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 Tuesday. We have
Speaker 1: an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Christal? Indeed,
Speaker 1: we do lots of interesting stories that are breaking this morning.
Speaker 1: So there is an FAA emergency meeting planned to deal
Speaker 1: with all of these near miss incidents. We have a
Speaker 1: bunch of them to show you. It is absolutely terrifying
Speaker 1: how close some of these planes have come to absolute disaster.
Speaker 1: Will tell you about that. Also, Department of Transportation and
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice moving to block an airline merger.
Speaker 1: This is good news, so we'll dig into all of
Speaker 1: that as well. We also have some interesting developments in
Speaker 1: terms of potential Trump indictments. DJ may have just shown
Speaker 1: their hand, so we'll break that down for you. Also,
Speaker 1: revelations that did not get nearly enough attention that the
Speaker 1: DHS was caught spying on Americans. Huge implications there. Speaking
Speaker 1: of caught, Fauci caught helping to organize that very influential
Speaker 1: letter that led to basically everyone in the media saying, oh, no, Lableak,
Speaker 1: it's definitely natural origin to say otherwise as racist. And
Speaker 1: new revelations about exactly how CNN controlled the narrative with
Speaker 1: regard to Lablik. Last night, Tucker Carlson dropped some new
Speaker 1: January six footage that I think we could say is perplexing. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's a nice yeah, perplexing. We'll show it to you
Speaker 1: and you can see what you make of it. We
Speaker 1: also are very very excited to introduce you guys to
Speaker 1: one of our new partner, Spencer Snyder. I know you've
Speaker 1: been already enjoying his content. His latest piece was about
Speaker 1: Jensaki and the media government revolving door focuses on her,
Speaker 1: but then does a bigger deep dive. He does phenomenal,
Speaker 1: phenomenal work. Could not be more excited to have him
Speaker 1: as part of the Breaking Boids community. So we're going
Speaker 1: to talk to him so you can get to know
Speaker 1: him a little bit better. But we wanted to start
Speaker 1: with this emergency FAA meeting. Let's go and put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. This is quite extraordinary. So the
Speaker 1: headline here from Blueberg is FAA calls urgent air safety
Speaker 1: summit after US near crashes. To give you some of
Speaker 1: the details here, they say, the US Aviation Regulator is
Speaker 1: calling the summit next month ordering of a view of
Speaker 1: industry data following a spate of recent nearer crashes. They
Speaker 1: specifically cite two serious incidents in which jet liners came
Speaker 1: dangerously close to one another. In one event, on February fourth,
Speaker 1: a FedEx wide body cargo jet attempting to land came
Speaker 1: within one hundred feet of colliding with a Southwest Airlines
Speaker 1: plane that was taking off in Austin, Texas. By the way,
Speaker 1: on the very same day that we were really down
Speaker 1: of Austin, Texas. I think I flew an hour after
Speaker 1: this occurred. Yeah. Crazy. Also we showed you before this
Speaker 1: was insane and terrifying as well. This jet that took
Speaker 1: off from Hawaii and then it came within feet of
Speaker 1: crashing into the ocean, plunged within eight hundred feet of
Speaker 1: crashing the ocean before writing itself and then everything going
Speaker 1: okay from there. But there have been so many of
Speaker 1: these incidents recently unrelated to that. Also this week they're
Speaker 1: going to be testifying ahead of the FA is going
Speaker 1: to be testifying on the hill about that massive software
Speaker 1: failure system right exactly that led to you know, everything
Speaker 1: being stopped one morning. And what happened there, they say,
Speaker 1: is that a contractor accidentally deleted data that completely crippled
Speaker 1: the system, which also calls in a question, you know,
Speaker 1: the use of so many contractors with in government rather
Speaker 1: than having the internal capacity themselves. Not only that it's
Speaker 1: that easy. I mean, for all the talk of cyber
Speaker 1: attacks and all of that, that cost billions of dollars
Speaker 1: for a single day of ground stoppage and little oopsie, yeah,
Speaker 1: little oopsy. So if that's a little oopsy that can
Speaker 1: cause it, what about somebody who intentionally is trying to
Speaker 1: take down the whole system if the code was that vulnerable. Also,
Speaker 1: as I understand it, he needs to answer for why
Speaker 1: the not tamp system is not scheduled to be fully
Speaker 1: up and running a new version until twenty thirty. Crystal
Speaker 1: they're going to take seven years. I don't think people
Speaker 1: understand how delayed, old and brittle the infrastructure behind the
Speaker 1: FAA and behind the entire so much aircraft is so
Speaker 1: much of the federal government. In another several lifetimes ago,
Speaker 1: I actually worked for one of these federal government contractors
Speaker 1: my first job on college, and it ended up being
Speaker 1: the one that down the road after I was long gone.
Speaker 1: They were the ones that screwed up the Obamacare web
Speaker 1: that was there ended up being their claim to fame.
Speaker 1: But when you're inside that system, you see how it happens.
Speaker 1: I mean, they use these archaic systems the federal government themselves.
Speaker 1: I mean this was back in two thousand and four
Speaker 1: and I was working with the US court system. Many
Speaker 1: of the US courts were still tracking their caseloads using
Speaker 1: literal paper and petsil. Oh my god, it was insanity.
Speaker 1: And so then they're trying to implement this new system,
Speaker 1: which is like still not modern and totally clunky. But
Speaker 1: there becomes this incestuous relationship between the contractor and their
Speaker 1: employees and the agencies they're working with, and basically they
Speaker 1: end up in the relationship where you can never cut
Speaker 1: them off. And they keep just you know, builking the
Speaker 1: government and builking the taxpayers. And there's this illusion that
Speaker 1: always a private market, so it's going to be better,
Speaker 1: but that's not often how it actually works out in
Speaker 1: practice as is. You know, this is one potentially little
Speaker 1: example of exactly what goes on there. But just as
Speaker 1: a reminder, there have been so many terrifying near missus
Speaker 1: lately that it really is quite astonishing. So let's go
Speaker 1: through a few of these that we highlighted in the past.
Speaker 1: Take a look at this diagram, this animation that you
Speaker 1: can see. This is the one the Austin incident where
Speaker 1: you have a FedEx plane coming within feet of this
Speaker 1: other Southwest Airlines plane that is attempting to take off.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was a really really near miss. Go
Speaker 1: ahead and put this next one up on the screen
Speaker 1: because this is absolutely terrifying. This was from The Guardian.
Speaker 1: A United flight from Hawaii plunged with eight within eight
Speaker 1: hundred feet of the Pacific Ocean. They say it was
Speaker 1: heading for San Francisco. It took a steep dive shortly
Speaker 1: after takeoff in a dramatic incident in mid December. This
Speaker 1: was during that same storm that caused turbulence, which injured
Speaker 1: a number of passengers on a different plane from this one.
Speaker 1: The details here are that flight tracking data analysis revealed
Speaker 1: that it had reached an altitude of roughly twenty two
Speaker 1: hundred feet when it began a steep dive, descending at
Speaker 1: a rate of about eight eighty six hundred feet per minute.
Speaker 1: After dipping below seven hundred and seventy five feet, the
Speaker 1: flight recovered altitude and travel to San Francisco without further issue.
Speaker 1: So really really narrow missed there in this difficult storm
Speaker 1: and heavy rain you had. Let's put this one up.
Speaker 1: This is a new one Southwest Airlines plane filled with
Speaker 1: smoke after taking off from Havana. For those of you
Speaker 1: who are just listening, there's smoke in the cabin. Those
Speaker 1: the air mass things dropped down from the ceiling. So
Speaker 1: they had to, you know, go ahead and land the plane,
Speaker 1: figure out what the hell was going on there. But
Speaker 1: there's wait, there's more. Here's the next one air Bus.
Speaker 1: A three point thirty Luftanza flight reported severe turbulence at
Speaker 1: announceitude of thirty seven thousand feet while flying over Tennessee.
Speaker 1: It was so severe that they had to make an
Speaker 1: emergency landing actually right here outside of DC at Dulles Airport.
Speaker 1: Seven people were hospitalized because of this turbulence you can
Speaker 1: see in the photo. I mean just stuff scattered everywhere
Speaker 1: all over the floor from this severe turbulence that left
Speaker 1: seven people hospitalized. They say they're all going to recover,
Speaker 1: which is good to hear, and then the very next
Speaker 1: day put this one up on the screen. There was
Speaker 1: actually ah private business jet where a passenger died because
Speaker 1: of severe turbulence. They say a forty authorities are investigating
Speaker 1: after a passenger aboard a private jet died from injuries
Speaker 1: inflicted last week during a spell of severe turbulence which
Speaker 1: hit the aircraft as it flew over New England and
Speaker 1: forced it to land before reaching its destination. I mean,
Speaker 1: you put all of these things together, and this is
Speaker 1: absolutely terrifying the number of close calls and in this case,
Speaker 1: an actually fatal incident that had been happening in our airspace.
Speaker 1: So at the very least, I guess I'm glad to
Speaker 1: see that they're finally getting their act together to say
Speaker 1: what the hell is going on here? Yeah, it would
Speaker 1: have been the Austin event in particular, it would have
Speaker 1: been one of the deadliest and biggest disasters in modern
Speaker 1: American evy. And this is one of those where where
Speaker 1: as far as we understand it, you know, it's not mechanical,
Speaker 1: that's one of these It purely has based on fa
Speaker 1: on air traffic control, the turbulence issues. So I asked
Speaker 1: some of my friends in the aviation community. They're like, look,
Speaker 1: you know, turbulence, it happens like these are one of
Speaker 1: those where they were pointing to. But the unusual event
Speaker 1: is actually what really people are spun up about is
Speaker 1: the guy who died on that business jet, because that
Speaker 1: really just doesn't happen all that often, especially that type
Speaker 1: of severe turbulence. It also comes down to the way
Speaker 1: that the flights are the path that they're being directed to.
Speaker 1: So the Austin to Frankfurt flight, the luftonsa flight, that
Speaker 1: flight dropped a thousand feet in a single second. That's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why they had such severe turbulence.
Speaker 1: And you could actually see in the photos where there
Speaker 1: was just trash scattered about the cabin. That does happen
Speaker 1: from time to time, and most of the injuries people
Speaker 1: say is most likely people not wearing their seat belts
Speaker 1: also another one possible they may not have been wearing
Speaker 1: their seat belt as well in the in the business jet.
Speaker 1: The reason though that it matters for safety procedures is
Speaker 1: a you know, you want to make sure that any
Speaker 1: passenger death is an insane incident. Like we'll remember a
Speaker 1: co it's just about a decade or so, go of
Speaker 1: the woman, you know, a window shattered and she actually
Speaker 1: died because she was sucking. Yeah, it was a crazy
Speaker 1: event and people should go and read about it. But
Speaker 1: the one that people are especially worried about is the
Speaker 1: United flight that plunged within eight hundred feet of the ocean.
Speaker 1: And these two near misses because they are indicative of
Speaker 1: the thing about the FAA and about airflight or air
Speaker 1: travel is it's very safe, as they say, but a
Speaker 1: single incident is so high consequence that we have to
Speaker 1: establish a system where faith in all of it is
Speaker 1: that we don't screw up ever here and that we
Speaker 1: have to get to the NTSB is set up so
Speaker 1: that every single incident just like this, which let's be honest,
Speaker 1: we are a hair's breadth away from hundreds of people
Speaker 1: dead and crashing into the middle of the ocean. We
Speaker 1: have to go to the absolute bottom of that incident.
Speaker 1: And the reason I was scared, especially from that United incident,
Speaker 1: is it was only on the ground for two hours.
Speaker 1: The plane after it took off again and flew another leg.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine if you were posted on that flight
Speaker 1: and they're like, yeah, aircraft is clear, Tolanta, Apparently you
Speaker 1: know it's been flying, no indication that was ever taken
Speaker 1: out of service. But then is okay is it pilot air?
Speaker 1: If it is pilot air, are those guys still flying right?
Speaker 1: Sure as hell? Hope not. Yeah. Well, the fact that
Speaker 1: you had two near misses of planes colliding on the
Speaker 1: while they were taxiing was a JFK. It was one
Speaker 1: of the New York airports, and this one that we
Speaker 1: showed you in Austin within a short period of time
Speaker 1: is also very troubling and eyebrow racing because it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be easy to screw something like that up, because you
Speaker 1: have to allow for the fact that human beings are
Speaker 1: human beings and there's going to be air so you
Speaker 1: have to have systems in place that you double, triple,
Speaker 1: quadruple check to make sure you're not going to end
Speaker 1: up with these planes smacking into each other with massive
Speaker 1: you know, devastation and loss of life. So it's been
Speaker 1: crazy to watch all of this unfold. We've been you know,
Speaker 1: tracking it pretty closely, and we'll see what comes out
Speaker 1: of this FAA emergency meeting, which in my opinion, is
Speaker 1: long overdue. So that's the safety side of things, But
Speaker 1: there have also been a lot of issues on these
Speaker 1: sort of customer service and not just screwing over your
Speaker 1: clientele side of things, and we actually have some positive
Speaker 1: news in that regard. You know, one of the issues
Speaker 1: in the airline industry, like so many other industries, as
Speaker 1: our friend Matt Stoller would I'm sure explain to all
Speaker 1: of us, is there's been massive consolidation, and so you
Speaker 1: have four companies that control over eighty percent of the marketplace.
Speaker 1: That means they basically feel free to screw you over
Speaker 1: and they feel like you don't have another choice. They
Speaker 1: feel like they can jack up prices, they can cancel flights,
Speaker 1: they can stick you with the bill even though they're
Speaker 1: supposed to pay for your expenses. All the shenanigans that
Speaker 1: we have seen, the fact that they have so large
Speaker 1: of a market share and so much market consolidation and
Speaker 1: they've all decided to treat their passengers like crap. Means
Speaker 1: that they feel that they can get away with it.
Speaker 1: So there is a potential merger. Let's go and put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen between Jet Blue and Spirit. Now.
Speaker 1: Spirit is kind of important because it is the largest
Speaker 1: low cost airline. They're one of the ones that you know,
Speaker 1: it's really annoying. You think you're getting a good deal
Speaker 1: in the flight and then they like Nickel and time
Speaker 1: you for literally exactly literally everything. They still serve at
Speaker 1: least an important place in the market and trying to
Speaker 1: keep prices down and reasonable for people. And as I
Speaker 1: just said before, there's already huge consolidation within the airline marketplace.
Speaker 1: So it looks like the USDOJ is going to file
Speaker 1: suit to block this Jet Blue Spirit merger. Bloomberg had
Speaker 1: some additional details that I'll read to you because part
Speaker 1: of what is extraordinary, and we are very much in
Speaker 1: the business of giving credit where credit is due here
Speaker 1: is it's not just the Department of Justice, it's also
Speaker 1: the Department of Transportation, helmed by our friend Pete Voodagje,
Speaker 1: which is actually expected to take action here. He's actually
Speaker 1: doing his job on this one, So that's exciting to see.
Speaker 1: So what they say is that Elizabeth Warren had actually
Speaker 1: argued in a letter to Pete back in September that
Speaker 1: the agency had the authority and should act to block
Speaker 1: this merger on the grounds that it isn't in the
Speaker 1: public interest. So they are expected the Department of Transportation
Speaker 1: to begin a parallel proceeding to block the transfer a
Speaker 1: Spirit Airlines operating certificate as incompatible with the public interest.
Speaker 1: That is largely unprecedented in the modern era. The agency
Speaker 1: has not used that authority to block the transfer of
Speaker 1: a certificate or the formal federal approval to operate aircraft
Speaker 1: and carry passengers among me airlines since the industry was
Speaker 1: deregulated in nineteen seventy eight. So, for once, Pete, at
Speaker 1: the urging of Elizabeth Warren, not two typical heroes on
Speaker 1: this show, actually using the power that he has at
Speaker 1: his agency to try to deliver for customers. Well, a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans have raised once about this as well,
Speaker 1: because while this would be great for Spirit Airlines shareholders,
Speaker 1: for actual customers, for low cost travelers, this would absolutely
Speaker 1: be a bad deals. Put the next one up there
Speaker 1: on the screen. One of the things is that four
Speaker 1: airlines already controlled eighty two percent of the market, So
Speaker 1: as more perfect union lays out here, if Jet Blue
Speaker 1: is allowed to buy up one of the few budget airlines,
Speaker 1: it would cut flights and would hike prices industry wide.
Speaker 1: The reason that matters is that Frontier, Spirit Southwest all
Speaker 1: play a very important role in the marketplace. Is that
Speaker 1: is the way that a lot of families who very
Speaker 1: rarely rarely travel, not business travelers especially, that is how
Speaker 1: they mostly move about the country. And you know, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, it's one of these where I've had the
Speaker 1: misfortunate of flying these. But if you're only flying once
Speaker 1: or twice a year, this is you know, you don't
Speaker 1: care about status or any of this other stuff. These
Speaker 1: are great deals that a lot of people have or
Speaker 1: you know from random vacation, etc. Or you know, if
Speaker 1: you just want to save as much money as possible
Speaker 1: when we're flying, time is not time and delays and
Speaker 1: status and all that stuff not of not of any
Speaker 1: importance to you. These play a very important role in
Speaker 1: the marketplace that we see in Europe, like with easy
Speaker 1: Jet and Ryanair, those type of airlines, we've never been
Speaker 1: able to replicate the same level of price just because
Speaker 1: of geography, but we've gotten actually pretty damn close. So
Speaker 1: it's very important to preserve some of these routes, specifically
Speaker 1: to allow as many Americans access to air travel as
Speaker 1: possible without price being the single most prohibitive factor. The
Speaker 1: other thing you've got to consider is that with the airlines,
Speaker 1: most of these people are operating on razor within margins
Speaker 1: in the first place. So whenever mergers happen, inevitably, what
Speaker 1: they while they always say like this is gonna be
Speaker 1: great for the customer, inevitably, what happens they cut staff,
Speaker 1: and they cut routes, especially the routes they cut as
Speaker 1: much as possible, they try and consolidate, and then with
Speaker 1: the limited number of new routes, what happens, well, they
Speaker 1: jack up the price on those and it's just a
Speaker 1: major hit to the bottom line. It's one of those
Speaker 1: where it's really difficult because you really just don't have
Speaker 1: any other option sometimes whenever you're flying, and that is
Speaker 1: why it's important to have as much competition in the
Speaker 1: space as possible, and Spirit serves especially an important place
Speaker 1: in that market. Yeah, that is all very accurate, and
Speaker 1: more Perfect Union put together a great video on those
Speaker 1: that I recommend that you guys check out. They also
Speaker 1: had some more detail here about the history of how
Speaker 1: we ended up in this place in the airline industry
Speaker 1: that I think is worth going into. Put this next
Speaker 1: piece up on the screen. So there was an Airline
Speaker 1: Deregulation Act of nineteen seventy eight, because of course there
Speaker 1: was at the beginning of the era of market fundamentalism.
Speaker 1: They say there was actually initially a huge influx of
Speaker 1: new airlines. So it seemed like the promise of deregulation,
Speaker 1: Oh there's going to be an influx and the free market,
Speaker 1: it's going to be amazing. The initial promise seemed to
Speaker 1: pay off. You had about fifty new airlines that popped
Speaker 1: up in the nineteen eighties. Well, guess what, not one
Speaker 1: of those airlines exists anymore. They were all gobbled up
Speaker 1: or stomped out of existence, is what more Perfect Union says. Now,
Speaker 1: as we put it out before, four airlines control eighty
Speaker 1: two percent of the industry. And not only that, but
Speaker 1: this last part up on the screen, it's not like
Speaker 1: airlines are investing in customer service or staffing or safety
Speaker 1: or new routes or any of that, of course not.
Speaker 1: Instead they line the pockets of wealthy executives and shareholders.
Speaker 1: Ninety six percent of airlines free cash flow in the
Speaker 1: last decade has gone to stock buybacks. This is an
Speaker 1: industry that taxpayers just bailed out during COVID, and the
Speaker 1: minute that they were able to what they do, they
Speaker 1: pushed staff out and they continued with their practice of
Speaker 1: engaging in stock buybacks which do nothing for you, do
Speaker 1: nothing for the country, do nothing for consumers, and do
Speaker 1: everything for their own rich executives and shareholders. That's this industry. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's important to understand that because with the stock buybacks,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why our airlines are held back
Speaker 1: in many respects is they don't invest in a lot
Speaker 1: of new technology and a lot of new aircraft in
Speaker 1: making sure that they have staffing. One of the issues
Speaker 1: that we have right now is the staffing pipeline, where
Speaker 1: if you look at a lot of delays, a lot
Speaker 1: of delays are because there's a limited amount of staffer.
Speaker 1: You know, you have crew flying from one aircraft to
Speaker 1: the other. These guys are all back to back to back.
Speaker 1: They're also getting a short end of the stick because
Speaker 1: they don't really get paid, you know, even if there
Speaker 1: is a delay, they don't get paid really until you
Speaker 1: have flight time. So it's actually structurally a huge problem.
Speaker 1: And this actually really I want to zoom out. Airlines
Speaker 1: are the perfect illustration of how broken something that's so
Speaker 1: fundamental to American life is. You have a shortage of
Speaker 1: pilots for what reason. Well, there's complicated. You have like
Speaker 1: force retirements. We had the whole vaccine thing happened, some
Speaker 1: people were forced out of the workforce, and then in
Speaker 1: terms of training people up, we have crazy standards which
Speaker 1: don't really make any sense at this point to have
Speaker 1: as new pilots that are in the seats so to
Speaker 1: get them flying. Then two, the same problem with the bailouts.
Speaker 1: They still had staff reductions in some of these airlines
Speaker 1: even after they took taxpayer dollars. And then three, the
Speaker 1: airlines themselves, they are not just focused on flying. They
Speaker 1: are focused on juicing their stock prices as much as possible,
Speaker 1: and a lot of them have basically turned into financial
Speaker 1: corporations with leverage. They have leverage contracts on jet fuel
Speaker 1: and they're playing markets like you people wouldn't believe. Yeah,
Speaker 1: when you look at where they're actual profit margins, we
Speaker 1: think of them as being in the business of like
Speaker 1: selling tickets and flying people around the country, when a
Speaker 1: large portion of what they're doing and what they extract
Speaker 1: profits from is actually just behaving like Wall Street. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what they really It's a big part
Speaker 1: of the whole financialization of our economy that we talk
Speaker 1: about so much that you know, most of their profit
Speaker 1: is not even coming from the thing that they purport
Speaker 1: to do. It's from all of their financial speculation. And
Speaker 1: then you know, they goose their own stock prices by
Speaker 1: just buying back their stocky rewarding themselves over and of course, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a tragedy, and you know it's one of those
Speaker 1: things that we all need. And especially if you fly
Speaker 1: a lot inevitably over the last two years, you will
Speaker 1: have noticed that the quality of service and the amount
Speaker 1: of delays and all that is just catastrope. It's so bad.
Speaker 1: And then when you leave the country and you go
Speaker 1: to you know, even places India and other places I've
Speaker 1: been to, they're airports, their infrastructure, they're on time. Is
Speaker 1: also their competition for routes inside of their content country.
Speaker 1: They're amazing. Flying in India is like is like Breece.
Speaker 1: It's so much nicer than flying here. Well, this is
Speaker 1: another thing. I mean, you know, transportation, that's important infrastructure
Speaker 1: within the nation that shouldn't just be subject to like
Speaker 1: what is profitable. You know, it's important that communities and
Speaker 1: cities be served, that you have these routes available, that
Speaker 1: you have competition and choice. So one small positive step
Speaker 1: in that direction that we wanted to make sure to
Speaker 1: highlight for you because it is really important. All Right,
Speaker 1: We've got a little bit of this is like a
Speaker 1: little bit of reading of the tea leaves of whether
Speaker 1: or not Trump is going to get indicted. We have
Speaker 1: the first piece is about the January sixth and fake
Speaker 1: elector portion. And then we also have some news that
Speaker 1: was reported in the Washington Post about some really heated
Speaker 1: battles between FBI agents and prosecutors who were involved in
Speaker 1: that mar Alago raid. So that's really interesting as well.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that in a minute. Actually, let's start
Speaker 1: with that one. That's the order we have it and
Speaker 1: Gun put this up on the screen from the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: So showdown before the raid. FBI agents and prosecutors argued
Speaker 1: over Trump an exclusive look at behind the scenes lilebrations
Speaker 1: as both sides wrestled with a national security case that
Speaker 1: is potentially far reaching political consequences. So what is revealed
Speaker 1: here by a team of reporters, including Carol Lenink, who's
Speaker 1: kind of there like star actual security reporter, is that
Speaker 1: everybody was not on board with the FBI raid. It
Speaker 1: was incredibly controversial, and the lines broke down sickly where
Speaker 1: you had the FBI agents on one side saying, hey,
Speaker 1: let's try to get cooperation. This is too provocative. At
Speaker 1: one point, actually this I think is kind of foolish,
Speaker 1: But after they got that signed letter from Christina Bob
Speaker 1: that was like, oh yeah, we turned off everything. They
Speaker 1: actually just wanted to like close the case and walk away.
Speaker 1: So they were very uncomfortable and hesitant about going forward
Speaker 1: with this rate. But the prosecutors that prosecutors that were
Speaker 1: involved argued that evidence suggested Trump was knowingly, they say,
Speaker 1: concealing secret documents at his Palm Beach, Florida from home.
Speaker 1: They urged the FBI to conduct that surprise rate at
Speaker 1: the property. To senior FBI officials who would be in
Speaker 1: charge of leading the search, resisted the plan as too
Speaker 1: combative and proposed instead to seek Trump's permission to search
Speaker 1: his property. According to four people who spoke on the
Speaker 1: condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive investigation, I'll give
Speaker 1: you a little bit of the color here because I
Speaker 1: think it's interesting to see how heated this was behind
Speaker 1: the scenes. You know, they were kind of going back
Speaker 1: and forth. There was clearly a push and pull. Executters
Speaker 1: consistently on the side of being more aggressive, the FBI
Speaker 1: agents consistently on the side of like, let's not let's
Speaker 1: get cooperation. Like I said before, at one point even
Speaker 1: like let's just shut this thing down and walk away.
Speaker 1: So things kind of came to a head at this
Speaker 1: key final meeting, and according to the Washington Post report here,
Speaker 1: they say tempers ran high in the meeting. Bratt, who's
Speaker 1: on side of the prosecutors, raised his voice at times
Speaker 1: and stressed the FBI agents at the time for trusting
Speaker 1: Trump and his lawyer. Was over. He reminded them of
Speaker 1: the new footage suggesting Trump or his aides could be
Speaker 1: concealing classified records at the Florida Club. The folks on
Speaker 1: the FBI side complained how bad it would look for
Speaker 1: agents with FBI and blazon on their jackets to invade
Speaker 1: a former president's home. The FBI's top counter intel official,
Speaker 1: Alan Kohler Junior, then asked the senior FBI agents to
Speaker 1: consider how bad it would look at the FBI chose
Speaker 1: not to act. In government secrets were hidden at mar Lago.
Speaker 1: FBI agents on the case worried the prosecutors were being
Speaker 1: overly aggressive. They found it worried too that Bratt did
Speaker 1: not seem to think it mattered whether Trump was the
Speaker 1: official subject of the probe. They feared any of these
Speaker 1: features might not stand up to scrutiny if an inspector
Speaker 1: general a congressional committee chose to ret trace the investigator
Speaker 1: steps according to the people. So, Soccer, what did you
Speaker 1: make of this report and this sort of behind the
Speaker 1: scenes clash. Well, there's a lot of talk about FBI,
Speaker 1: but actually really stuck out to me is that the
Speaker 1: bide for all the talk merk Garland and all of
Speaker 1: that being very cautious, it seems to me that this
Speaker 1: was a political decision at the end of the day
Speaker 1: that came from the highest levels of the DOJ. Where
Speaker 1: they're like, no, we're going to raid the we are
Speaker 1: going to raid mar Lago with basically the full intent,
Speaker 1: like the full purpose and the knowledge of what the
Speaker 1: fallout of such an investigation might be. Now. I think
Speaker 1: obviously at the time Crystal, they weren't aware that President
Speaker 1: Biden also had classified documents in his garage, and they're
Speaker 1: not quite sure what exactly the Pandora's box they were
Speaker 1: going to open with all of these former officials. So
Speaker 1: it might kind of take away was this was a
Speaker 1: political decision at the top. I read it a little
Speaker 1: bit differently in that clearly both sides were very concerned,
Speaker 1: like the FBI side and the pressure side, very concerned
Speaker 1: about the careers, about their own assets, about their reputation,
Speaker 1: about how this would look about becoming a target, and
Speaker 1: the prosecutor's way of feeling like, Okay, this is how
Speaker 1: we're going to protect ourselves. Their view was like, well,
Speaker 1: we can't be caught like treating this guy differently than
Speaker 1: we have treated all these other people when they have
Speaker 1: held on to and obscured classified documents. So they thought
Speaker 1: that was the way of sort of covering their own ass.
Speaker 1: The FBI agents, who of course are like the public
Speaker 1: face of actually going in and doing the raid. Well,
Speaker 1: they took a different lesson from history. You know, they
Speaker 1: saw like what went down with Hillary Clinton and all
Speaker 1: of these different things, and they felt like it would
Speaker 1: be lower risk for us to not do this big
Speaker 1: public raid and would probably be smoother sailing. So that's
Speaker 1: kind of how I read the piece is both of
Speaker 1: these sides had different interests, in different calculations about what
Speaker 1: would be the least risky paths for them personally and professionally.
Speaker 1: That kind of led them into these different camps. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's certainly possible. And when you combine it
Speaker 1: with the the what we're learning about how the DOJ
Speaker 1: is looking at the potential indictment of Trump, I think
Speaker 1: it does fit together, like with the overall architecture of
Speaker 1: what they're looking at. Yeah, okay, So let's talk about
Speaker 1: this next piece. This has to do not with the documents,
Speaker 1: but with potential incitement on January sixth, and also with
Speaker 1: fake elector schemes. This is reporting from the Daily Beasts
Speaker 1: based on a recent DOJ court filing. So their headline
Speaker 1: here is how a new DOJ memo sets up two
Speaker 1: potential Trump indictments. The subhad here is what seemed like
Speaker 1: a narrow decision could have far reaching implications. All right,
Speaker 1: this is a little bit complex, but I think you'll
Speaker 1: be able to understand it. They say that at the
Speaker 1: behest of the DC Federal Appellate Court. The DOJ last
Speaker 1: week submitted a legal memo weighing in on a civil
Speaker 1: dispute by injured police officers. In that memo, they clarified
Speaker 1: that Trump's speech was not protected by presidential immunity, nor
Speaker 1: was it protected by his own free speech rights under
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. Here's a little quote from the memo.
Speaker 1: They say, such incitement of imminent private violence would not
Speaker 1: be within the outer perimeter of the office the president
Speaker 1: of the United States. They went out of their way
Speaker 1: to say it does not necessarily support the officer's lawsuits
Speaker 1: against Trump, noting that they expressed no view on that conclusion,
Speaker 1: but they made it clear that Trump's speech was outside
Speaker 1: the norms of his office. It stripped the president of
Speaker 1: virtually any defense he could make. Is the way that
Speaker 1: the Daily Beast characterizes it. They have a couple quotes
Speaker 1: from expert legal analyst type of people. One of them said,
Speaker 1: if they're saying it's outside the scope of community of
Speaker 1: civil suits and outside the scope protected speech. There really
Speaker 1: isn't anything else out there protecting Trump. The two indictments
Speaker 1: Trump could face or for his incitement of the Jerry
Speaker 1: six ryot a federal crime, and his attempt to overturn
Speaker 1: the election results in Georgia a state case there. I
Speaker 1: think most people have felt that the fake elector scheme
Speaker 1: stuff is a more clear cut case to make because
Speaker 1: of the free speech concerns and because he really gave
Speaker 1: himself kind of some wiggle room in terms of what
Speaker 1: he said on January sixth. So all the analysis I've
Speaker 1: seen is that that is a more difficult case to make.
Speaker 1: But the DOJ laying out here that they do not
Speaker 1: feel that his speech was protected First Amendment speech, nor
Speaker 1: was it within the bounds of the office of the president. Yeah,
Speaker 1: good luck trying to prove that one. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't see how you could possibly argue that, especially
Speaker 1: in terms of how high the bar is around incitement,
Speaker 1: if you give yourself even the slight out of which
Speaker 1: you know, you could argue that he did. I'm not
Speaker 1: defending his actions. I'm talking about legal culp bit for
Speaker 1: the actions. I think that would be a difficult one
Speaker 1: that would actually stand up to First Amendment case law.
Speaker 1: As you said, the fake elector scheme is by far
Speaker 1: the one where you have a much better case on
Speaker 1: defrauding the government or a conspiracy to object obstruct a
Speaker 1: government procedure, because he literally held meetings in the Oval
Speaker 1: office with people who wanted to do exactly that and
Speaker 1: entertained many of those schemes. So anyway, I think that's
Speaker 1: probably where he probably if he faces any legal jeopardy
Speaker 1: at all, that is the one where I think it's
Speaker 1: probably more likely. Yeah, And that's what they say here too,
Speaker 1: is that the most likely potential charge is conspiracy to
Speaker 1: fraud the United States over these big elector schemes. And
Speaker 1: they also say that this memo could provide some direction
Speaker 1: to the Georgia investigation that is going on. We know
Speaker 1: because we've covered the like Pouki as we described her
Speaker 1: as you're a poor woman making all kinds of weird
Speaker 1: comments and looking for her fifteen minutes of fame and
Speaker 1: you know, making the whole situation very uncomfortable for them
Speaker 1: down there. But ultimately it's going to be in the
Speaker 1: hands of the DA there to decide what she's going
Speaker 1: to do and what indictments she's going to bring if
Speaker 1: Trump is involved. So another analysis here is that potentially
Speaker 1: this memo helps to justify whatever she wants to do
Speaker 1: with regards to that. Okay, so that's all we know
Speaker 1: about that. At the same time, apparently folks over in
Speaker 1: liberal media are very excited about the possibility of Trump
Speaker 1: being the Republican nominee because apparently they have learned literally
Speaker 1: nothing over these past eight or so years. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to how this went. I am so excited
Speaker 1: that Democrats are once again going to be given the
Speaker 1: gift of Donald Trump being the Republican nominee for President
Speaker 1: of the United States. I know that the White House
Speaker 1: is elated. This is a dream for any Democrat running
Speaker 1: to flip a House seat or a Democrat running to
Speaker 1: keep a competitive senency. I see nothing that would suggest
Speaker 1: that Republicans have learned their lesson. I see a bunch
Speaker 1: of people planning to enter this race and to give
Speaker 1: Donald Trump the minimum of thirty to forty percent that
Speaker 1: he will need to prevail in a crowded field once
Speaker 1: again like he didn't. And I would agree. I mean,
Speaker 1: watching the SAPAC conference, it was like watching some of
Speaker 1: the outtakes from the Cantena scene in Star Wars. And
Speaker 1: it would be funny if it weren't so terrifying at times.
Speaker 1: But if you believe it as I believe that whether
Speaker 1: the nominee is Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis or even
Speaker 1: Nicky Hayley, that that would pose an existential threat to
Speaker 1: democracy itself, which is what we've seen with the opposition
Speaker 1: of voting riots and the election denihalism and so many
Speaker 1: other things. Then you're happy that Donald Trump will be
Speaker 1: the easiest person to defeat on that side. Good luck.
Speaker 1: He says that those mondere Jones for those who are
Speaker 1: just listening, And then the female voice there was Liz Smith,
Speaker 1: Pete Bug's former campaign manager, and you know, he says,
Speaker 1: Monday are there at the beginning Republicans have learned nothing.
Speaker 1: It's like, maybe maybe you are, but you have learned.
Speaker 1: I mean the amount that people continue to underestimate this man.
Speaker 1: He barely lost last time. If he hadn't nuked balloting
Speaker 1: for Republicans, he very likely would have won. If he
Speaker 1: had pushed out one more round of checks in the
Speaker 1: final weeks before the election, he likely would have won.
Speaker 1: So the arrogance to think that, oh, Joe Biden, who
Speaker 1: will be pushing eighty six, whose approval rating is in toilet,
Speaker 1: that he's a shoe in if Donald Trump is the nominee,
Speaker 1: I just I just will never understand. I don't get Look,
Speaker 1: Trump is not ten feet tall. Nobody's ever said that
Speaker 1: he is. No, he's also not two feet tall, and
Speaker 1: you people need to learn like he is a contender
Speaker 1: pound for pound with Joe Biden. He barely lost by
Speaker 1: forty thousand votes across four different states in the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election. As you said, if he literally all he
Speaker 1: does is mail in ballots, he's going to win Arizona,
Speaker 1: He's going to win Georgia. There's no question he would
Speaker 1: have been president of the United States. So how can
Speaker 1: you possibly be so arrogant? Also, one of the takeaways
Speaker 1: that I would have from the GOP primary of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two is guess what, guys, Yeah, they may have
Speaker 1: lost in the general, but his power over the Republican
Speaker 1: base to make stop the steal the letmus tests it worked.
Speaker 1: The vast majority of people who were anti stop the
Speaker 1: Steel who had a Trump endorsed candidate against them, they
Speaker 1: lost their primary race. So he not only has control
Speaker 1: over the party, but he remains one of the most
Speaker 1: popular political figures in the United States. Now, look that
Speaker 1: is that is one of those low bars, because Joe
Speaker 1: Biden also has like a thirty percent popularity. But as
Speaker 1: we learn, just because people don't necessarily like you doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that they won't vote for you should the time come. Well,
Speaker 1: Trump and Biden have similar approval ratings, but the Trump
Speaker 1: fans are all in right, and everybody has always felt
Speaker 1: like about Joe Biden, and that has always been the difference.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, I think it would be uh. I
Speaker 1: think I'm not saying Joe Biden would definitely lose. I
Speaker 1: don't think you could, you know, I don't think you
Speaker 1: could argue that. Trump does have a way of, you know,
Speaker 1: being inflammatory and reminding people just why they kicked him
Speaker 1: out of office last time. But you also have to say,
Speaker 1: you know, his recent speeches, commentary, issue focuses have been
Speaker 1: a lot more intelligent than when he was just twenty
Speaker 1: four to seven mouthing off about insane election conspiracies. So
Speaker 1: he has recaptured some of that old political feel and
Speaker 1: sensibility that brought him into the White House in the
Speaker 1: first place. In twenty sixteen, I went and took a
Speaker 1: look at the most recent polling in Trump versus Biden. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, I think we all know at this point
Speaker 1: to take all the polls with a million grains of salt.
Speaker 1: They can be wrung in either direction at this point,
Speaker 1: so who knows. However, in Virginia, which Biden won by
Speaker 1: I think nine points last time around, latest poll has
Speaker 1: him up by one on Trump. That's within the margin
Speaker 1: of error, and by the way, him losing to DeSantis
Speaker 1: and getting his ass kicked by Glenn Youngkin, who's the
Speaker 1: current governor of Virginia who may run for president as
Speaker 1: well in a national head to head. This was from Emerson.
Speaker 1: The latest poll has Trump forty six and Biden forty two.
Speaker 1: Does that sound like a shoe in for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: to you? Does that sound like you should be like
Speaker 1: praying and ecstatic that Trump may be the nominee because
Speaker 1: Republicans can't get their act together ever to defeat him. No,
Speaker 1: I don't think that you should be excited about that
Speaker 1: or gloating over that whatsoever. And it just I cannot
Speaker 1: believe that these people never ever ever learn a single thing.
Speaker 1: They never will, and they continue to underestimate him to
Speaker 1: their own peril. It's like the classic Jonathan Chait articles
Speaker 1: and others where they're like, we want Marco Rubio to
Speaker 1: go down so we can face Trump or Hillary who
Speaker 1: actively wanted to face Trump? Well, you know you can.
Speaker 1: It's one of those like how many times does he
Speaker 1: need to fool you to take him seriously? I still
Speaker 1: don't think twenty twenty was ever grappled with enough at
Speaker 1: the fact that they did nearly almost lose. And don't
Speaker 1: forget about the House of Representatives either, I mean they
Speaker 1: were supposed to blow out the House, right. She only
Speaker 1: won by what she had a three vote marchin forty three. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she had a March three. It's as pathetic. Their showing
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty was as pathetic as the Republican showing
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two. How short are our political memories here?
Speaker 1: I'm just dimishing. It is astonishing. It is all right,
Speaker 1: Let's go to the next one here from the Department
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security with a new intelligence gathering program that
Speaker 1: quote nobody knew anything about let's put this up there
Speaker 1: on the screen from Politico, be Betsy Woodroff getting the
Speaker 1: scoop quote. A new program called the Overt Human Intelligence
Speaker 1: Collection Program, described in a large tranch of internal documents,
Speaker 1: has revealed widespread internal concerns about legally questionable tactics and
Speaker 1: political pressure. The documents show that people working there fear
Speaker 1: punishment if they speak out about mismanagement and abuses. One
Speaker 1: unnamed employee in April twenty twenty one said that the
Speaker 1: leadership of this office is quote shady and runs like
Speaker 1: a corrupt government. Another said employees were so worried about
Speaker 1: the legality of their activities they wanted their employer to
Speaker 1: cover legal liability insurance for exactly what they were doing.
Speaker 1: All of this comes down to the fact that you
Speaker 1: have this new program where they were trying to exploit
Speaker 1: a loophole, and the loophole, as they explain, it is
Speaker 1: that officials work with state, local and private sector partners,
Speaker 1: collect intel and analyze the intel. Now exactly what they're doing, though,
Speaker 1: is that they were able to speak with prisoners who
Speaker 1: are already inside of the system crystal without notifying their
Speaker 1: lawyers and potentially violating civil liberty. So one of the
Speaker 1: things is that the Title fifty that governs the way
Speaker 1: that the intelligence agencies are supposed to supposed to conduct
Speaker 1: themselves restrict the collection, maintenance, and dissemination of US person's
Speaker 1: information and place additional emphasis on preserving the privacy and
Speaker 1: civil liberties of US persons. Now, one of the things
Speaker 1: that they fear is both the retaliation from all of this,
Speaker 1: but also quote the politicization, because they were worried that
Speaker 1: the use of this new program could be used to
Speaker 1: target people who have sensitive intelligence that is available to
Speaker 1: the US government by directly violating their civil liberties and
Speaker 1: using it in connections from both the January sixth investigation
Speaker 1: but also the George Floyd investigation. So I think that
Speaker 1: this is a perfect example of how when the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is in power, they are violating potentially liable I'll say,
Speaker 1: allegedly violating the civil liberties and printons without notifying lawyers
Speaker 1: and squeezing them with this new intelligence program around the
Speaker 1: George Floyd investigation, and then the Biden administration is using
Speaker 1: it against on January sixth. This is a perfect example
Speaker 1: of the bloating of government and the violation of civil
Speaker 1: liberties within the Department of Homeland. Yes, in the way
Speaker 1: that every administration can use the existing powers that actually exist,
Speaker 1: and also powers that they claim and are probably actually
Speaker 1: illegal and unconstitutional, but that they keep secret in order
Speaker 1: to pursue their own aims. And why it's really important
Speaker 1: that these issues be discussed in a nonpartisan way because
Speaker 1: it goes so much deeper than whether it happens to
Speaker 1: be a d or an R who holds the office
Speaker 1: of the Presidency. So there's a few things here, I mean,
Speaker 1: first of all, the fact that they're using this what
Speaker 1: you described accurately as what they see as a loophole
Speaker 1: to speak to incarcerated individuals who have not been put
Speaker 1: on trial yet, who have been mirandized without the presence
Speaker 1: of their lawyer. This is as dicey as it gets.
Speaker 1: They have a quote here from Patrick Toomey, who's deputy
Speaker 1: director of the ACLUS National Security Project. He said DHS
Speaker 1: should not be questioning people in immigration or criminal detention
Speaker 1: for human intelligence purposes without far stronger safeguards for their rights.
Speaker 1: While this questioning is purportedly voluntary, DHS's policy ignores the
Speaker 1: coercive environment these individuals are held in it fails to
Speaker 1: ensure that individuals have a lawyer present, and it does
Speaker 1: nothing to prevent the government from using a person's words
Speaker 1: against them in court. So let me break that down
Speaker 1: for you. They have these guidelines in place where supposedly
Speaker 1: when they go in to talk to these inmates, they're
Speaker 1: supposed to present them you don't have to talk to us,
Speaker 1: and they are also so they are not allowed to
Speaker 1: offer anything in exchange for whatever it is that this
Speaker 1: person is going to tell them. But imagine that you're
Speaker 1: sitting there in a prison cell and someone from DHS
Speaker 1: comes and says they want to speak with you. I mean,
Speaker 1: imagine what an intimidating and confusing circumstance that is for
Speaker 1: the individual. So that's what he is referring to here
Speaker 1: of the coercive environment. And then at the end he
Speaker 1: says it does nothing to prevent the government from using
Speaker 1: a person's words against them in court. Well, if that
Speaker 1: information that is gleaned from the DHS individual then ends
Speaker 1: up in the hands of, you know, people who are
Speaker 1: involved in this person's police officers, prosecutors, etc. There's no
Speaker 1: provisions to protect that information from being used against these
Speaker 1: people that was obtained again without their lawyer's present. So
Speaker 1: it's a civil liberties nightmare. And you know it's a
Speaker 1: civil liberty's nightmare because even within this program, she has
Speaker 1: quote after quote after quote of employees being deeply concerned
Speaker 1: that they're breaking the law and even insisting that they
Speaker 1: received professional liability insurance in case they end up being
Speaker 1: held liable for the actions that they're taking here. And
Speaker 1: they also had numerous times where something that they were
Speaker 1: told was okay, and this is what you should go
Speaker 1: and do, and here's the proper protocol that all of
Speaker 1: a sudden there was a hard stop of like, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's not do that. Actually I'm not sure we got
Speaker 1: some guidance. So the fact that it was so unclear
Speaker 1: made people deeply uncomfortable. They also expressed and this was
Speaker 1: not like a few isolated people, This was like the
Speaker 1: majority of people who were their employees were like, hey,
Speaker 1: this is not good exactly. And then you have deep
Speaker 1: concerns expressed here in these documents that are revealed about
Speaker 1: the political targeting that you mentioned, and also deep concerns
Speaker 1: this is what people were willing to say. There were
Speaker 1: also deep concerns that they were terrified to actually speak
Speaker 1: out and say anything because they feared for their job
Speaker 1: or to be put in some you know, undesirable post
Speaker 1: and sort of like push to the side because of criticism.
Speaker 1: I don't think people understand the DHS is the largest
Speaker 1: law enforcement agency in the United States. I mean, they
Speaker 1: are gigantic in terms of their overview of thousands of
Speaker 1: law enforcement officers who work there. There are all kinds
Speaker 1: of crazy and sketchy intel programs within them that you
Speaker 1: and I have no idea about. I feel like I
Speaker 1: learn about a nude domestic surveillance program every six months
Speaker 1: the other day, you know, I remember whenever we were
Speaker 1: covering this over at Rising, turns out the Postal Service
Speaker 1: is spying on you. It's like, oh, I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: It's not, by the way, not about your mail. Like
Speaker 1: they're using records that they have to have like essentially
Speaker 1: look ups and have a complete war lifts surveillance program
Speaker 1: on your cyber movements. And I was like, what does
Speaker 1: the Postal Service have to do with it? They exploit
Speaker 1: all kinds of these legal loopholes. There are internal agencies
Speaker 1: that are sprung up everywhere. And then what if we
Speaker 1: also learned, you know, Church committee going all the way back,
Speaker 1: which is even the modest guidelines that we have laid
Speaker 1: out for these people. Okay, if you're going to spy
Speaker 1: in the US, here's what you got to do, here's
Speaker 1: what you can't do. They go to extraordinary lengths to
Speaker 1: break them. They don't follow the rules, and then in
Speaker 1: many cases their own employees are like, hey, we're not
Speaker 1: following the rules. And then also, how did we even
Speaker 1: find out about this? It was leaked to the press. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's supposed to come through Congressional committee, and
Speaker 1: then not only that, you're supposed to have an inspector,
Speaker 1: general process or even Congress write new rules to say, Okay, legally,
Speaker 1: this is what you're allowed to do. It never happens. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they just keep expanding and spending. They break the law
Speaker 1: all the time. Counterpoints is obviously going to have a
Speaker 1: show tomorrow and Ryan and Emily will cover this themselves.
Speaker 1: But our own Ryan Grimm was in the press briefing
Speaker 1: room and ask Kareen Jean Pierre about but which it
Speaker 1: was revealed that a member of Congress was spied on
Speaker 1: by the government, and he asked, hey, what's going on
Speaker 1: with that? Who doubtless who it was wouldn't say anything,
Speaker 1: and there are so little curiosity from almost anyone else
Speaker 1: in the mainstream press about any of these issues. I mean,
Speaker 1: this should be a bombshell report from Betsy Woodruff. It's
Speaker 1: well reported, it's you know, deep, very detailed, with all
Speaker 1: of the concerns and the complaints and the civil liberties violations,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and it barely gets noticed in the mainstream press.
Speaker 1: That suppose they support it. I think that they like
Speaker 1: the fact that the government can do all this because
Speaker 1: then the government does what, they leak whatever sensitive information
Speaker 1: they can to the press, and the rest of us
Speaker 1: can just get to scream into the void. To be
Speaker 1: honest with you, Yeah, it's I think because Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is in the office of presidency right now, they feel
Speaker 1: more comfortable. Of course, if this came out during the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, then they would potentially be more worried about
Speaker 1: its weaponization. But it shouldn't matter which president it is
Speaker 1: when you have these sort of abuses consistently occurring against
Speaker 1: American citizens. Absolutely, Okay, let's move on to doctor Fauci.
Speaker 1: Just some more stuff that just crystallizes for all time
Speaker 1: how complicit he was not only in the lab leak,
Speaker 1: in funding the Wuhan lab, but in covering up his
Speaker 1: own role and the implication that the COVID nineteen virus
Speaker 1: did leak from the Muhan lab. Let's put this up
Speaker 1: there on the screen. New emails which were uncovered by
Speaker 1: a committee investigating the lab leak hypothesis revealed that doctor
Speaker 1: Anthony Fauci prompted and commissioned a final approval for a
Speaker 1: scientific paper, which we've covered here at nauseum, in February
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty to disprove the theory that the virus
Speaker 1: had leaked from the lab. Now, why that is important
Speaker 1: is that just two months later he stood at the
Speaker 1: White House podium and said that quote. There was a
Speaker 1: study recently where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists
Speaker 1: looked at the sequences in bats as they evolve and
Speaker 1: the mutations that it took to get to the point
Speaker 1: where it is now totally consistent with a jump from
Speaker 1: species from animal to a human. So the paper will
Speaker 1: be available. I don't have the authors right now, but
Speaker 1: I can make it available to you. Why does that matter,
Speaker 1: Because he sent a final approval editing in draft form
Speaker 1: for that paper that was published in Nature magazine on
Speaker 1: February seventeenth, twenty twenty. He then used that paper to
Speaker 1: actually tell his boss, the United States government, and the
Speaker 1: American people in the press that showed that the lab
Speaker 1: leak theory was thus disproven. Now, look, we've actually focused
Speaker 1: quite a bit on that February seventeen paper. I've done
Speaker 1: a lot of monologues about the emails showing Christian Anderson
Speaker 1: and many of the other virologists who initially had believed
Speaker 1: that this was a lab leak and had not consistent
Speaker 1: with evolutionary theory, effectively being browbeat by doctor Fauci, by
Speaker 1: Peter Dazak, by many of these other characters were involved
Speaker 1: who ultimately come out with this paper. The paper was
Speaker 1: then extraordinarily influential by the media, by the scientific establishment
Speaker 1: by quashing any disc and as to how exactly COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen might have come from the lab, And then we
Speaker 1: didn't find out for nearly two years until a Foyer investigation.
Speaker 1: And now these emails show you not only that Fauci
Speaker 1: knew in January that the virus was not quote not
Speaker 1: consistent with evolutionary theory, but that he actually commissioned the
Speaker 1: paper himself. He prompted the drafting of the publication. His
Speaker 1: hands are so dirty on this that it's difficult to
Speaker 1: even describe. And you know, it's unfortunate because of course,
Speaker 1: even you want to cover this, who's the only outlets
Speaker 1: covering it? New York Post, right Baily called. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like it's only the conservative media. This is a
Speaker 1: huge story, Yeah that nobody were people refused to pick
Speaker 1: up on. Yeah, but it goes against the narrative of Fauchi.
Speaker 1: The Saint Yeh has been peddled and continue to be
Speaker 1: peddled right up until his retirement with his own, you know,
Speaker 1: puff pieces in New York Times, et cetera. And just
Speaker 1: to give you the details here, this paper was submitted
Speaker 1: to Nature Medicine with a cover email that read, there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of speculation, fear mongering, and conspiracies put
Speaker 1: in this space. This paper was prompted by Jeremy Farrah,
Speaker 1: Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, so explicitly stating that the
Speaker 1: paper was prompted by Tony Fauci. And just to remind
Speaker 1: you of the timeline here this paper, this letter drops
Speaker 1: four days after that initial conference call, when there were
Speaker 1: several at least members of the call who at least
Speaker 1: thought it was plausible that it came from a lab leak,
Speaker 1: and in particular and some who thought it was much
Speaker 1: more likely than not that it came from a lab leak.
Speaker 1: So it's mere days after this call that there's a
Speaker 1: marshaling of forces to destroy any semblance of that narrative
Speaker 1: and make it off limits for the press. And I
Speaker 1: mean it worked as a cudgel incredibly effectively. He knew
Speaker 1: what he was doing. This was a set piece. He knew. Okay,
Speaker 1: if we put out this letter and we have all
Speaker 1: of these signists sign onto it, Madia doesn't understand this stuff,
Speaker 1: then we hint to the oh, if the other theory
Speaker 1: is just conspiracy, it's just Trump talk, it's just you know, racist,
Speaker 1: et cetera, then that will put any idea that this
Speaker 1: could have leaked from the lab off the table and
Speaker 1: no one will investigate it. And guess what, almost no
Speaker 1: one did for quite a while. It was extraordinarily effective, right,
Speaker 1: And I think people need to remember, you know, with
Speaker 1: Christian Anderson, with many of the other people who were involved,
Speaker 1: you had doctor Peter Dazak also use this paper and
Speaker 1: then thank them and then send it to fauci In
Speaker 1: to other people in the scientific establishment to continue to
Speaker 1: quash it. By April, it was completely impossible to discuss
Speaker 1: the Lablik hypothesis in the public sphere. It was knocked
Speaker 1: down so quickly. Doth protests a little bit too much.
Speaker 1: Then at the time it was used to take zero
Speaker 1: hedge off of Twitter. It was obviously used as a
Speaker 1: censorship mechanism all over YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, many of the
Speaker 1: other social media platforms. And you know, three years later,
Speaker 1: literally three years later, what do we know it was
Speaker 1: almost certainly true. At this point, you're, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: you're a conspiracy theorist if you don't think that it
Speaker 1: came from the lab, because there is just such little
Speaker 1: evidence to even back that up. Now even you know,
Speaker 1: the Energy Department, the FBI have to admit that, yeah,
Speaker 1: it probably came from the lab. If the former CDC
Speaker 1: director under Donald Trump, who came out years ago now
Speaker 1: almost two years ago, at this point, he's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it came out of the Wuhan Lab. Apparently
Speaker 1: that was just not a p that was not considered
Speaker 1: an influential enough figure to prompt investigation, and to this day,
Speaker 1: the only way that the mainstream media will cover it
Speaker 1: is you know, one of the segment we were going
Speaker 1: to do Crystal was about the Washington Posts, and the
Speaker 1: Washington Post wrote this effective hit piece on the lab
Speaker 1: leak theory where they're like, this little known department in
Speaker 1: energy is the one who is coming up with the
Speaker 1: idea that it came from the lab. That little known department,
Speaker 1: by the way, is tasked with overseeing safety of actual
Speaker 1: virology labs. So yeah, maybe they happen to know something
Speaker 1: about lab safety and about how to read intelligence about
Speaker 1: how this virus might have been escape from the WUHAVIA. Yeah,
Speaker 1: even beyond the censorship, which was obviously outrageous, the smearing
Speaker 1: of people who suggested there was something to this theory
Speaker 1: as you know, racist and xenophobic and all the rest,
Speaker 1: there was a real cost to putting people off the
Speaker 1: track for years where you know, this was a critical
Speaker 1: time period when we could have had a better shot
Speaker 1: at getting to the bottom of what actually happened here,
Speaker 1: and we'll never get that time back. So there was
Speaker 1: a real scientific cost to this whole what looks very
Speaker 1: clearly to me at this point like a conspiracy to
Speaker 1: hide a potential possibility and reality from the American public
Speaker 1: and quash any potential debate or investigation in that direction.
Speaker 1: Well said second part here, which is amusing, but also
Speaker 1: not all of that surprising. Let's put this up there
Speaker 1: on the screen. It's now being revealed that then president
Speaker 1: CNN's Jeff Zucker ordered staff not to chase down the
Speaker 1: lab leak theory as the pandemic unfolded. So this is
Speaker 1: a report from Fox News' Brian Flood and Joseph Wilfson too,
Speaker 1: who I know, and they've done good work in the past,
Speaker 1: so I have some cre I lend some credence to
Speaker 1: this report. Here's what they say. In the early months
Speaker 1: of the pandemic, then president CNN president Jeff Zucker would
Speaker 1: not allow his network to chase down the lab leak
Speaker 1: story because he believed quote it was a Trump talking point.
Speaker 1: Now he says, people are slowly waking up to the fog.
Speaker 1: It's kind of crazy that we didn't chase it harder.
Speaker 1: Throughout Zucker's tenure at CNN, he had an immensely important
Speaker 1: role from directing editorial network of the entire the editorial
Speaker 1: direction of the entire network. They point to a March
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty article published by CNN's Oliver Darcy, who says, quote,
Speaker 1: here's how to debunk coronavirus misinformation and conspiracy theories from
Speaker 1: friends and family that include debunking the idea that COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen had leaked from the lab and that the origin
Speaker 1: was not entirely consistent with the natural origin hypothesis. CNN
Speaker 1: host Fared Zakaria also said, quote, thefar Wright has now
Speaker 1: found its own virus conspiracy theory, and in February of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, they published a facts first examination of Tom
Speaker 1: Cotton where they tried to knock him down. They have
Speaker 1: all kinds of stories spanning over the year of how
Speaker 1: many times that they tried to debunk the lab leaue hypothesis,
Speaker 1: from CNN's New Day, to Chris Cuomo, to people who
Speaker 1: were writing there at the network. And I will give
Speaker 1: them only one slight ounce of credit which they did
Speaker 1: not cover in this. Josh Rogan, who we've had here
Speaker 1: on the show, who's been also on the Joe Rogan Experience.
Speaker 1: He works for the Washington Post. He is a Cian
Speaker 1: an analyst, and he did at least talk about it
Speaker 1: a little bit whenever they did it. So I want
Speaker 1: to say that they did air it because Rogan is
Speaker 1: a fearless journalist whenever it comes to this issue, and
Speaker 1: never ever dropped the idea that it might have come
Speaker 1: from the Wuhan lab because you know, he just wanted
Speaker 1: to do a very basic investigation. However, outside of Josh Rogan,
Speaker 1: there was a complete effort from the very top of
Speaker 1: the network. It seems to quash any investigation here of
Speaker 1: the lab leak theory. I will also say that they
Speaker 1: played down CNN Sanjay Gupta's report about COVID. If we'll
Speaker 1: recall Crystal Gupta is the one who went ahead and
Speaker 1: interviewed was Robert Redfield, I think it's his name. He
Speaker 1: interviewed him and is the one who got that quote
Speaker 1: about him saying that the virus had leaked from the lab.
Speaker 1: But they were of course important to air. They're like, well,
Speaker 1: people disagree with doctor Redford on this issue, and so
Speaker 1: even when they had the scoop from the former CDC director,
Speaker 1: they felt the need editorially, it seems to tone all
Speaker 1: of this down anytime lab leak was mentioned, they went
Speaker 1: out of their way to say, well, there's no evidence
Speaker 1: for this, but guess what. There was no evidence for
Speaker 1: the zoomage the natural original wet market theory either. I
Speaker 1: mean they never found this theoretical animal that passed virus whatever.
Speaker 1: These were both theories. At this point, you do have
Speaker 1: some evidence in the direction of lab leak, but you
Speaker 1: know you can't say on one handler, oho, well there's
Speaker 1: no evidence to support this. It's just a theory. But
Speaker 1: then the other one that is equally as hypothetical and theoretical,
Speaker 1: that also has no evidence backing it, that one you
Speaker 1: just push forward is like, oh, well, this is the
Speaker 1: one that the serious people are taking a look at.
Speaker 1: And that's really what it came down to. I mean,
Speaker 1: Jeffzucker doesn't know anything about science, and so they all
Speaker 1: used this sort of partisan analysis of who they liked
Speaker 1: more so they liked Tony Fauci and they didn't like
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, and that's how Zucker ends up labeling lab
Speaker 1: leak a quote Trump talking point and essentially forbidding the
Speaker 1: network from investigating it. And again that goes to the
Speaker 1: point of what Fauci did in terms of pushing for
Speaker 1: this paper and then putting the paper forward to saying, look,
Speaker 1: here's the analysis of all the serious people. This is
Speaker 1: what they think. That was very effective when it came
Speaker 1: to liberal networks like CNN. My favorite example that they
Speaker 1: gave here he went through like Oliver Darcy and whatever
Speaker 1: personally enjoyed Crysalizz's contribution. They headlined at Anthony Fauci just
Speaker 1: crushed Donald Trump's theory on the origins of the coronavirus.
Speaker 1: It notes that Trump has been making the case the
Speaker 1: coronavirus originated not in nature, but in a lab in Wuhan, China.
Speaker 1: Insisted Fauci's claim that the virus likely originated naturally was
Speaker 1: more accurate. Quote here's a quote from the piece. I
Speaker 1: love this. Now before we play the game of he said,
Speaker 1: she he said, he said, remember this, only one of
Speaker 1: these two people is a world renowned infectious disease expert,
Speaker 1: and it's not Donald Trump. Solisa wrote, So giving up
Speaker 1: the game that your entirety of your analysis is Trump
Speaker 1: is bad. Trump said a thing, Therefore the thing must
Speaker 1: be wrong. And I'm going to believe this person over here,
Speaker 1: who he's the good guy. He is science, he's on
Speaker 1: the side of science, and so I'm just going to reflexively,
Speaker 1: without thinking, assume that he's the one that's correct real journalism. There.
Speaker 1: He really is the king of the Midwites. We also
Speaker 1: have a hilarious tweet here from Eli I just got
Speaker 1: to say here at the top, look, let's put it
Speaker 1: up there on the screen. He says that he floats
Speaker 1: the idea that if an organization portrays itself as balanced,
Speaker 1: it should be labeled to inform the public. After somebody
Speaker 1: floated the idea that because CNN told their staff not
Speaker 1: to share COVID, that they should label CNN state affiliated media. Now, look,
Speaker 1: let's not go down this road. As terrible as I
Speaker 1: think CNN is, I think that editorially trying to place
Speaker 1: factual notes on different organizations as to how they lean
Speaker 1: and all of that is a terrible idea of just
Speaker 1: because I think that basically everything should be allowed to
Speaker 1: float completely equally, and then we can all make up
Speaker 1: our minds, and you know, CNN itself can humiliate itself
Speaker 1: three years later and we can all take a victory
Speaker 1: lap on them. That said, it is kind of funny
Speaker 1: the idea of labeling them as state affiliate media. I'm
Speaker 1: amazingah bad idea, but amusing, and if it happened, it
Speaker 1: wouldn't be the worst thing of the world. I would
Speaker 1: speak out of it about it though. Okay, let's move
Speaker 1: on to an important segment with January sixth and some
Speaker 1: new video which was debuted last night on Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1: So of course, let's step back. Part of the speakership
Speaker 1: deal that Kevin McCarthy apparently had to agree to was
Speaker 1: to give thousands of hours of January six footage to
Speaker 1: the Tucker Carlson Show producers that they could comb through
Speaker 1: to see if they could find some different stuff that
Speaker 1: had not been reviewed by both the January sixth Committee
Speaker 1: and had not yet been aired by CNN, by the
Speaker 1: New York Times or any of the mainstream media outlets.
Speaker 1: One of the clips that Tucker aired on his show
Speaker 1: last night is I think pretty extraordinary. It shows the
Speaker 1: famed QAnon Shaman effectively being led through the halls of
Speaker 1: the Capitol by Capitol police, multiple Capitol police who could
Speaker 1: have taken him down at any one point, and at
Speaker 1: one point Crystal opening the door to the Senate Chamber
Speaker 1: for the q Andon Shaman to then take those famous
Speaker 1: photos where he was literally on the Senate floor. So
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and play this for everybody. Tucker is
Speaker 1: narrating some of the footage here. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 1: Dangerous conspiracy theorist dressed in outlandish costume who led the
Speaker 1: violent insurrection to overthrow American democracy. For these crimes, Chansley
Speaker 1: was sentenced to nearly four years in prison, far more
Speaker 1: time than many violent criminals now receive. What did Jacob
Speaker 1: Chansley do to receive this punishment? To this day, there's
Speaker 1: dispute over how Chansley got into the Capitol building, but
Speaker 1: according to our review of the internal surveillance video, it
Speaker 1: is very clear what happened once he got inside. Virtually
Speaker 1: every moment of his time inside the Capitol was caught
Speaker 1: on tape. The tape show that Capitol police never stopped
Speaker 1: Jacob Chansley. They helped him. They acted as his tour guides.
Speaker 1: Here's video of Chansley in the Senate chamber. Capitol police
Speaker 1: officers take him to multiple entrances and even try to
Speaker 1: open lock doors for him. We counted at least nine
Speaker 1: officers who were within touching distance of unarmed Jacob Chansley,
Speaker 1: not one of them even tried to slow him down.
Speaker 1: Chanceley understood that Capitol police were his allies. Video shows
Speaker 1: him giving thanks for them in a prayer on the
Speaker 1: floor of the Senate, watched to the police officers to allow. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's a single innocent explanation for that.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons why I think that's important is,
Speaker 1: as Tucker said, Chansley was not only sentence he's now serving,
Speaker 1: I believe, a pretty long length four year sentence in prison.
Speaker 1: We should remember this that the judge involved in this
Speaker 1: case in many other cases, actually denied these defendants access
Speaker 1: to this footage, specifically because the defendants were like, hey,
Speaker 1: the footage is going to show that these cops let
Speaker 1: us in there, and it goes against the narrative. So anyway,
Speaker 1: I think that that certainly is important when we'rejillious, I'm
Speaker 1: not defending this guy. Clearly his office rocker and clearly
Speaker 1: was crazy. But you know, you got nine uniform police
Speaker 1: officers armed who are opening doors effectively escorting him around
Speaker 1: the building. That's crazy. You and I were talking a
Speaker 1: little bit about the show. I cannot come up with
Speaker 1: any innocent explanation for this. I don't think it exists
Speaker 1: unless they was just sympathized with him for part of
Speaker 1: the reason why he's like part of the reason he
Speaker 1: thanks them in his shamanistic prayer and allowing him on
Speaker 1: the floor, these them as allies right in the wake
Speaker 1: of First of all, let me say, look, Tucker has
Speaker 1: a narrative that he has been pushing about January six
Speaker 1: and he, you know, has like attempted to cherry pick.
Speaker 1: I have no doubt the footage that backs up his
Speaker 1: version of the day. Okay, so let's just put that
Speaker 1: out there. But that aside, let's deal with what is
Speaker 1: actually portrayed in this video, because I remember right after
Speaker 1: January sixth, there were all these videos floating around of
Speaker 1: like Capitol police officers opening up the gates outside, and
Speaker 1: people on the left were like and liberals were like,
Speaker 1: what the hell is this about? Like, why are you
Speaker 1: doing that now? It's also absolutely the case based on
Speaker 1: other footage that we've seen, that there were violent scuffles
Speaker 1: and assaults and there were Capitol police officers who were
Speaker 1: trying to keep the doors closed, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But when you look at this footage, like I want
Speaker 1: to know what was going on in theirs where they're
Speaker 1: just milling around or they're actively helping him find an
Speaker 1: entrance into the chambers. How do you justify that? And
Speaker 1: it seems like remember soccer. Also right after January sixth,
Speaker 1: there was a little bit of reporting that was very
Speaker 1: critical of the Capitol Police because the response was atrocious.
Speaker 1: We covered that investigation into how all of their riot
Speaker 1: shields were like locked in a bus that nobody had
Speaker 1: the key to you. I was total Keystone Cops thing.
Speaker 1: And it was also there was also continue to be
Speaker 1: huge questions about how it could be the case that
Speaker 1: you had infiltrators in some of these groups. We know that,
Speaker 1: and yet you were unable when there was an actual,
Speaker 1: like real threat going on here to disrupt this event
Speaker 1: and you were too busy, like you know, inventing conspiracies
Speaker 1: for Gretchen Whitmer or as we covered on the show
Speaker 1: with Trevor Aronson, the focus on like inserting agent provocateurs
Speaker 1: and Black Lives Matter, Like you're doing all that stuff,
Speaker 1: but you've got infiltrators in these groups and you're not
Speaker 1: able to like muster sufficient security to disrupt this actual threat.
Speaker 1: So to me, it just adds to a whole lot
Speaker 1: of questions about what exactly happened with the Capitol police,
Speaker 1: about whether they saw themselves as allies with these people
Speaker 1: who were storming the Capitol, and the failures of our
Speaker 1: intelligence and law enforcement agencies to get ahead of this
Speaker 1: threat when they should have had all of the assets
Speaker 1: in place they needed to know that this was ultimately coming.
Speaker 1: Talker also exposed something important about Ray Epps, the potential
Speaker 1: Asian provocateur who is on video multiple times saying we
Speaker 1: need to go into the Capitol minutes after texting his
Speaker 1: nephew quote I orchestrated it. Epps swore to the January
Speaker 1: sixth Committee that he had left. Surveillance video clearly shows
Speaker 1: him on the Capitol grounds thirty minutes later, after he
Speaker 1: investigators that he had left the grounds of the Capitol.
Speaker 1: So he lied. He's just been exposed straight up as
Speaker 1: a liar to Congress. He committed an act of perjury. Now,
Speaker 1: do I think that they're going to refer him to
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and they'll prosecute potentially one of
Speaker 1: their own. No, I don't you also remember from the
Speaker 1: New York Times they are very sympathetic portrait of EPs.
Speaker 1: He's like, I've had to move and all that. They
Speaker 1: never asked him really point blank one time, They're like, hey,
Speaker 1: did you cooperate with the FBI? Were you an FBI informant.
Speaker 1: Let's also not forget the Proud Boys. You know that
Speaker 1: has come out in the trial and the indictments. Was
Speaker 1: the leader of the organization was an informant? We also
Speaker 1: from the oath Keeper's indictment and the eventual convictions and
Speaker 1: stuff that came out in the trial, there was a
Speaker 1: lot of FBI infiltration into some of these groups. So, look,
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened, and I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: it was a total setup. I'm not saying that it
Speaker 1: was a peaceful day or any of that. Clearly there
Speaker 1: was a lot of violence that occurred. But I think
Speaker 1: that there is a hell of a lot of questions
Speaker 1: to ask about the Capitol police officers that were specific.
Speaker 1: I mean, the QAnon Shoman effectively is what he's like
Speaker 1: the mascot of what he became the most visible symbol of.
Speaker 1: You got nine cops who were standing outside and opening
Speaker 1: a door for an unarmed guy when he's walking onto
Speaker 1: the Senate floor and Also, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: people remember, but there was video from the floor of
Speaker 1: the Senate where one of the officers was like, hey,
Speaker 1: like just so you know, like this is one of
Speaker 1: the most hallowed, important grounds. Well why did you let
Speaker 1: him in there? Why would you open the door to
Speaker 1: make sure that the guy can get into the chamber.
Speaker 1: It seems to me like there was a you know,
Speaker 1: there was like a chaotic period of actual exploration of
Speaker 1: the events of the day and the immediate aftermath of
Speaker 1: January sixth, and then the Democratic Party decided the narrative
Speaker 1: they wanted to go with was the Capitol Police officers
Speaker 1: were heroes uniformly, right, And again I'm not saying there
Speaker 1: were heroic efforts on that day among individual members of
Speaker 1: the Capitol Police, but I think that these images raise
Speaker 1: a lot of questquestions about, to say the least, about
Speaker 1: whether that was uniformly the case. But they wanted this
Speaker 1: very black and white narrative, and so they killed any
Speaker 1: potential nuance. They you know, didn't show the public any
Speaker 1: of this footage that paints a very different picture that's
Speaker 1: at odds with the very disnified, black and white version
Speaker 1: of events that they were portraying in which the Capitol
Speaker 1: police officers with heroes and you know, these individuals coming
Speaker 1: the capital were the villains and they were clashing and
Speaker 1: that was the end of the story. So in any case,
Speaker 1: like I said at the top, listen, Tucker has his
Speaker 1: narrative that he's pushing, and he wants to pick the
Speaker 1: footage that is going to serve his narrative, just like
Speaker 1: the Democrats had their narrative that they're pushing, and they
Speaker 1: wanted to pick the footage that you know, ultimately backed
Speaker 1: up their point of view. I wish we could have
Speaker 1: a broader, more public revelation of all of this footage
Speaker 1: so we could have the nuanced picture of that day
Speaker 1: that the American people still deserve and will probably never get.
Speaker 1: Part of the reason I'm not that troubled by it
Speaker 1: is like, look, at this point, the New York Times
Speaker 1: literally want a Politicer Prize for reconstructing the violent on
Speaker 1: gen You can watch every violent clip known to man
Speaker 1: that happened on jan six. This is the stuff that
Speaker 1: we have not had any real expose a into. So look,
Speaker 1: I don't agree, I mean, I don't disagree. Tucker has
Speaker 1: his agenda. He's been saying it's what did he say?
Speaker 1: It was a set up? Basically false flag? It was
Speaker 1: a false flag evidence even No, I don't think it
Speaker 1: was one hundred percent the false flag? Do I think
Speaker 1: that there were you know, elements of informants and agents
Speaker 1: and all that stuff that were involved on the day
Speaker 1: of January six. I think that's effectively a fact to
Speaker 1: me at this point. The bigger question isn't like, oh,
Speaker 1: to the FBI, like settens up, because listen, honestly, seeing
Speaker 1: the way that they operate, I really severely doubt that
Speaker 1: they have the capability and the competence to be able
Speaker 1: to pull off some like grand schemes such as this.
Speaker 1: I think the bigger question in Trevor Aronson, who's written
Speaker 1: a lot about the FBI and who we had on
Speaker 1: for his podcast about the agent provocateur and the BLM
Speaker 1: protests in Denver, I think the bigger question is what
Speaker 1: is the FBI? How is the FBI so incredibly failing
Speaker 1: at their job when it comes to actual threats that
Speaker 1: they should be able to disrupt while they're so busy,
Speaker 1: you know, with these agent provocateurs here and Gretchen Whitmer
Speaker 1: kidnap napping, plots there and going back in time obviously
Speaker 1: the you know, effectively entrapment of young musclm men with
Speaker 1: regards to war on terror, like they're so busy creating
Speaker 1: crimes that they can then try to disrupt and write
Speaker 1: in like they're the heroes that how do you miss?
Speaker 1: Was that distracting you from actually paying attention to the
Speaker 1: intelligence you could have been gathering from your infiltration of
Speaker 1: these groups? And if that's the case, like, what use
Speaker 1: are you ultimately if you can't do the thing that
Speaker 1: you're supposed to do because you're so distracted by these
Speaker 1: like big shiny plots that you want to construct over here.
Speaker 1: So to me, that's the sort of bigger picture question
Speaker 1: about this day, about the operation of these agencies, and
Speaker 1: then specifically with regard to the Capitol Police, they really
Speaker 1: need to be I wish there was one mainstream outlet
Speaker 1: with some level of credibility that would ask some questions
Speaker 1: about why were you just milling around? Why were you
Speaker 1: letting this dude like trying the doors and letting this
Speaker 1: dude into the chamber? What is that about? Like give
Speaker 1: us an answer that makes some sense here. Instead, we
Speaker 1: gave him five hundred million dollars. More, we didn't fire
Speaker 1: anybody who was involved, and we turned the United States
Speaker 1: capital City into effectively the green Zone from Iraq. So yeah,
Speaker 1: that seems like a reasonable one. Good, all right, sagary
Speaker 1: looking at well, Like apparently many people across the country.
Speaker 1: I got interested in the Alex Murda trial after watching
Speaker 1: the Netflix documentary on his family. There's a lot to
Speaker 1: say about the class element of a patriarchal family in
Speaker 1: the South effectively owning the legal system even today, in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three in the United States of America. But
Speaker 1: I have a slightly different take, which is likely to
Speaker 1: be unpopular, but look still bear some thinking about. After
Speaker 1: the most recent guilty verdict, the means through which the
Speaker 1: state got his conviction makes me very uncomfortable for the
Speaker 1: future of jurisprudence in the United States. And to be clear,
Speaker 1: if you ask me, I think he probably did it.
Speaker 1: Certainly things look that way, but that's kind of the point.
Speaker 1: For those who haven't watched the wild twists and turns
Speaker 1: of the case, I guess a fair way to sum
Speaker 1: it up quickly is this, there's this Murda family down
Speaker 1: in rural South Carolina. It's very powerful. Over the years,
Speaker 1: a number of crazy things resulting in the deaths of
Speaker 1: local residents have happened around them, which culminated in the
Speaker 1: murder of the murder of the wife and the son
Speaker 1: of Alex Murda. The State of South Carolina asserts that
Speaker 1: Murda murdered his wife and son in a fit of
Speaker 1: desperation to draw attention away from miss myriad admitted financial
Speaker 1: crimes supporting his ongoing drug habit. That means that the
Speaker 1: means though through which the state proved this murder is
Speaker 1: what I want to focus on. From day one, prosecutors
Speaker 1: indicated that despite the fact that such a murder would
Speaker 1: normally be pursued as a death penalty case, they would
Speaker 1: instead seek life without parole. Why because the case against
Speaker 1: Murda is largely circumstantial. Marda maintains that his innocence and
Speaker 1: his son was likely killed in a revenge scheme after
Speaker 1: he was previously the lead culprit in a drunken voting
Speaker 1: accident that killed local girl Mallory Beach. Now, the way
Speaker 1: in which the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt to
Speaker 1: the jury that Murdach committed the crime was not only circumstantial,
Speaker 1: but relied in almost entirely on technology. Murda's version of
Speaker 1: events was that he was not present at the scene
Speaker 1: of the crime when the murders were committed on his property.
Speaker 1: The state, however, reconstructed the crime relying almost entirely on
Speaker 1: cell phone usage of the victims and of Murda himself.
Speaker 1: They placed nearly the exact time of the murders based
Speaker 1: upon the last time that both victims had last unlocked
Speaker 1: their cell phones. They looked at the exact timestamp of
Speaker 1: snapchat video allegedly posted minutes before the murders was prepared
Speaker 1: to show Murda's voice in the background. They looked at
Speaker 1: the exact step counts of the two murder victims and
Speaker 1: of Alex Murdad to see how much they had moved,
Speaker 1: and of murder himself had intentionally didn't have his phone
Speaker 1: on him at the time of the murder. Prosecutors then
Speaker 1: showed exactly minutes after the purported murders had taken place
Speaker 1: that Murdo's phone showed a massive increase in activity where
Speaker 1: he allegedly worked to construct an alibi for himself. One
Speaker 1: of the ways they show that is he left the
Speaker 1: house after the alleged murder at an exact point was
Speaker 1: by pulling the records from the on Star system on
Speaker 1: board his car. He even were able to pinpoint the
Speaker 1: exact speed he was going on the highway, and they
Speaker 1: posit based upon his step count gleamed from his Apple
Speaker 1: health data that he'd been pacing around during his alleged
Speaker 1: alibi time while he was on the phone in a
Speaker 1: nervous fit. Now you put it together that way, and
Speaker 1: it sounds bad, right, But as far hid Manju at
Speaker 1: the New York Times notes, there is another explanation that
Speaker 1: could make some sense. For instance, the Sun's phone, which
Speaker 1: was never unlocked again, was a two percent battery the
Speaker 1: last time that he opened it. The other victim, Maggie
Speaker 1: Murdo's phone showed changes in orientation from sideways to vertical
Speaker 1: and recorded moving some steps after her alleged murder. Her
Speaker 1: phone was later then found on the side of the road,
Speaker 1: where prosecutors say that he throw it out the window.
Speaker 1: But weirdly, he apparently is also the guy who gave
Speaker 1: them the password to his wife's phone where they got
Speaker 1: all this data. Furthermore, the on Star system shows him
Speaker 1: speeding not only to the place of his alibi, but
Speaker 1: also on the way back from his alibi. And as
Speaker 1: for the pacing, as Manju writes, lots of people walk
Speaker 1: around while they're on the phone. That's totally normal. I
Speaker 1: do it too, not necessarily as a state says evidence
Speaker 1: that he was trying to quote hide something nervously on pacing. Look,
Speaker 1: I am not saying he didn't do it. Somebody obviously
Speaker 1: killed those people, and he had a very good motive.
Speaker 1: He had a sketchy history, and if someone else did
Speaker 1: a decent job of ruling out other suspects. The point, though,
Speaker 1: is that we need to be weary of putting people
Speaker 1: away for life in prison based purely on cell phone data,
Speaker 1: which we think is ironclad. In reality, it's an imperfect
Speaker 1: picture of a complicated real world. As Farhad points out,
Speaker 1: previous studies have showed that the Apple step count data
Speaker 1: is off by a very wide range. On average, some
Speaker 1: of it is twelve percent compared to a comparable pedometer.
Speaker 1: None of this apparently was considered by the jury who
Speaker 1: found him guilty within three hours after the reams of
Speaker 1: evidence were presented. And to be transparent, maybe I would
Speaker 1: have voted for the same way. But something has to
Speaker 1: stick in the back of our minds about this type
Speaker 1: of technological framing around inaccurate data, and we need to
Speaker 1: have some hubris about what we really know and don't know,
Speaker 1: to question how much confidence that we can actually have.
Speaker 1: Consider for example, the ad non said trial said of
Speaker 1: the serial podcast name famously was put behind bars under
Speaker 1: a similar presentation to the jury, Prosecutors use Siaed's cell
Speaker 1: phone data to say his phone was in the area
Speaker 1: of the body of the victim, Hayman Lee, because it
Speaker 1: pinged a tower nearby the park between the hours where
Speaker 1: they suspect that her body was buried. However, AT and
Speaker 1: T data at the time noted incoming calls are quote
Speaker 1: not considered reliable information. For Despite this, prosecutors presented the
Speaker 1: cell phone tower data as fact, and it was one
Speaker 1: of the major reasons he was granted a mistrial and
Speaker 1: he remains free right now. As you can see, at
Speaker 1: the time of the trial in two thousand, they considered
Speaker 1: this open and shut, no questions asked. I can tell
Speaker 1: you also, as someone who uses a woopband and Apple
Speaker 1: Watch and rely on my data, I know it's not
Speaker 1: one hundred percent accurate. Which they themselves will tell you
Speaker 1: it's useful because if it's off, at least it's off consistently,
Speaker 1: so you can judge for yourself how you're doing. That's
Speaker 1: perfectly okay when you're using it to track calories, heart
Speaker 1: rate zones, and working out. But just a few months ago,
Speaker 1: a man was sentenced to sixty five years in prison
Speaker 1: where prosecutors relied on the victim's fitbit data to disprove
Speaker 1: the alleged alibi of her husband. Again, looking at the case,
Speaker 1: he looks guilty as hell. His explanation is incredibly dumb.
Speaker 1: A random masked man broke into his house, killed his wife,
Speaker 1: and then only happened to give him superficial knife wounds. Okay,
Speaker 1: but an independent study of the fitbit step counts showed
Speaker 1: it was only consistent quote approximately half the time. We
Speaker 1: increasingly have prosecutors who are casting this type of data
Speaker 1: as absolute fact, when at least in my mind, it's
Speaker 1: right there on the edge of reasonable doubt. I don't
Speaker 1: exactly know what the point of this monologue is, only
Speaker 1: to raise awareness of the new tools that the state
Speaker 1: is using against criminals and for people to be very
Speaker 1: aware of the real consequences of what it actually means
Speaker 1: to be tracked all the time. Who knows the cases
Speaker 1: they can build against anyone in the future using this
Speaker 1: type of data. So I'm curious what you think, Cristle.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest, I'm looking at this date and
Speaker 1: if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. Christl,
Speaker 1: what are you taking a look at? Well, guys, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: is out with a new report on just how brutal
Speaker 1: the housing market is for people who are just starting out.
Speaker 1: According to new data quote, first time buyers made up
Speaker 1: the smallest share of sales on record last year at
Speaker 1: six percent, even as home value started to cool, according
Speaker 1: to the National Association of Realtors, and rising borrowing costs
Speaker 1: and still high prices have pushed housing to the most
Speaker 1: unaffordable levels in records that go back almost four decades.
Speaker 1: This is the nightmare scenario that we have been talking about,
Speaker 1: one that was, by the way, intentionally engineered by the FED.
Speaker 1: Housing prices have more or less remained high due to
Speaker 1: low levels of housing stock and high mortgage rates mean
Speaker 1: that attempting to finance a home purchase is wildly unattainable
Speaker 1: for most would be buyers. In fact, the high interest
Speaker 1: rates engineered by the FED make the housing stock problem
Speaker 1: worse as well. High borrowing costs deter developers from building
Speaker 1: new homes that might help ease price pressures, and existing
Speaker 1: homeowners would have to be fools to move right now
Speaker 1: and give up the low mortgage rates many of them
Speaker 1: locked in while rates were at rock bottom. The housing
Speaker 1: supply issue is particularly dire in affordable housing. Take a
Speaker 1: look at this chart. Middle tier and top tier home
Speaker 1: inventory expanded significantly year over year. Actually, the priciest home
Speaker 1: stock jump by thirty seven percent nationally. The bottom tier
Speaker 1: of housing, what of course, most first time home buyers
Speaker 1: would be looking at, that actually fell by one point
Speaker 1: five percent. Cities like New York, DC, Chicago they saw
Speaker 1: the largest declines in affordable housing stock. But the state
Speaker 1: with the largest housing deficit has long been California, and
Speaker 1: the epicenter of that crisis is Los Angeles. The LA
Speaker 1: Times recently did a deep dive into the history of
Speaker 1: LA's unique housing horror That would be sprawl combined with
Speaker 1: wildly overcrowded living spaces, reminiscent of New York City tenements
Speaker 1: from a century ago. Now, La was originally pitched to
Speaker 1: the nation as a land of single family homes where
Speaker 1: you could enjoy the amenities of city life with the
Speaker 1: natural beauty in the personal space of rural life. But
Speaker 1: it took a lot of immigrants and a lot of
Speaker 1: low wage workers to build that California dream, and so
Speaker 1: before long the city bifurcated into those white, affluent residents
Speaker 1: enjoying the d in those single family homes and those
Speaker 1: immigrant and low wage workers who were doing the backbreaking
Speaker 1: labor of the dream in crowded trailers and in shacks. Now,
Speaker 1: once the city's identity formed and all those single family
Speaker 1: neighborhoods were created, it was pretty hard to change course.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's been impossible. Classism and racism played their
Speaker 1: part in preventing the building of affordable housing stock. NIMBI
Speaker 1: liberals weaponized supposed environmental concerns to pass and keep zoning
Speaker 1: laws which locked the status quo into place. Now it's
Speaker 1: worth reading. This entire article is very nuanced, but for
Speaker 1: a flavor of the opposition here, there's one particular incident
Speaker 1: that really serves as a sort of parable for the
Speaker 1: mounting housing disaster. Liberal reformers mid century, who were concerned
Speaker 1: with the overcrowded, unsanitary conditions of the poor, worked to
Speaker 1: turn a working class immigrant neighborhood into a gleaming new
Speaker 1: community centered around public housing. The mayor signed on the
Speaker 1: city started forcing residents out of their homes, but with
Speaker 1: a promise that at least they would get new housing
Speaker 1: in the end. But the real estate developers they didn't
Speaker 1: like this. They thought the public housing would cut into
Speaker 1: their profit margins, so they declared an all out war
Speaker 1: on the project. According to the the La Times quote, they
Speaker 1: financed opposition groups that warned in leaflets that public housing
Speaker 1: would be the last rung in the latter toward complete socialism,
Speaker 1: one step this side of communism and our downfall. They
Speaker 1: sponsored an amendment to the state constitution to effectively block
Speaker 1: public housing projects. They sicked federal and state Unamerican Activities
Speaker 1: committees on the architect of the city's plan, who was
Speaker 1: fired as housing director after accusations that he was a communist,
Speaker 1: and to seal their victory, they handpicked a candidate to
Speaker 1: defeat the pro public housing mayor, and in the end
Speaker 1: they won, the neighborhood was not converted into public housing
Speaker 1: or even housing of any kind. Instead, it was given
Speaker 1: as a gift to the Dodgers to lure them from
Speaker 1: Brooklyn to la So it has gone ever since. Those
Speaker 1: who profit from the housing disaster status quo have used
Speaker 1: every trick in the book to protect their own self
Speaker 1: interest and have in the process continued the ever upward
Speaker 1: escalation of housing prices. This is great for developers, it's
Speaker 1: great for current homeowners. It is absolutely terrible for everyone else.
Speaker 1: Now a lot has been made of the number of
Speaker 1: former California residents who fled the state, people who read
Speaker 1: all sorts of political motivations into this larger trend, but
Speaker 1: the biggest cause seems quite simple. People are leaving because
Speaker 1: they cannot afford to stay. In fact, nationwide, I was
Speaker 1: kind of surprised to see this. People do still believe
Speaker 1: in the California dream, and a recent survey out of
Speaker 1: every city in the country, Los Angeles was actually number
Speaker 1: one when people were asked where they would like to
Speaker 1: move if money was no object. But of course money
Speaker 1: is an object, and for most people achieving that California dream,
Speaker 1: let alone the American dream has become a near impossibility.
Speaker 1: Doesn't take a genius to see that this crisis of
Speaker 1: housing availability and affordability has led to a mounting homelessness
Speaker 1: problem that is escalating far faster than the state or
Speaker 1: the county can pour resources into combat it. Grid News'
Speaker 1: Matthew Zeitlin took a look at this. He recently wrote
Speaker 1: a long peace pe here. He is summing it up
Speaker 1: on Twitter. He writes, California spends billions on homelessness. It's
Speaker 1: essentially a second federal government in terms of funding. The
Speaker 1: services reach hundreds of thousands of people, yet the number
Speaker 1: of homeless still rises. Why housing costs? It really is
Speaker 1: that simple. The state cannot dream of keeping up with
Speaker 1: the homelessness crisis. As long as the housing affordability crisis
Speaker 1: continues to escalate, they cannot build units fast enough to
Speaker 1: keep pace with the way that ever escalating prices continually
Speaker 1: pushes thousands more out of their homes and into shelters
Speaker 1: or onto the street. Now, this is obviously a disaster,
Speaker 1: a moral catastrophe for those who are on the brink,
Speaker 1: and has contributed to a sense of decline and chaos
Speaker 1: for all of the residents who are living there, the
Speaker 1: whole cascade of problems is weighing heavily on Californians. In
Speaker 1: a recent survey across partisan and demo demographic lines, Californian
Speaker 1: cited homelessness and housing affordability as two of their top
Speaker 1: issues of concern. Of California in cided homelessness and an
Speaker 1: equal share cited affordability as big problems. Roughly ninety percent
Speaker 1: said that they feared housing costs would keep their children
Speaker 1: from being able to stay and buy a home anywhere
Speaker 1: in the state. Now listen, California. It is definitely ground
Speaker 1: zero for this crisis. But if you ask people here
Speaker 1: in DC or New York or Seattle or practically anywhere
Speaker 1: else in the country, you're going to find the same
Speaker 1: core issue. People are being priced out of housing, they
Speaker 1: can't afford to buy, they are struggling to afford rent.
Speaker 1: The dream of basic stability is increasingly out of reach,
Speaker 1: and visible homelessness is skyrocketing. Frankly, it is generational warfare,
Speaker 1: as older generations, which were able to build wealth by
Speaker 1: buying a home they benefit from these skyrocketing home prices,
Speaker 1: and younger generations predominantly are left on a treadmill trying
Speaker 1: to save up enough for a starter home that doesn't
Speaker 1: even exist. It's one more example of how the entire
Speaker 1: nation is rigged to benefit the people who have already
Speaker 1: gotten theirs. And the truth is maybe worst in the
Speaker 1: worst in California. And if you want to hear my
Speaker 1: reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot com. Wanted to take a minute to introduce
Speaker 1: to all of you a new partner here at Breaking
Speaker 1: Points that we are very excited about, and judging by
Speaker 1: the reaction to his first content he's put out, you
Speaker 1: are very excited about as well. Joining us now is
Speaker 1: Spencer Snyder, who has been doing some fantastic explainers and
Speaker 1: videos for us. Great to see a Spencer, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Good to see you man, Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for having me. We are in awe of what
Speaker 1: you've been putting together, as is the audience. All the
Speaker 1: comments on your work have been phenomenal for those of
Speaker 1: you who guys down there who haven't checked it out yet.
Speaker 1: His latest video was about jen Zaki and MSNBC, but
Speaker 1: really a broader look about the sort of revolving door
Speaker 1: between government and media and what we should make of
Speaker 1: all of that. Fantastic. I learned things about the his
Speaker 1: that I didn't know. The editing, the presentation, all of
Speaker 1: it is spot on. So I ready go and watch that.
Speaker 1: But Spencer, just tell people a little bit about who
Speaker 1: you are, how you approach your work, and what your
Speaker 1: goal is with the videos that you put out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: great question. Well, you know, I got started making videos
Speaker 1: working on you know, progressive long shot campaigns in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, and my approach really has been just that
Speaker 1: media is incredibly important. I mean, it's the window through
Speaker 1: which everyone understands anything. No normal person is going to
Speaker 1: press conferences. They consume everything through media, and their understanding
Speaker 1: of the world is through media. And so getting into
Speaker 1: politics and campaigns was really just a way to contribute
Speaker 1: in some way that I felt was meaningful. I mean,
Speaker 1: and at that time I didn't have the most confidence
Speaker 1: in my skills, but I knew that I could make
Speaker 1: a video better than you know, certainly a campaign that
Speaker 1: had no videos, and then getting further into that and
Speaker 1: going through twenty twenty and just feeling so much frustration
Speaker 1: at the media, in particular the way they handled the
Speaker 1: Democratic primary and the larger election in general. I felt
Speaker 1: really motivated to start working on my own understanding of
Speaker 1: just a theory of media. So I started working on
Speaker 1: videos about manufacturing consent. And it's actually been really cool.
Speaker 1: I've heard from a few people that they've watched my
Speaker 1: manufacturing consent videos in college courses. It's yeah, very cool
Speaker 1: considering their videos that made in my bedroom, in the
Speaker 1: only clean part of my apartment, which was so that's
Speaker 1: kind of where I got my start, and the obsession
Speaker 1: with media and illness just kind of grew from there. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: your research and your skills are absolutely fantastic. Like I
Speaker 1: said the jaz Zaki video, I was watching some of
Speaker 1: your stuff. I'm like, this guy is a rare talent man,
Speaker 1: because for people who don't know, like you not only
Speaker 1: shoot it, you edit it yourself. You made your own graphics,
Speaker 1: you put it all together and clearly an informative explainer
Speaker 1: less than ten minutes, A history of the White House
Speaker 1: Press secretary revolving door. That is a very very difficult
Speaker 1: thing to do. So how did you learn how to
Speaker 1: do this? Like? How did you kind of find this
Speaker 1: composite of all of these skills? People reach out to
Speaker 1: us all the time, like, how do I get into this?
Speaker 1: So you tell them you made it here for sure. Well,
Speaker 1: I came from music and I'm a composer, and then
Speaker 1: I at some point in college I started film scoring,
Speaker 1: which made me a lot of friends with filmmakers, and
Speaker 1: so I can't overlook the filmmaker friends of mine who
Speaker 1: have taught me a lot. But it's it's YouTube. All
Speaker 1: the informations on YouTube, everything you want to know is there.
Speaker 1: I didn't go to film school. So how do you
Speaker 1: come up with the ideas for your content? How do
Speaker 1: you do the research? And do you have a preview
Speaker 1: for us? Do you have any ideas sort of percolating
Speaker 1: about what your next video might be? Really good question?
Speaker 1: I watched the news and whatever makes me the most angry,
Speaker 1: I do a video on Yeah, but yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: that's my approach. And I think if you're constantly watching
Speaker 1: with the idea in the back of your head that
Speaker 1: you're looking for something that might make an interesting video,
Speaker 1: if you're just trying to answer your own questions, if
Speaker 1: something in the way the media relates something to their
Speaker 1: audience to you always feels missing. I mean the Jensaki
Speaker 1: video to me. The interesting thing was you see, you know,
Speaker 1: in liberals and conservatives, people calling out the idea that
Speaker 1: it's somehow there's some discomfort in seeing a press secretary
Speaker 1: go to a media outlet and you see it on
Speaker 1: both sides, and I just wanted to examine what what
Speaker 1: is that discomfort? Why? Why does it make people feel weird?
Speaker 1: And is there any any through line between all the
Speaker 1: press secretaries? And of course there is. But if my
Speaker 1: advice anyone trying to get into this, you just got
Speaker 1: to watch more YouTube. Good advice on the route, Yeah,
Speaker 1: go and watch his videos. We'll have a linked down
Speaker 1: to his specific channel right there. Keep watching the videos
Speaker 1: that and shout on to our producer Mac who spotted
Speaker 1: you and present you know, gave us some insights and
Speaker 1: put your content in front of us, because you've been
Speaker 1: a phenomenal addition to the breaking Points Ecosystem. Tell people
Speaker 1: where they can find you. They can find some of
Speaker 1: your content on our channel, but where can they find
Speaker 1: you on YouTube? Certainly the latest videos I've made for
Speaker 1: you guys, and you can go to my own personal
Speaker 1: YouTube channel, which is I should know the link, but
Speaker 1: it's my name. Okay, don't worry there's a link in
Speaker 1: the description. Yeah, well, let us know how we can
Speaker 1: support you. We are very very excited to have you
Speaker 1: as part of this, so thank you so much, Spencer.
Speaker 1: It's great to chat with you. Thanks man, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for having me Man. Spencer truly incredible guy.
Speaker 1: Go ahead subscribe to his YouTube channel. As we said
Speaker 1: linked down in the description, Thank you guys so much
Speaker 1: for watching Premium members. You're not supporting our work, you're
Speaker 1: supporting people like Spencer Expansion all the fun stuff that
Speaker 1: we're doing over here. So we appreciate me. Thank you
Speaker 1: every single day, and we'll have a great Counterpoints show
Speaker 1: for you tomorrow. Obviously, we'll be back here on Thursday.
Speaker 1: We love you and we'll see you later. Don