a lot a
Speaker 1: lot of skepticism about exactly what is going on there
Speaker 1: and how safe it is and what the most critically,
Speaker 1: what the long term health impacts could ultimately be. Status
Speaker 1: qu Jordan Sheridan interviewed Aaron Brockovich, of course noted, noted
Speaker 1: expert and crusader for safe water, safe and safe air.
Speaker 1: She talked about how this could be a cover up unfolding.
Speaker 1: Take a listen, This is definitely not your first rodeo,
Speaker 1: not my first rodeo. EPA testing is all often, if
Speaker 1: you want to give it the benefit of doubt, flawed
Speaker 1: or not totally thorough. Do you trust? I mean, maybe
Speaker 1: they're not detecting it now, but what do you think
Speaker 1: of their claims that they're not detecting it? I don't
Speaker 1: trust in all fairness, it is going to take some
Speaker 1: time to do all of this testing. Now, some of
Speaker 1: the reports I read that the EPA initiated, yes initiated yesterday,
Speaker 1: they're almost talking out of two sides of their mouth
Speaker 1: because they state it's a known toxic substance, final chloride,
Speaker 1: and it's known and continues to be known that it's
Speaker 1: leaking into the water, into the air, and into the soil. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we have that side of their story. But then
Speaker 1: over here they go, well, we tested the homes I've
Speaker 1: read where they didn't find any detection limit within the
Speaker 1: limits that they're supposed to be looking for. Well, that
Speaker 1: says to me, that doesn't mean you didn't find it.
Speaker 1: And but that's safe to go back, which is it?
Speaker 1: Do you really have enough information to call all clear?
Speaker 1: Is anyone from those agencies going and collecting the dead animals?
Speaker 1: So there's just seems to be a big gap. Lack
Speaker 1: of transparency smells I could cover up what the hell's
Speaker 1: going on? And if you don't know what the hell
Speaker 1: is going on, I think you need to tell the community.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what the hell is going on. She's right, Yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 1: big gaps, lack of transparency. Sure smells like a cover up.
Speaker 1: And you know, this would be far from the first
Speaker 1: time that government officials and in cahoots with industry basically
Speaker 1: lie to people about what they know and their confidence
Speaker 1: that these people will be safe if they, you know,
Speaker 1: come back to their home, breathe the air, and ultimately
Speaker 1: try to drink the water. My personal favorite friends at
Speaker 1: the Lever, let's put this up there on the screen,
Speaker 1: Buddha j Edge now claiming, actually, I am completely powerless
Speaker 1: to reduce derailmentt risks. Well, why exactly are you in
Speaker 1: this job? But the funny thing is they point out
Speaker 1: it's just literally completely not true. As they point to
Speaker 1: the Transportation Administration actually has a tremendous amount of regulatory
Speaker 1: regulatory authority over cost benefit analysis on the Brake rules.
Speaker 1: Before enacting it, they require executive branch overview and insight.
Speaker 1: This is the case with the FAA, this is the
Speaker 1: case now with trains, and the Transportation Department told the
Speaker 1: Lever quote they would use all relevant authorities to ensure
Speaker 1: accountability and improve safety safety once the investigation into the
Speaker 1: cause of the derailment is done. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: just completely and totally just putting passing the buck to
Speaker 1: trying to obfuscate yourself from responsibility. Joe Rogan even brought
Speaker 1: this up yesterday on his podcast. He's like, this guy's
Speaker 1: out there talking about diversity in the workplace expectation while
Speaker 1: you have a whole poison environmental disaster that's happening here,
Speaker 1: and you know, the EPA, as far as I understand it,
Speaker 1: they haven't even been taking regular readings of air and
Speaker 1: of water. I mean, look, I'm just going to be
Speaker 1: inclined to believe the residents here over whatever the bs
Speaker 1: that the company and the regulatory authorities have been putting out.
Speaker 1: You you brought up that TikToker yesterday. I watched that
Speaker 1: full video and he's like, this is what always happens.
Speaker 1: A government just parrots the company line because they don't
Speaker 1: know anything. That's another problem too, like our capacity for
Speaker 1: dealing with these disasters is actually not high. We just
Speaker 1: rely on the company paid experts and like, all right,
Speaker 1: issue the press release, everybody, just move on. Well, I
Speaker 1: don't think we should move on, not yet. Yes, that
Speaker 1: is exactly right, and we are definitely not going to
Speaker 1: move on. And I'm going to talk about this more
Speaker 1: in my monologue, massive, massive media failures on covering this
Speaker 1: story and talking about how we got to this place.
Speaker 1: So to the extent that it's been covered at all,
Speaker 1: it's covered as this sort of like act of God
Speaker 1: in evitable, couldn't have been prevented tragedy, rather than hey, actually,
Speaker 1: industry corruption in the Obama administration, in the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: and now in the Biden administration. They're the ones that's
Speaker 1: stripped down the safety regulations and the guidelines. They're the
Speaker 1: reason why this train, which was packed full of chemicals
Speaker 1: so toxic and explosive that they literally had to do
Speaker 1: this quote unquote controlled release to avoid the whole thing
Speaker 1: blowing up like a literal bomb. This train was not
Speaker 1: classified as being highly flammable. Think about that. Think about that.
Speaker 1: That is all because of industry corruption. So this wasn't
Speaker 1: out of nowhere. This wasn't like, oh my god, we
Speaker 1: couldn't prevent it, or oh my god, you know, there
Speaker 1: was nothing we could do so to mitigate the impacts here.
Speaker 1: This is a specific story of corporate corruption over years
Speaker 1: and years and years. The media has completely failed to
Speaker 1: tell that story, and so it makes it easy for
Speaker 1: people like Pete Boodhaji to you know, do his like
Speaker 1: feigned helplessness dance, which is a Democrats tend to be
Speaker 1: really great at how we'd love to do as we
Speaker 1: just can't. We're constrained the parliamentarian, the rules, the NTSB whatever.
Speaker 1: They always come up with a freaking excuse. And because
Speaker 1: the media hasn't explained the story to people and the
Speaker 1: specific actions that led us to this place, it lets
Speaker 1: characters like Pete Bootagete get off the hook for not
Speaker 1: doing the very basics of his job. There is another
Speaker 1: very specific outrage here Norfolk Southern, which has given their
Speaker 1: executives millions of bonuses. They've done massive amounts of stock buybacks.
Speaker 1: Who are where their shareholders rather than investing in real
Speaker 1: safety or investing in their workforce. Those are the things
Speaker 1: that they have decided to do and those actions directly
Speaker 1: led and contributed to this derailment. Well, last night they
Speaker 1: were supposed to show up at a town hall to
Speaker 1: answer some questions that local citizens had for them, and
Speaker 1: guess what, they back down like the cowards that they are,
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. This is so outrageous.
Speaker 1: The tweet here says, just invite email Norfolk Southern says
Speaker 1: they will not attend tonight's town hall in East Palestine
Speaker 1: because they are quote increasingly concerned about the growing physical
Speaker 1: threat to their employees. What about the threat to the
Speaker 1: locals in that county? And many people also pointed out, Oh, really,
Speaker 1: you're so afraid for your safety, that's the real reason.
Speaker 1: Zoom is a thing that exists. If you really wanted
Speaker 1: to give your side of the story and feel these
Speaker 1: questions in the interest of public transparency, there were methods
Speaker 1: to do this if you were really so fearful about
Speaker 1: your safety, but of course has nothing to do with that.
Speaker 1: And also to try to paint these local citizens who
Speaker 1: are rightfully enraged, in a negative light is absolutely enraging
Speaker 1: and outrageous. Two things that came out of that town
Speaker 1: hall just last night. Number one, actually the railroad company
Speaker 1: put gravel over contaminated soil, actually being forced to remove
Speaker 1: it by the FDA. They're calling that the cover up.
Speaker 1: The second was a resident actually asked the mayor of
Speaker 1: East Palestine and said, where's Pete boudageed, and the mayor says,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Your guest is as good as mine.
Speaker 1: Yesterday was the first time I heard anything from the
Speaker 1: White House. So as the February fifteenth, the Mayor of
Speaker 1: East Palestine was not contacted by the White House and
Speaker 1: by at least the President's office, presumably not even President
Speaker 1: Biden himself. That's almost what a full week after the
Speaker 1: trained de room and after the controlled release and all
Speaker 1: of this. I mean, that is a this is a
Speaker 1: total abdication of responsibility here. And you've even got what
Speaker 1: the Governor of Pennsylvania issuing questions and letters like. You've
Speaker 1: got state officials here who are more invested in doing
Speaker 1: a better job than are higher authorities who are literally
Speaker 1: tasked with making sure this stuff doesn't happen. I mean,
Speaker 1: part of why this has been ignored by a lot
Speaker 1: of relevant national officials, you know, the Biden miministration. Obviously
Speaker 1: they've been asleep at the switch. Both of the senators
Speaker 1: from the state, SCHERA. Brown and JD. Vance, totally late
Speaker 1: to the party. JD didn't issue a statement until nine
Speaker 1: days later, even though I mean, this is the region
Speaker 1: of the state that he's sort of most passionate about.
Speaker 1: This is technically Appalachia in Ohio. And it's because this
Speaker 1: story implicates everybody. It's not an easy partisan narrative, and
Speaker 1: the Democrats in particular are really embarrassed right now, or
Speaker 1: they should be really embarrassed right now, because they're involved
Speaker 1: in crushing this potential rail strike, which is all about
Speaker 1: you know, the rail workers and their union representatives have
Speaker 1: been warning about safety, about rail safety, about if you
Speaker 1: keep putting profits over people, we are going to have
Speaker 1: more accidents. And lo and behold, we've had multiple, multiple derailments,
Speaker 1: including this absolute catastrophe. So it's it's very uncomfortable for them,
Speaker 1: I guess because of their own nefarious actions and their
Speaker 1: own roles in creating this problem. Ultimately, Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. All right, let's move on now to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: A very interesting piece in the Washington Post, not necessarily
Speaker 1: the reporting itself, but more about what it signifies and
Speaker 1: what the people who are leaking to them have revealed
Speaker 1: at least about US policy. So let's put this up
Speaker 1: there on the screen. Here's what they say. Quote US
Speaker 1: warns Ukraine it faces a pivotal moment in the war. Now,
Speaker 1: the reason why this matters are a bunch of background
Speaker 1: quotes from the senior administration officials. They say, despite promises
Speaker 1: to back Ukraine as long as it takes. Biden officials
Speaker 1: say recent aid packages from Congress represent Kiev's best chance
Speaker 1: to decisively change the course of the war, and they
Speaker 1: pointed specifically to Republican efforts to not support any new
Speaker 1: aid to Ukraine. So the second thing that I found
Speaker 1: fascinating was this senior administration said, the Biden administration will
Speaker 1: continue to request as much funding as it believes, but
Speaker 1: there's no guarantees that Congress will actually do it. Now.
Speaker 1: They say that the war in recent months has become
Speaker 1: a slow grind, with neither side gaining the upper hand.
Speaker 1: Biden officials believe the critical juncture will come this spring,
Speaker 1: when Russia's expected to launch its defensive and more broadly,
Speaker 1: I think the real headline out of it is they
Speaker 1: were basically like, it's now or never. We're probably not
Speaker 1: going to be able to provide you any more weapons
Speaker 1: or support after this year, and after this point you're
Speaker 1: gonna have to go to negotiating table what they point to.
Speaker 1: And actually there was a couple of things here which
Speaker 1: really made me raise my eyebrows. Number one, Crystal was
Speaker 1: this line, so everyone should remember that we have given
Speaker 1: a hundred or appropriate one hundred billion to Ukraine. I
Speaker 1: believe we have sixty billion left now currently on the
Speaker 1: pace that Ukraine is using ammunition. They warn that Ukraine
Speaker 1: will exhaust the current congressional package as early as this summer.
Speaker 1: So they're going to roll through sixty billion in AMMO
Speaker 1: and in weapons and in support in literally a matter
Speaker 1: of months. Just showing you how much AMMO that they
Speaker 1: are consuming over there in Ukraine. Number two was actually
Speaker 1: this Zelenski is making some moves which are really rubbing
Speaker 1: the White House the wrong way. So specifically in regards
Speaker 1: to the defending the town of bak Moot, which we've
Speaker 1: talked here, they just evacuated all those AID workers. Here's
Speaker 1: what they say. Ukraine has expended significant resources and troops
Speaker 1: defending Bakmok. American military analysts have argued it is unrealistic
Speaker 1: to simultaneously defend bak Moot and launch a spring counter
Speaker 1: offensive to retake what the US views as more critical territory. Zelenski, however,
Speaker 1: attaches the symbolic importance to bak Moot and believes that
Speaker 1: it would be a blow to morale to lose the city.
Speaker 1: He said his country's forces would fight as long as
Speaker 1: we can. However, what they point to is that Zelenski,
Speaker 1: while he may know best to rally his country, have
Speaker 1: expressed concern that if they keep fighting everywhere that Russia
Speaker 1: sends troops, it will only work to Moscow's advantage. Why
Speaker 1: because Moscow has tremendous amount more material. They also say,
Speaker 1: according to them, they have an initial force. Russia had
Speaker 1: one hundred fifty thousand troops. Right now they have three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand. Now you have hundreds of thousands more assembled
Speaker 1: in the draft they're about to come there. They are
Speaker 1: going to outnumber Ukrainian forces significantly. Now, Ukraine's gonna be
Speaker 1: on the defensive, and a defensive warrior is always going
Speaker 1: to have You're going to need less necessarily, However, it
Speaker 1: will change if you're doing an offensive. But what they
Speaker 1: say is that Zelenski is expending a quote extraordinary amount
Speaker 1: of blood and treasure for the city of back Mood,
Speaker 1: which has no strategic value, and that instead what he
Speaker 1: should have been doing was basically holding back getting some
Speaker 1: of these weapons, conserving ammunition. One of the things that
Speaker 1: it kind of pointed to me is Zelenski is actually
Speaker 1: in much more of a desperate gamble than people may think.
Speaker 1: He's trying to hold together the actual population of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: And also part of the reason why he's on this
Speaker 1: whole push for more is they can redo math and
Speaker 1: how much they're expending AMMO. Right today, Kamala Harris just
Speaker 1: landed in Munich. The NATO Secretary General. Over the last
Speaker 1: couple of days has been making pleas from all over Needo.
Speaker 1: He's like, look, Ukraine needs a hell of a lot
Speaker 1: of AMMO. I mean, if you're rolling through sixty billion
Speaker 1: dollars of weapons in literally four months and there's still
Speaker 1: not even an actual Russian offensive that's happening right now,
Speaker 1: I don't really know what to say in terms of
Speaker 1: sustainability of this conflict because they ain't got no industrial base,
Speaker 1: they got no ammunition or whatever of their own, Like
Speaker 1: it is completely based on our support, and Russia still
Speaker 1: has the capability to ramp up and if they want to.
Speaker 1: Rumors right if they want to. There have been rumors
Speaker 1: of another draft just in terms of just sheer manpower.
Speaker 1: These be inexperienced recruits basically sent you know, like like
Speaker 1: grist to the millstone or whatever that's saying is. But
Speaker 1: they do have that capability. And the piece that really
Speaker 1: stood out to me in that Washington Post article is
Speaker 1: we talked to you before about how Rand Corporation, which
Speaker 1: is mostly funded by the Pentagon, put out this long
Speaker 1: assessment saying, look, we are not headed to an outright
Speaker 1: victory for Ukraine, we are not headed to an outright
Speaker 1: victory for Russia. We're headed to a stalemate. And the
Speaker 1: best thing we could do is try to avoid a
Speaker 1: really law It's already a long war. Try to avoid
Speaker 1: a really long war, because the cost of this thing
Speaker 1: are a disaster. The costs in terms of the obvious
Speaker 1: risk of escalation, the obvious risks of potential Russian nuclear usage,
Speaker 1: but also in terms of Ukrainian civilian casualties, Ukrainian economic devastation,
Speaker 1: world hunger and poverty increasing because of increased food and
Speaker 1: fuel prices. These costs, they say, are are far too
Speaker 1: great for too little gain, given that what we're headed
Speaker 1: to as the stalemate. So we told you about that. Well,
Speaker 1: in this report they talk about how US intelligence officials
Speaker 1: have concluded something similar quote. They have concluded that retaking
Speaker 1: the heavily fortified Crimean peninsula is beyond the capability of
Speaker 1: Ukraine's army right now, That sobering assessment has been reiterated
Speaker 1: tom multiple committees on Capitol Hill over the last several weeks.
Speaker 1: So that again underscores this idea that Zelensky has put out,
Speaker 1: and plenty of administration and congressional leaders have fact that
Speaker 1: we're going to have complete victory, We're going to push
Speaker 1: Russians out of Crimea. That is a fantasy. They say
Speaker 1: that discrepancy between abes and capabilities has raised concerns in
Speaker 1: Europe that the Ukraine conflict will persist indefinitely, overburning the
Speaker 1: West as it grapples with other challenges including high inflation
Speaker 1: and unstable energy prices. And against that background, here's the
Speaker 1: money quote. Biden's aids say they are pursuing the best
Speaker 1: course of action, empowering Ukraine to retake as much territory
Speaker 1: as possible in coming months before sitting down with Putin
Speaker 1: at the negotiating table. Now, is this really what they
Speaker 1: think and is this really a strategy that they will
Speaker 1: stick to if we get down the road and Ukraine
Speaker 1: does well and consolidates their position or takes back a
Speaker 1: little bit more ground, are we going to be Are
Speaker 1: we then going to say, all right, now is the
Speaker 1: time to negotiate, or we go and feed ourselves. This
Speaker 1: lie that we fed ourselves before Ukraine can win. We
Speaker 1: got to keep pushing, we got to keep fueling it.
Speaker 1: We got to keep sending them, shipping them arms, an
Speaker 1: increased the amount of military aid that we are getting them,
Speaker 1: because so far in this conflict, all roads have led
Speaker 1: to that same conclusion. If Ukraine's on the back foot
Speaker 1: and they're not doing well, we got to help them.
Speaker 1: We got to strengthen their negotiating hand. And if they're
Speaker 1: doing well, oh they can win. They can have complete
Speaker 1: and outright victory. So I hope that this report is accurate,
Speaker 1: that this is actually what they're thinking, But I remain
Speaker 1: skeptical until I actually see any sort of push for diplomacy,
Speaker 1: keeping in mind that it was the US that nuked
Speaker 1: an early potential piece deal in the first weeks of
Speaker 1: this war. I don't actually believe it. I think this
Speaker 1: is meant more pacified domestic political forces that are against it.
Speaker 1: I am completely of the same belief. If they have
Speaker 1: even a modest success, there's no way in hell even
Speaker 1: the Republicans will stop the arms. Look, I hope so,
Speaker 1: but we'll see. The second thing is that let's say
Speaker 1: that they're on the backfoot tremendously, then of course you
Speaker 1: know the same narrative, Oh, we can't let it happen.
Speaker 1: It's like a sunk cost fallacy at this point. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, we've got one hundred billion investors in there.
Speaker 1: The only thing that may actually be the limiting factor
Speaker 1: is literally the sheer amount of ammunition that they require
Speaker 1: and our inability to provide it to them without also
Speaker 1: hurting our own defense stock. The US Navy secretary already
Speaker 1: said that's the case. By the way, if you think
Speaker 1: we might have ammo problems, the Euros have way less
Speaker 1: of stockpiles than we do. They are already also on
Speaker 1: the backfoot, and they might have to cannibalize their own forces.
Speaker 1: They're welcome to do that if they would like to.
Speaker 1: I don't think that they will, so, if anything, it
Speaker 1: may be actual straight up industrial production of economies which
Speaker 1: are not in a total war environment like Ukraine. That
Speaker 1: might be the broader limiting factor on all this. But
Speaker 1: I think you should take Zelenski's recent push abroad as
Speaker 1: evidence that he is seeing the exact same thing, which
Speaker 1: is like we're using a lot of AMMO. By the way,
Speaker 1: included in this Congress is going to appropriate another ten
Speaker 1: billion more likely to balance the budget of Ukraine, which
Speaker 1: I just can't ever particularly get over that one. We're
Speaker 1: going to look got to make sure that their economic
Speaker 1: house is short up, not the IMF or any of
Speaker 1: these others, on top of the one hundred billion that
Speaker 1: we've already appropriated towards them. So it is possible that
Speaker 1: this could be the end, but I am very very
Speaker 1: doubtful of it politically what we alluded to earlier, Let's
Speaker 1: put this up there on the screen. Glenn Greenwald flagging
Speaker 1: this from a new poll of Republican primary voters. Fifty
Speaker 1: percent of voters say they are less likely to support
Speaker 1: a candidate who supports providing military aid to Crane. DeSantis
Speaker 1: has now really said anything about Ukraine. We don't really
Speaker 1: know where he stands. Some of his votes in the
Speaker 1: House were pretty much just typical what a GOP politician
Speaker 1: would say. But Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo have been
Speaker 1: actually criticizing Biden for not sending enough weapons to Ukraine
Speaker 1: or not supporting them enough, and clearly Trump views this
Speaker 1: as a major attack vector. There was a political piece
Speaker 1: from a couple of days ago where Trump believes that
Speaker 1: one of the ways that he could what he can
Speaker 1: divide the Republican primary is he can be the one
Speaker 1: who is anti war. And I've always believed, you know
Speaker 1: that Trump is incredibly good at pointing and finding a
Speaker 1: cleavage and American policy where nobody is willing to say it.
Speaker 1: But at the now Look, we had an argument about
Speaker 1: this with Kyle and Marshall on the other side. They
Speaker 1: were saying, oh, well, actually it's very popular support Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I mean right now we're a fifty to fifty and
Speaker 1: in terms of where the conflict is likely to go,
Speaker 1: you know we're going to ship another ten billion. Well
Speaker 1: that's going to make headlines. Maybe that'll change things if
Speaker 1: it had, depending on how the Ukrainians do, that could
Speaker 1: change things as well. Who know, who the hell knows
Speaker 1: what things are going to look like a year and
Speaker 1: a half from now. So if I was Trump by
Speaker 1: betting man on this position, absolutely clearly is Lena Nintuo.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is one of the first things he
Speaker 1: hit Nikki Haley on. They're signaling they're going to hit
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis over it, as you said, Tager, I don't
Speaker 1: think DeSantis has said a lot with regards to Russia.
Speaker 1: The things he has said have been a quite different
Speaker 1: tone than what Trump has said. I've got a New
Speaker 1: York Times peace on DeSantis's foreign policy approach where they've
Speaker 1: got a few quotes here they say where mister Trump
Speaker 1: responded to the war by calling Russian President of Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin a genius for invading. Mister DeSantis decried the invasion
Speaker 1: as a Russian strategic blunder. Trump long admired Putin as
Speaker 1: powerful and intelligent. DeSantis has dubbed him a quote authoritarian
Speaker 1: gas station attended. Trump notoriously accepted Putin's denial of Russian
Speaker 1: only meddling in the twenty sixteen elefe This from the
Speaker 1: New York Times. Guys, mister Desanta's in twenty thirteen saw
Speaker 1: quote Putin as somebody who's trying to confront the US,
Speaker 1: and last year included Russia on a short list of
Speaker 1: countries with nefarious intentions to engage in espionage or influence
Speaker 1: operations in Florida. So he's taken a sort of in verbally,
Speaker 1: a more traditional Republican approach, like more like the way
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney talked about. But none of those like are
Speaker 1: like we yeah, no, I don't think I'm from you
Speaker 1: know what I've seen. He hasn't said a whole lot
Speaker 1: on it, but clearly Trump thinks that, based on his
Speaker 1: sort of more neocon approach from when he was in
Speaker 1: the House, that this might be a place where he
Speaker 1: can push him. See. This gets back to the discussion
Speaker 1: we had earlier, which is, I think the biggest limiting
Speaker 1: factor for DeSantis on foreign policy is going to be
Speaker 1: the fact that all the billionaires who are not going
Speaker 1: to back Trump are going to be the neocons themselves
Speaker 1: who are there if you think they if you think
Speaker 1: like MSNBC people are cringe on Ukraine, you should meet
Speaker 1: some of these folks. Well, if you've given us a
Speaker 1: good segue here, because we've got a nice little MSNBC
Speaker 1: clip to share with all of you all this morning.
Speaker 1: All right, So, as we discussed earlier, Nikki Haley launched
Speaker 1: her presdential campaign much fanfare, girl Boss, energy, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and it led to an amazing exchange between
Speaker 1: Andrew Mitchell of MSNBC and John Bolton and in which
Speaker 1: is just like every piece of it is in some way,
Speaker 1: So just take a listen. We'll react on the other side.
Speaker 1: Quote Mike Compelle was saying that she is light as
Speaker 1: a feather. Would you be saying that about a man.
Speaker 1: Let's let's compare her with another woman. In the video
Speaker 1: trailer that she put out last week, foreshadowing the announcement
Speaker 1: this week, she opened up with quotations from Jeane Kirkpatrick.
Speaker 1: Now Jeane Kirkpatrick obviously another former u AN ambassador in
Speaker 1: the nineteen eighties. I would say Gene was America's Margaret
Speaker 1: Thatcher and a phenomenal person. So the idea that Nicky
Speaker 1: is trying to associate herself with Jeane Kirkpatrick, I think
Speaker 1: is a little presumptuous. The reason I found this incredible
Speaker 1: is because, Okay, see if John Bolton criticizing Niki Hiley, fine,
Speaker 1: there are many things to criticize her for. We did
Speaker 1: it as well, but he chooses like the worst possible
Speaker 1: angle of being, like she's not enough of a neocon.
Speaker 1: For those of you who don't know Jeane Kirkpatrick, she
Speaker 1: was like the she was in favor of a run contra.
Speaker 1: She was It's like the intellectual author of Reagan era
Speaker 1: foreign policy. Her view. Her view was that we should
Speaker 1: support any authoritarian regime, didn't matter human rights abuses at
Speaker 1: I mean, she laid this out in great intellectual depth
Speaker 1: as long as they were anti communists, so supported all
Speaker 1: sorts of brutal dictators, like I said around Contra, etcetera.
Speaker 1: So he's like, she's not enough like that, which is
Speaker 1: a terrible critique. And then Andrew and Mitchell responds by
Speaker 1: critiquing John Bolton, which again good lots of things to
Speaker 1: critique John Bolton on, but it's from like you're not
Speaker 1: being fair to a woman. So it's worst. That's the
Speaker 1: worst conversation, the worst analysis all the way around. I
Speaker 1: would even say that Jeane Kirkpatrick was at least a
Speaker 1: more talented speaker than Niki Hailey, So I'll say on
Speaker 1: a pure political talent level, I would also level that
Speaker 1: I don't doubt that one thing that we were talking
Speaker 1: previously about was about her leaning into identity politics by
Speaker 1: also to crying identity politics. Just look at some of
Speaker 1: the crap that she's selling on her website. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up there on the screen. Sometimes it takes a
Speaker 1: woman Navy T shirt I mean, sometimes it takes a
Speaker 1: woman bumper sticker with the Nicky Haley logo down at
Speaker 1: the bottom. It's just so boilerplate cringe. I don't again
Speaker 1: really tweet I tweeted this. I'm curious what you think
Speaker 1: I said. You know, which political consultant gave Nicki Haley
Speaker 1: the mistaken impression any of us give a shit about
Speaker 1: her high heels? And you know, somebody replied to me
Speaker 1: and they're like, hey, look, you know forty three percent
Speaker 1: of GOP voters are coming from women, even for Trump.
Speaker 1: So if you figure how to tap into that and
Speaker 1: bring them out in primaries, there's a premium no idea
Speaker 1: if heels does that, but presumably not meant for us.
Speaker 1: But I mean, am I the only person who thinks
Speaker 1: it's actually sexist to say that talking about high heels
Speaker 1: makes you a pro woman candidate or appeal to women.
Speaker 1: Let's look at the data. Fifty three percent of white
Speaker 1: women in twenty sixteen voted for Trump. White women also
Speaker 1: increase their vote margin for Donald Trump in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: You had more Latina and Black women also vote for
Speaker 1: Trump in twenty twenty, despite all of the whatever, you know,
Speaker 1: he's not a feminist all this other stuff. Is there
Speaker 1: any evidence that that's actually what appeals to women at all?
Speaker 1: I mean, like, why is this superficiality of high heels
Speaker 1: and of sometimes it takes women. Think back to Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: I literally just laid out she lost white women and
Speaker 1: she is the person who leaned into glass ceiling. And
Speaker 1: also some where is the evidence that women care at all?
Speaker 1: I mean it's just like, Okay, it's nice you're a woman.
Speaker 1: I got yeah, that's it could be nice to have
Speaker 1: a historic first, but tell me what you're gonna do, lady,
Speaker 1: Like it's not enough. Okay, you have a vagina, congratulations,
Speaker 1: Like what are you actually going to do? And the
Speaker 1: other piece of this is it is such consultant brain
Speaker 1: because you see it too. You see it on the
Speaker 1: Democratic side as well. They just assumed, like Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: is a black woman, so she's going to appealed to
Speaker 1: black women, which again is like both sort of racist
Speaker 1: and sexist essentralized like that that people are just so
Speaker 1: brain dead that they see someone who shares some idea
Speaker 1: unity characteristic and they're going to be like, that's my vote.
Speaker 1: It's listen, there is something to people want to feel
Speaker 1: like you understand their experience, you get where they're coming from.
Speaker 1: That is real. But to just essentialize it like that,
Speaker 1: like the way to appeal to women is to talk
Speaker 1: about how you're a woman. Good luck. That's all I
Speaker 1: have to say. Well, also on the light as a
Speaker 1: feather comment, I mean, what Bolton was saying is that
Speaker 1: she is actually a policy lightweight, which is empirically true.
Speaker 1: One of the stupid things that Trump did was appoint
Speaker 1: her un ambassador when she was formerly the freaking South
Speaker 1: Carolina governor in a non competitive race. Prior to that,
Speaker 1: winning some like state legislation, she had literally had no
Speaker 1: thoughts whatsoever on foreign policy and then gets arguably, you know,
Speaker 1: at least what was once upon a time was an
Speaker 1: important role to the extent that she comported herself. She
Speaker 1: raised her hand one time and took a photo of it.
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, so now you're a Now you're supposed
Speaker 1: to be president of the United States, and listen. She
Speaker 1: could prove us wrong. She could have proved us wrong
Speaker 1: in that interview with Sean Hannity that we showed you,
Speaker 1: or she could have come out with some like, you know,
Speaker 1: deep policy thoughts and knowledge, demonstrated some sort of knowledge, expertise, vision, whatever,
Speaker 1: But instead she just regurgitated this weird cand line about
Speaker 1: I'm not kicking sideways, I'm kicking forward over and over
Speaker 1: and over again. So you know, I'm not mad at
Speaker 1: her about our resume. There's plenty of line items there,
Speaker 1: but you have to demonstrate some sort of political competence,
Speaker 1: some actual vision for the country, and just falling back
Speaker 1: on your age, your gender, your race, that you grew
Speaker 1: up in a small town South Carolina. Good luck, good luck?
Speaker 1: All right, Sager, what are you looking at? Well? I
Speaker 1: know I can rub Boomers the wrong way sometimes when
Speaker 1: I talk about them derisively. I just want you to
Speaker 1: know it's not personal. The ones who watch our show,
Speaker 1: I guess you guys are the good ones. But generationally,
Speaker 1: you need to understand how boomer and silent generation tyranny
Speaker 1: is soul crushing to people who are my age. We
Speaker 1: genuinely cannot believe we have been ruled for our higher
Speaker 1: adult lives by geriatric overlords who not only ruined the
Speaker 1: promise of the country but somehow still remain in power.
Speaker 1: Perhaps no better example of this exists than Dianne Feinstein,
Speaker 1: the eighty nine year old California senator who officially finally
Speaker 1: announced her retirement yesterday. Too little, too late, you asked me,
Speaker 1: she's been verifiably senile for years. Disgracefully, she refused to
Speaker 1: accept her limitations and give up what is actually a
Speaker 1: serious job. Feinstein represents the people of California, a full
Speaker 1: forty million people, the largest in the entire country. California,
Speaker 1: if it was own country, would be the world's fifth
Speaker 1: largest economy, ahead even of France, India, Italy, and Brazil.
Speaker 1: They deserve proper representation instead. Because reporters have been afraid
Speaker 1: to be too polite and are corrupt democratic hierarchy, the
Speaker 1: public has been shielded from just how much Finstein has
Speaker 1: completely lost it, and funnily enough, the full extent of
Speaker 1: how far gone she is was actually put on display
Speaker 1: in her retirement announcement. Why because she literally did not
Speaker 1: know her staff had put out a statement that she
Speaker 1: was retiring. On Capitol Hill. Moments after the statement came out,
Speaker 1: a reporter asked her about the announcement. She said, quote,
Speaker 1: I haven't made that decision. I haven't released anything, to
Speaker 1: which Stafford cut in and said, quote, we put out
Speaker 1: a statement, she goes, oh, you put out a statement,
Speaker 1: and then she walked away. That's insane. That's weekend at
Speaker 1: Bernie's stuff. People. The craziest thing is she's not even
Speaker 1: doing the right thing and resigning only she will not
Speaker 1: seek reelection in twenty twenty four. The people of California
Speaker 1: have to continue to have her represent them for a
Speaker 1: full two years when she will be ninety one years old.
Speaker 1: If I sound callous, I'm sorry. I know it's a
Speaker 1: tragedy when people age and families have to deal with it.
Speaker 1: She was a private citizen, I would have nothing but
Speaker 1: compassion for her. But she's not. She's a public servant.
Speaker 1: It's just not right. The problem with the fine Seine
Speaker 1: situation is just how much the Democratic Party and her
Speaker 1: fellow geriatrics in power have gone to protect her. When
Speaker 1: the San Francisco Chronicle in April did a story on
Speaker 1: how senile she is, the only fellow senators admitting it
Speaker 1: on background said she was senile. No one would say
Speaker 1: so on the record. Worse, the only person on the
Speaker 1: record was Nancy Pelosi, who said, quote, Senator Findstein is
Speaker 1: a workhorse for the people of California, a respected leader
Speaker 1: amongst her colleagues, adding that it is unconscionable. Weeks after
Speaker 1: losing her beloved husband of more than four decades and
Speaker 1: decades of outstanding leadership to our city and state, she
Speaker 1: is being subjected to these ridiculous attacks or beneath the
Speaker 1: dignity in which she has led and the esteem which
Speaker 1: she has held. Oh, it's unconscionable. So outside of the
Speaker 1: corrupt deal to shield this from the public, maybe it
Speaker 1: just struck a nerve with Pelosi, who is literally eighty
Speaker 1: two years old. She's only seven years younger than Finstein.
Speaker 1: In fact, if you look at leadership in this country
Speaker 1: right now on a bipartisan basis, it will make you
Speaker 1: want to vomit. Sure, it's great Pelosi is no longer
Speaker 1: the Democratic leader. We all know she still pulls the strings.
Speaker 1: Schumer is a spring chicken of the Senate. He's only
Speaker 1: seventy two. McConnell is eighty. Our president is also eighty.
Speaker 1: If re elected, he would be eighty six the day
Speaker 1: that he left the Oval office. Call me agist if
Speaker 1: you want, I don't care. That's too old for the
Speaker 1: hardest job in the world. Trump, of course, is in
Speaker 1: the same league. He's seventy six. All of this is madness.
Speaker 1: In fact, the one hundred and seventeenth Congress which just ended,
Speaker 1: was literally the oldest congress in American history ever, And
Speaker 1: it wasn't always this way. At a time when fifty
Speaker 1: percent of this country is below the age of thirty eight,
Speaker 1: only five percent were the same in Congress. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's got to be one to one,
Speaker 1: but a little bit more parody would be nice, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1: And sure, age itself is not a determination of anything.
Speaker 1: Bernie has the highest approval rating of all young voters,
Speaker 1: and he's older than Biden. Buddha j Edge is beloved
Speaker 1: by boomers. He's not even forty. The positions matter, of course,
Speaker 1: but a certain point we got to move on. Much
Speaker 1: of this, in my opinion, is a reflection of the
Speaker 1: ability to run for Congress in the first place. The
Speaker 1: basic fact is that boomer's vote more and they participate
Speaker 1: in our politics because they actually have a stake in
Speaker 1: this country. People my age just don't. The average seventy
Speaker 1: five year old today is seventy seven percent wealthier than
Speaker 1: the average seventy five year old thirty years ago. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the average thirty five year old is nineteen percent poorer,
Speaker 1: same for those who are aged forty five to fifty four.
Speaker 1: Those thirty four and younger are also poorer. Much of
Speaker 1: You can also ascribe home values, which of course only
Speaker 1: helps the elderly. They have a massive net worth and
Speaker 1: keep going up with prices, making it only harder for
Speaker 1: millennials gen Z and even gen X to buy a house.
Speaker 1: Who cares about property taxes if you have no property?
Speaker 1: Who cares about the states if you don't and probably
Speaker 1: will never have one. Why even care about high income
Speaker 1: tax If the odds are you probably will never get there.
Speaker 1: That's why young people don't vote. It is also why
Speaker 1: those who do vote their own into power. I have
Speaker 1: no idea what the solution is, but I do know
Speaker 1: fragile systems like this they do break, and when they do,
Speaker 1: it doesn't go so well for the people at the top.
Speaker 1: What I do know is, at the very least, we
Speaker 1: cannot continue to be insulted by having literally senile people
Speaker 1: represent us in Congress while they're nursing home age colleagues
Speaker 1: do everything they can to protect them. You can respect
Speaker 1: the elderly and the lessons they have to teach us
Speaker 1: while also advancing the interests of the rest of the public. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we have not yet learned to strike that balance, and
Speaker 1: I hope we do someday, because whatever this nonsense is,
Speaker 1: it cannot go on forever. Literally, I mean, look again,
Speaker 1: I don't want to sound mean. I know it can
Speaker 1: be callous. But she didn't even know she retired. That's insanity.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagres's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com. What
Speaker 1: are you taking a look at? Crystal Well? Guys? Residents
Speaker 1: of East Palestine, Ohio are now being told they'd better
Speaker 1: stick to bottled water for the foreseeable future, as a
Speaker 1: toxic soup of chemicals makes its way through that community's
Speaker 1: waterways and disperses throughout the broader Ohio River Valley. The
Speaker 1: derailment of a train packed full of hazard's chemicals has
Speaker 1: been a horrifying disaster for the local community, and it's
Speaker 1: been a lesson in the monstrosity of corporate greed combined
Speaker 1: with industry friendly politicians and regulators, or in any case,
Speaker 1: it should have been a lesson in this political toxic sludge.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, corporate media nearly across the board has failed
Speaker 1: to give Americans any context for how the hell this
Speaker 1: nightmare situation came to pass in the first place. Norfolk,
Speaker 1: Southern and their industry allies have perpetrated a grave crime
Speaker 1: that could impact this part of Ohio for generations, and
Speaker 1: the corporate news media have served as accomplices in the
Speaker 1: cover up. According to a comprehensive analysis for Media Matters,
Speaker 1: only three percent of broadcast coverage mentioned the year's long
Speaker 1: successful industry campaign to weaken rail regulations. And if you
Speaker 1: don't understand the way that corruption fueled this disaster, you
Speaker 1: really don't understand this story at all. It is just
Speaker 1: a tragic, inevitable act of God, with no one to
Speaker 1: blame and no action to be taken. And that is
Speaker 1: precisely the way that industry wants you to view this derailment.
Speaker 1: As our friends at the Lever reported, three different administrations
Speaker 1: failed to regulate the rail industry in ways that very
Speaker 1: specifically contributed to the devastation of this crash. The Obama
Speaker 1: administration exempted trains carrying exactly the sort of chemicals that
Speaker 1: were on this train from being classified as a high
Speaker 1: hazard flammable train designation that would have subjected them to
Speaker 1: more stringent safety regulations. After seeing this train turned into
Speaker 1: a giant fireball and official warnings that if not for
Speaker 1: the controlled release, it could have literally detonated like a bomb,
Speaker 1: blowing up the entire town, imagine the levels of corruption
Speaker 1: that would lead to such materials failing to be designated
Speaker 1: as high hazard and as flammable. The Trump administration, though,
Speaker 1: they went even further. They rolled back Obama era safety rugs,
Speaker 1: which would have required modern braking systems to be rolled
Speaker 1: out industry wide. Now, this particular train relied on a
Speaker 1: braking system literally invented in the eighteen hundreds, and as
Speaker 1: a result, experts say the devastation of the crash was
Speaker 1: much more profound, with more cars derailed, more toxic chemicals spilt,
Speaker 1: and the Biden administration, with Pete as absentee figurehead at
Speaker 1: the top of the Department of Transportation, just let the
Speaker 1: new corporate status quo rain simple War era breakes, unregulating
Speaker 1: toxic chemicals and all. But they did add their own
Speaker 1: special little touch by effectively backing industries approach to screwing
Speaker 1: and stressing and stripping their workforce down to the bare bones,
Speaker 1: all in the name of cost cutting so they could
Speaker 1: give their executives bonuses and their shareholders and multi billion
Speaker 1: dollar giveaway. Three administrations Obama, Trump, Biden, both parties, Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans, they all birthed this whore. Anyone pretending that
Speaker 1: it's only one party or one person a blame for
Speaker 1: these years of failures in industry, boot looking is a
Speaker 1: liar and a hack running cover for their team. Anyone
Speaker 1: pretending like this was a fluke accident which couldn't have
Speaker 1: possibly been prevented, is also a liar and a hack
Speaker 1: running cover for industry. And a look at the news
Speaker 1: media's coverage is to see an entire universe of liars
Speaker 1: and hacks, with hardly a single exception. Now, media failures
Speaker 1: to reveal the real story. They were profound, and they
Speaker 1: were really across the board. None of the Sunday shows
Speaker 1: covered the trained derailment at all, not one an American town.
Speaker 1: It was literally poisoned by corpor greed. They couldn't bother
Speaker 1: to make mention of it. During a key three day
Speaker 1: stretch from February tenth to February twelve, there was not
Speaker 1: a single mention of this derailment in national news not one,
Speaker 1: but the specific strategies that were deployed by each of
Speaker 1: the three cable news networks really exposes the nature and
Speaker 1: the purpose of the cover up. According to that report
Speaker 1: quote on cable National Network CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC,
Speaker 1: they aired just over two and a half hours of
Speaker 1: coverage on the train derailment. The majority of reporting was
Speaker 1: done by CNN, which dedicated over an hour of coverage
Speaker 1: across forty two segments, was followed by Fox News, which
Speaker 1: aired fifty minutes across twenty two segments. MSNBC spent thirty
Speaker 1: six minutes across nineteen segments reporting on the derailment and
Speaker 1: toxic fire that followed. Let's break all of this down
Speaker 1: In every instance you can see how the network's biases
Speaker 1: and political orientations drove their coverage. CNN did the most
Speaker 1: coverage of the three networks thanks to there If it bleeds,
Speaker 1: it Leads orientation. But while they cover the derailment because
Speaker 1: it's a sensational news event, not a six segment actually
Speaker 1: looked at the bipartisan political corruption that led to the catastrophe,
Speaker 1: not one sensationalism with zero accountability the CNN way over it.
Speaker 1: On the s NBC, they decided the best way to
Speaker 1: run cover for the failed response of the Democratic administration
Speaker 1: was just to mostly not talk about the derailment at all.
Speaker 1: Over a ten day period, they devoted a mere thirty
Speaker 1: six minutes to the catastrophe. To put that in context,
Speaker 1: this is a twenty four hour news network. That means
Speaker 1: they had fourteen four hundred minutes of airtime to fill
Speaker 1: over that time period, and they chose to devote only
Speaker 1: thirty six to the derailment. Now, Fox they did slightly
Speaker 1: more coverage, clocking in at fifty minutes throughut the ten
Speaker 1: day period. But now they're leaning in after Pete handed
Speaker 1: them an absolute gift by talking about white construction crews
Speaker 1: and ignoring the derailment. With this blessing from the culture
Speaker 1: were gods, Fox has now decided to cover the story
Speaker 1: laying to the Biden administration, while of course conveniently ignoring
Speaker 1: the fact that Trump failures were some of the most
Speaker 1: critical in setting the stage for the current catastrophe. New
Speaker 1: Ohio Senator j die Vance went on Tucker Tuesday Night,
Speaker 1: take a listen, or We've had hundreds of trained derailments
Speaker 1: after we spent over a trillion dollars on infrastructure in
Speaker 1: this country. So the fact that this isn't getting obviously
Speaker 1: better is a major indictment of the people spending the
Speaker 1: money and what they're spending the money on. Now we
Speaker 1: know if you listen to Secretary Bodagide today, that they
Speaker 1: are focused more on whether we have too many white
Speaker 1: men in construction jobs than he is on the fundamentals
Speaker 1: of his job, which is ensuring we have a viable
Speaker 1: transportation infrastructure in this country. And unfortunately, my constituents in
Speaker 1: East Palestine have been some of the main victims of
Speaker 1: the fact that we have failing infrastructure in our country,
Speaker 1: again after spending tons of money in an effort to
Speaker 1: actually fix it. So the problem we have, Tucker, is
Speaker 1: that we are ruled by unserious people who are worried
Speaker 1: about fake problems instead of the real fact that our
Speaker 1: country is falling apart in some of the most important ways.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the Environmental Protection Agency. Of course, it says
Speaker 1: it right there. It should be focused on clean air,
Speaker 1: clean water. It's the thing that I'm most focused on
Speaker 1: for the people these Palestine, but so often they're focused
Speaker 1: on environmental racism and other ridiculous things instead of fixing
Speaker 1: the problem that they are established to fix. So listen.
Speaker 1: Zero disagreement for me on the unseeriousness of Mayor Pete
Speaker 1: and Biden and all the rest. But listen, Jade Vance.
Speaker 1: You are the senator for the state. You couldn't be
Speaker 1: bothered to put out a statement until nine days after
Speaker 1: the fact. You didn't care about this one lick until
Speaker 1: you could come up with a partisan culture war angle,
Speaker 1: So spare me your belated folk concern and outrage. Second
Speaker 1: of all, the problem here isn't from your list of
Speaker 1: right wing culture war buzzwords, environmental racism or wokeism, as
Speaker 1: another Fox host claimed, or war on white people as
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk claimed. It's corruption and it's corporate greed, plain
Speaker 1: and simple. It's a system that puts profit over people
Speaker 1: and doesn't give a shit about working people, whether they're black, white,
Speaker 1: purple or blue. And in this instance very specifically is
Speaker 1: documented by the Lever. It's a story about a bunch
Speaker 1: of politicians on both sides of the aisle who would
Speaker 1: rather lick industries boots then protect places like East Palestine.
Speaker 1: But you don't want to tell that story because it
Speaker 1: implicates the guy you owe your whole political career. Two.
Speaker 1: That would be Donald Trump, And you don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about that corruption because it leads straight back to
Speaker 1: your own party. You want to know when the media
Speaker 1: is covering up for industry on the story. It is
Speaker 1: the same reason they do it all the time, because
Speaker 1: it doesn't fit their dumb, partisan, black and white narratives.
Speaker 1: MSNBC doesn't want to talk about it because it looks
Speaker 1: bad for their team. Fox doesn't want to be honest
Speaker 1: about it because that would look bad for their team. Instead,
Speaker 1: they invent some culture war dribble that, in the absence
Speaker 1: of another accurate story, is going to wholly fill the void.
Speaker 1: I lived fifteen miles south of East Palestine for years,
Speaker 1: actually in the exact same county, Columbiana County. The toxic
Speaker 1: sludge that's now drained into the Ohio River that is
Speaker 1: flowing right through East Liverpool where I used to live
Speaker 1: when I gave birth to my first child, Core My
Speaker 1: politics today were developed while I live there. There are
Speaker 1: few places in America which have been more betrayed by
Speaker 1: both parties than this region. Steel mills, shuttered, factory works,
Speaker 1: sent overseas. In East Liverpool, the town budget was so
Speaker 1: stretched that the men used to use his own money
Speaker 1: and sweat labor to paint the municipal pool every year
Speaker 1: so local kids could at least have a place to
Speaker 1: go in the summer. No surprise, this despair and abandonment
Speaker 1: has also made it the epicenter of the opioid crisis. Now,
Speaker 1: the news media did not tell this story because it
Speaker 1: didn't fit into their little partisan bubbles. They didn't expose
Speaker 1: who was making money off of that destruction, the lives
Speaker 1: that had been decimated. They treated it just like they
Speaker 1: did this Traine realment, as an inevitable act of God.
Speaker 1: Who could help it. Thank God for truly independent media
Speaker 1: because we all know damn well the way that we
Speaker 1: have been lied to. And this story has made me
Speaker 1: really mad on a variety of levels. The total dishonesty
Speaker 1: cross the board. They either and if you want to
Speaker 1: hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber
Speaker 1: today at breakingpoints dot com. There's a whole drama over
Speaker 1: at the Federal Trade Commission, led by Lena Khan. There
Speaker 1: is a commission rror by the name of what's her name,
Speaker 1: Christine Wilson, who has resigned in a bit of a
Speaker 1: blaze of glory here. She's got a Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: op ed explaining her thinking, let's go and put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. She says, why I'm resigning as
Speaker 1: an FTC commissioner. Lena Khan's disregard for the rule of
Speaker 1: law and do process make it impossible for me to
Speaker 1: continue serving. So we needed to figure out what the
Speaker 1: heck was going on here, and we brought in the
Speaker 1: man himself, Matt Stoller, who is author of The Big
Speaker 1: sub Stack and is an expert on all things anti trusted.
Speaker 1: I knew would be following this very closely. So great
Speaker 1: to see you, Matt. Good see man, Thanks for having me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so what is the backstory here? Uh? Drama? You know
Speaker 1: there's a there's like a I'm going to call it
Speaker 1: Lena khn derangement syndrome. Right, You remember how like Trump
Speaker 1: just blew the minds of liberals and like broke their brains,
Speaker 1: and then you know, the same thing kind of happens
Speaker 1: to Republicans, Like this is what's happening in the anti
Speaker 1: trust establishment. So you have Lena Khan and then also
Speaker 1: more broadly, a movement of people coming in many of
Speaker 1: the viewers of your show, who are saying, like, hey,
Speaker 1: we should stop monopolies, we should do something about these problems.
Speaker 1: And the old anti trust establishment, which has been kind
Speaker 1: of a group of the technocrats living in a clubhouse
Speaker 1: for forty years saying this is a very scientific area
Speaker 1: and ordinary people have nothing to say. They're deeply offended.
Speaker 1: And Christine Wilson is kind of like she's the protege
Speaker 1: of some of the original people who constrained antitrust in
Speaker 1: the eighties, and so she's just like mortally offended that
Speaker 1: Lena Kamm would come in and say, no, we're going
Speaker 1: to enforce the law. And so her kind of going
Speaker 1: out with a blaze of glory air quotes, sarcastic air quotes,
Speaker 1: is her saying sort of to that old establishment, the
Speaker 1: wallstret Journal editorial page, and the anti trust defense lawyers
Speaker 1: and CEOs who are used to emerging and Jim Kramer
Speaker 1: and you know, so on and so forth, it's saying,
Speaker 1: you know, how dare she write? And she she legit
Speaker 1: believes it. She's not like, I mean, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of dishonesty in what she's saying. But like she legit
Speaker 1: believes that there's like a new era of lawlessness. But
Speaker 1: that's because she doesn't believe in stopping mergers or or
Speaker 1: the government being able to ban non compete agreements or
Speaker 1: various things like that. She just thinks that that's outlandish,
Speaker 1: even though that is what the laws say. The reason
Speaker 1: why I think his story is important is it's like
Speaker 1: obviously a much bigger fight that's happening right now. And
Speaker 1: one of the reasons I think we're I want to
Speaker 1: do our best to try and elevate what Lena Khan
Speaker 1: is doing is you know, when you contrast her ability
Speaker 1: to actually like do her job with so many other
Speaker 1: quote unquote young promisers in the administration, like a guy
Speaker 1: like Pete Bouda judge, the contrast is just astounding, like
Speaker 1: the level of competence. So what is the what are
Speaker 1: the actual fights that she's calling out that Lena Khan
Speaker 1: is engaging in that will have a major impact on
Speaker 1: our viewers and really all of us in America. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I like that, you said, like Pete Budha judge, It's like, no,
Speaker 1: but he's a post But there's many there are many
Speaker 1: there are many examples. Yeah, he's but there's also just one,
Speaker 1: there's one Pete. Yeah, so so there's plenty of It's
Speaker 1: actually interesting because the Department they actually it's a great
Speaker 1: comparison because they're actually the Department of Transportation has authority
Speaker 1: that is was actually the statute was ripped out of
Speaker 1: the FTC statute and given to DOT and so it's
Speaker 1: the same authority. DOT is actually a little bit stronger
Speaker 1: and one you can see one person is using that
Speaker 1: authority and one person is not. So what is what
Speaker 1: has Lena Kahn done? All right? So she's challenged a
Speaker 1: bunch of mergers. So if you look at I mean,
Speaker 1: you guys did a segment on Jim Kramer freaking out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: reason that that he's freaking out is because deal makers
Speaker 1: on Wall Street are very upset at the new tough
Speaker 1: challenges to mergers. So mergers have dropped by seventy six
Speaker 1: percent this year. It's not entirely an antitrust thing. That's
Speaker 1: also because of the funding environment is different, but some
Speaker 1: of it is anti trust. So she's challenged you know,
Speaker 1: Microsoft and Activision Meta within we'll see what happens with
Speaker 1: the Kroger Albertsons. But you know, a lot of deals
Speaker 1: are just getting abandoned. And you know, the FTC lost
Speaker 1: the meta within challenge but made some important legal advances.
Speaker 1: But broadly speaking, the environment for deal makers is completely different.
Speaker 1: You can't consolidate your way into dominance anymore, or at
Speaker 1: least it's much harder to do that. Another thing that
Speaker 1: she's done, and I think this is something that got
Speaker 1: a lot of attention, is that she said non compete agreements,
Speaker 1: the things that the parts of employment contracts that say
Speaker 1: you can't leave and work for a rival. She said
Speaker 1: that is those are unfair and unenforceable. So she's putting
Speaker 1: out rules that are not in forced yet, saying the
Speaker 1: thirty million or forty million people who are subject to
Speaker 1: non compete agreements are no longer subject to those particular provisions.
Speaker 1: I mean they're called non competes, right, So that's like
Speaker 1: pretty obvious that they're anti competitive right in the name. Yeah,
Speaker 1: right there. But there are a lot I mean, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of other things. So one of the
Speaker 1: things that she's started on is a new policy that
Speaker 1: says that like a gym can't make it, they have
Speaker 1: to make it as easy to cancel as signing up, yes, right,
Speaker 1: which and there's you know, there's there's some let me see,
Speaker 1: there's what's it called fortnite? Right, Like, there were there
Speaker 1: were certain like user interface deceptions that were going on there,
Speaker 1: like dark patterns that make it easy for kids to
Speaker 1: spend money and and actually make uh allow like sexual
Speaker 1: in game purchases, but also like sexual predation of adults
Speaker 1: and kids. Right because they made it far. We actually
Speaker 1: covered this. I think I did a monologue it. They
Speaker 1: made it. They made it super easy for kids to
Speaker 1: basically get permission. You had to opt out of the
Speaker 1: chat feature, which allows like people who are older to
Speaker 1: be in with like little kids who are on the
Speaker 1: platform they market as a kid. So there is a
Speaker 1: lot going on there. But the FC came in and
Speaker 1: said you have to pay five hunred million dollars and
Speaker 1: stop all of this. And that's that's actually changing the
Speaker 1: whole industry. The gaming industry is going to look at
Speaker 1: that and they're going to say, oh, you know the
Speaker 1: engineer in the room who's like, maybe we shouldn't do this,
Speaker 1: versus the marketing guy saying, oh, but our rois says
Speaker 1: that we should. The engineer now can say you saw
Speaker 1: what happen to epic games, right, So it's these are
Speaker 1: changing industry structures in important ways. And Christine Wilson voted
Speaker 1: against all of those. Yeah, just to be interesting. So
Speaker 1: I see there's a Larry Cutlow segment with her very
Speaker 1: you know, very upset. They're saying that Lena Khan's approach
Speaker 1: is quote modern socialism, okay, and the chirrod on the
Speaker 1: thing says Biden's push for big government socialism. They call
Speaker 1: her the radical chair of the FTC. I mean, what's
Speaker 1: your what's your response to to all of that? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean the Republican Party is in an interesting spot
Speaker 1: because they have lived since the early eighties with a
Speaker 1: with a coalition of social conservatives and economic conservatives working
Speaker 1: together to try to get conservative judges and conservative policy.
Speaker 1: And that coalition is falling apart. And you saw that
Speaker 1: with Trump coming in, and you see it now Trump's
Speaker 1: saying protect social security and others saying let's let's cut it.
Speaker 1: But it also hits in anti trust and market power questions.
Speaker 1: So there are there are a lot of young Republicans
Speaker 1: who are very upset with monopoly power, and they look
Speaker 1: at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, and they say these feel
Speaker 1: like private governments and more skeptical of government power. And
Speaker 1: then you have people like Larry Kudlow and the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal editorial page, and you know, essentially conservative boomer donors.
Speaker 1: Yes that that are like no, no, we like the
Speaker 1: you know, preserving our property. And that's like there's a
Speaker 1: serious and interesting tension. But the criticism of Lena Kahan
Speaker 1: is really coming from the old school corporatist wing of
Speaker 1: the Republican aestoptions and the Democratic establishment too. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, Cherr Khan really upset a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: when she not like Democrats in Congress, but like the
Speaker 1: anti trust establishment democrats, the people in the Obama administration
Speaker 1: who really didn't challenge and mergers who allowed victim They
Speaker 1: were a bunch of them, were not all of them,
Speaker 1: but a bunch of them were really offended. So this
Speaker 1: is this is kind of like a culture war among
Speaker 1: people who control all the money and power in America.
Speaker 1: A little bit more about the Republican side. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't how was Trump on these issues, was already
Speaker 1: sign he really thought about or cared about them. How
Speaker 1: are the people that he put in place? How do
Speaker 1: you think he would approach it if he was president Again,
Speaker 1: are there any other potential Republican presidential contenders who would,
Speaker 1: you know, side fall more on the Lina cons side
Speaker 1: of these issues? And also are there genuine allies in
Speaker 1: Congress who back, you know, banning on competes and actually
Speaker 1: enforcing the law with regard to mergers. Yeah, so those
Speaker 1: are a lot of questions, going to forget them first
Speaker 1: time about Trump? Right, Okay, yeah, I already forgot that one.
Speaker 1: So it's an interesting you bring that up because one
Speaker 1: of the things that happened with Christine Wilson and her
Speaker 1: colleague No Phillips, who left a couple of I guess
Speaker 1: a couple of months ago, is that they actually got
Speaker 1: crosswise with the Trump administration and so that they want
Speaker 1: to portray what's happening as a partisan fight between the
Speaker 1: three Democrats on the Commission and the two Republicans commission
Speaker 1: with five you know, but actually that isn't what's going on.
Speaker 1: So under the Trump administration, there was Trump filed the
Speaker 1: first monopolization claim at the DOJ in twenty years, so
Speaker 1: there was Microsoft in the nineties, and then Trump brought
Speaker 1: the first Google case. But the FTCA brought a case
Speaker 1: against Facebook in twenty twenty under Trump, and that was
Speaker 1: a three to two vote. Now, the thing is is
Speaker 1: it wasn't a three to two. Three rs wanted to
Speaker 1: bring it in the two Dems. It was two Democrats,
Speaker 1: the Republican chair named Joe Simons, and the two people
Speaker 1: who voted against it were Noah Phillips and Christine Wilson.
Speaker 1: So she actually brought voted against the Trump chair bringing
Speaker 1: a Facebook into trusted. Another example was, you know Trump
Speaker 1: is very like protectionist in like want to make things here. Well,
Speaker 1: one of the things the FTC can do is they
Speaker 1: can say if you label something as made in America
Speaker 1: and it's not, that's fraud. Well, the FTC under you know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats of the FTC under Trump, were trying to
Speaker 1: get this mate put into a rule, and they were
Speaker 1: actually working with Trump White House officials to do that.
Speaker 1: The people who opposed it Noah Phillips and Christine Wilson. Right,
Speaker 1: Lena Khan's first thing that she did at the FTC
Speaker 1: is to vote for this rule saying true proposal and
Speaker 1: vote for this rule saying made in America fraud is illegal.
Speaker 1: Who voted against it? Phillips, Christine Wilson, this is so,
Speaker 1: this is and this is on ideological grounds, like how
Speaker 1: dare the government? I think Larry Coudler would say, oh,
Speaker 1: that's socialism, right, but like it's obviously it's like that's
Speaker 1: that's silly. But the but the point here is they're
Speaker 1: offended at the idea that the FTC or that the
Speaker 1: public sector in general would work to structure markets in
Speaker 1: a way that doesn't funnel money and power to the top.
Speaker 1: And so that's what's really going on, and I think
Speaker 1: what will happen, Well, so there are a number of
Speaker 1: questions there, but like, what's gonna happen next is Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell will nominate you know, they're two open slots. They're
Speaker 1: eventually going to nominate some Republicans and they will probably
Speaker 1: be less libertarian than Christine Wilson and Noah Phillips, and
Speaker 1: that will it will sort of change how we do
Speaker 1: anti trust enforcement. But I wanted I forgot the other
Speaker 1: questions you ask allies with regards to Republicans. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: so so the non compete thing is really interesting. So
Speaker 1: you have Todd Young from Indiana and you have Kevin
Speaker 1: Kramer from North Dakota. These are two senators who came
Speaker 1: out and said, you know, with some Democratic senators like
Speaker 1: Chris Murphy, they said, this is good. We don't have
Speaker 1: non competes in North Dakota. We don't have non competes
Speaker 1: or I think there's trying to bear our serious problems
Speaker 1: with non competes in healthcare in Indiana. And they so
Speaker 1: they came out and they said it is a good
Speaker 1: thing that the FTC is making non competes unlawful. And
Speaker 1: you know, you also saw Jim Jordan on the other side,
Speaker 1: he runs the House Judiciary Committee. It is likely he's
Speaker 1: actually said I'm going to investigate the FTC for banning
Speaker 1: non competes. This is an outrageous power grab and may
Speaker 1: issue subpoenas and so on and so forth. So you're
Speaker 1: good at you're seeing like this weird split on the
Speaker 1: right and like there's an attempt to portray it as
Speaker 1: part of it, but it isn't. Well, I'm enjoying watching it.
Speaker 1: Very interesting. People pay attention because these people control literally
Speaker 1: the entire economy, as you said, culture war of people
Speaker 1: who control all the money and power. I love that,
Speaker 1: all right, Thank you guys. So much for watching. We
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. We've got great content for you all
Speaker 1: over the weekend, and we will see you all next week.