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, Crystal? Indeed,
Speaker 1: we do lots of interesting stories unfolding this week. So
Speaker 1: first of all, we have a White House response on
Speaker 1: the latest with regards to these UFOs and whatever is
Speaker 1: going on. There also some really amazing excuses for why
Speaker 1: they've been unable to supposedly unable to retrieve any of
Speaker 1: the debris, So we'll break all of that down for you.
Speaker 1: Also some warnings to Americans who are in Russia that
Speaker 1: they need to get out and get out now. Why
Speaker 1: is this coming at this moment? We will take a
Speaker 1: look at that. Also just breaking in the last several hours,
Speaker 1: another train derailment, this one outside of Houston. We have
Speaker 1: all of those details for you. Also, Pete Boodagiet, of course,
Speaker 1: Secretary of Transportation continuing to fail at his job. New
Speaker 1: details about Jared Kushner and the way he cashed in
Speaker 1: on his government position, what that means going forward, Elon
Speaker 1: Musk and Starlink and Ukraine updates there. We also have
Speaker 1: Jeremy Corbel in the show to talk about what is
Speaker 1: going on with these UFOs as well and breaking this morning.
Speaker 1: Get excited, guys. Nikki Haley has officially launched for President
Speaker 1: Saga and I are going to take a look at
Speaker 1: her announcement video React Live for your ful reaction. People
Speaker 1: made fun of us for saying twenty twenty four is
Speaker 1: fully upon us. What did I try to tell you?
Speaker 1: We tried to tell you all right, like fourteen, Yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly it is here. Let's start with UFOs, my personal
Speaker 1: favorite topic. Extraordinary conference yesterday at the White House with
Speaker 1: the Press Secretary of Carein Jean Pierre opening up the
Speaker 1: actual address to the press and saying that there is
Speaker 1: no evidence of extraterrestrial life. Then you had John Kirby,
Speaker 1: the National Security spokesperson for the White House and for
Speaker 1: the Pentagon take the podium and deliver some more details
Speaker 1: about these three UFO incidents. Let's take a listen fully
Speaker 1: to what they said. There is no again, no indication
Speaker 1: of aliens or extraterrestrial activity with these recent takedowns. Again,
Speaker 1: there is no indication of aliens or terrestrial activity with
Speaker 1: these recent takedowns. Wanted to make sure that the American
Speaker 1: people knew that. All of you knew that, and it
Speaker 1: was important for us to say that from here because
Speaker 1: we've been hearing a lot about it. I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: just you know, I loved ET the movie, but I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna leave it there. In light of the Chinese
Speaker 1: balloon program and this recent incursion into our airspace, the
Speaker 1: United States and Canada through NORD have been more closely
Speaker 1: scrutinizing that airspace, including enhancing our radar capabilities, which, as
Speaker 1: the commander of northcomon NORD, General Van Herk said just
Speaker 1: last night, may at least partially explain the increase and
Speaker 1: the objects that have been detected. There are no active
Speaker 1: tracks today, but the professionals at NORD will continue to
Speaker 1: do their important work. We don't know what this exactly
Speaker 1: looked like. And again we're still not sure exactly what
Speaker 1: the purpose of it was or who owned it, but
Speaker 1: we hope to be able to find out more once
Speaker 1: we can recover the debrief from that one and from
Speaker 1: the other two as well. A couple of things that
Speaker 1: we could take away from that. Number one, I'm just
Speaker 1: disgusted by my former colleagues in the press who are
Speaker 1: laughing at this, and it's like, look, yeah, I get
Speaker 1: that it sounds extraordinary, but shooting down three things for
Speaker 1: the first time in US history over US airspace is
Speaker 1: also extraordinary. Your job is to not laugh, but make
Speaker 1: it seriously at the very least, just you know, do
Speaker 1: your job. Maybe a follow up question, maybe ask the
Speaker 1: questions we have seen. If you'll remember Crystal, the very
Speaker 1: first UFO report that came out, the press spun it
Speaker 1: as government finds no evidence of aliens. But you read
Speaker 1: it and it's like, yeah, but they didn't find any
Speaker 1: evidence that it's not. The evidence is they have no
Speaker 1: idea what's going on, And as you listen throughout that
Speaker 1: entire briefing, you're like, oh, they still have no clue.
Speaker 1: It's been more than seventy two hours now since the
Speaker 1: first UFO was shot down. We have no debris recovery,
Speaker 1: no update on debris recovery. Yeah, allegedly, And we're going
Speaker 1: to get into some of that. And one of the
Speaker 1: reasons why is we've seen a flurry of leaks that
Speaker 1: have come out where you have Pentagon Canadian officials specifically,
Speaker 1: and the Pentagon who's having a briefing today actually just
Speaker 1: a couple of hours from when we're talking around right
Speaker 1: now with all us senators. It's a classified briefing. The
Speaker 1: memo of that briefing has gone ahead and leaked, and
Speaker 1: what they say is they will they believe, at least
Speaker 1: in the Canadian instance, it was a small metallic balloon.
Speaker 1: So first of all, what does metallic balloon mean? Second,
Speaker 1: what basis do you have for that information? But when
Speaker 1: you read deeper the debris recovery efforts in all three
Speaker 1: of these cases, they are setting it up to look
Speaker 1: extraordinarily unlikely. And one of the other reasons why we
Speaker 1: should be skeptical at least of this initial explanation. Again,
Speaker 1: here's the thing. I think it probably is likely balloons,
Speaker 1: but we can't just take them at their word for it.
Speaker 1: We have to go back to the original briefing of
Speaker 1: the NORAD commander that was during the Super Bowl, where
Speaker 1: he very specifically laid out I am not calling them
Speaker 1: balloons for a reason. I am calling them objects, and
Speaker 1: it was based on the initial description of these objects
Speaker 1: from the pilots themselves. Just take a listen to what
Speaker 1: he said. Then, I'm not going to categorize them as balloons.
Speaker 1: We're calling them objects for a reason. Certainly the event
Speaker 1: off the South Carolina coasts for the Chinese spy balloon,
Speaker 1: that was clearly a balloon. These are objects. I am
Speaker 1: not able to categorize how they stay aloft. It could
Speaker 1: be a gaseous type of balloon side of structure, or
Speaker 1: it could be some type of a propulsion system. But
Speaker 1: clearly they're able to stay aloft. I would be hesitant
Speaker 1: to urge you not to attribute it to any specific country.
Speaker 1: We don't know. This is the big divide where we
Speaker 1: have here, this nora AD commander. He is the one who, frankly,
Speaker 1: has been the most honest. He was like, look, I'm
Speaker 1: not ruling out anything whenever it comes to aliens. He
Speaker 1: goes number one, number two, I'm not calling them balloons
Speaker 1: for a reason. People in a more classified setting have
Speaker 1: been trying to say that. But what we are watching
Speaker 1: right now is a concerted effort and all three debris
Speaker 1: recovery efforts to set the stage where they're like, look,
Speaker 1: it's likely that we'll just never get them. So my
Speaker 1: personal favorite, which you found, was put us up there
Speaker 1: on the screen from the Detroit News representative Alissa Slopkin,
Speaker 1: who is a former CIA spook, just so you all know,
Speaker 1: she says that the shotdown object is likely in very
Speaker 1: deep water. And actually they change that headline because originally
Speaker 1: they said, well, the recovery of the shotdown an object
Speaker 1: in Lake Huron is hampered by quote choppy waters. Now
Speaker 1: I did go ahead and check because it did sound
Speaker 1: pretty incredulous to me. There were some choppy waves out
Speaker 1: there on the lake yesterday. But they're keep changing their story.
Speaker 1: First it was, oh, well, the weather is bad in
Speaker 1: Alaska and the Yukon. Okay, you know that's reasonable, you
Speaker 1: know it's the winter, et cetera. But then all of
Speaker 1: us are checking the weather over Lake Huron. It's like
Speaker 1: forty eight degrees and sunny. So we're like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: are you gonna go out and get there? No? No,
Speaker 1: now it's choppy waters. Like okay, now what so what
Speaker 1: about when the weather's not or when the water's not choppy.
Speaker 1: They're like, oh, but now it's a very very deep
Speaker 1: it's a deep water. You're like, oh, I was aware.
Speaker 1: I was under the impression that we spent eight hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year on the US military and that
Speaker 1: you know that in the nineteen like sixties that we've
Speaker 1: literally floated up Russian submarines with Howard Hughes Like, I
Speaker 1: was just under, you know, the impression that we were
Speaker 1: a competent nation. Excuse me, excuse me dealing with choppy water.
Speaker 1: Choppy water. Okay, maybe now here's the other thing. I
Speaker 1: read even deeper Crystal and the Canadian officials are now
Speaker 1: doing the same thing. So get this. The Canadian Defense
Speaker 1: Ministry put out a background statement last night and they
Speaker 1: were like, hey, look, you got to prepare yourself for
Speaker 1: we're never going to find this thing in the Yukon.
Speaker 1: And it's like, oh, okay, why and they're like, well,
Speaker 1: the search radius is three thousand miles wide. Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1: We shot it down, and we know where we shot
Speaker 1: it down could really have drifted three thousand miles. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's say, you know, what do we learned after nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, You know, with the whole when people were
Speaker 1: looking at the debris radius in terms of a couple
Speaker 1: hundred miles of reasonable but three thousand, why exactly is
Speaker 1: it three thousand? No, we know exactly when it went down.
Speaker 1: And you know, once again, like I was under the impression,
Speaker 1: excuse me, of a very sophisticated military equipment which is
Speaker 1: capable of putting a hellfire missile literally in the passenger
Speaker 1: side of a car, something I've literally seen happen from
Speaker 1: my days of covering the defense industry. So for you know,
Speaker 1: that begs a little bit believe. But sec first of all,
Speaker 1: same thing he goes, you should prepare yourself for we
Speaker 1: may never find it. And then on the Alaska UFO,
Speaker 1: it's the exact same thing. The weather is bad. I
Speaker 1: checked the weather is it's like freezing temperature in the
Speaker 1: Ileutian Islands. It's like thirty three degrees. It has been snowing,
Speaker 1: you know, undeniably like lower light conditions. Sure, but no,
Speaker 1: once again, we do have military assets to fly up
Speaker 1: there all the time. And you know, once like, don't
Speaker 1: we have unmanned assets, like can't you go and snap
Speaker 1: a picture with the Chinese balloon? We had a video
Speaker 1: of it happening in the sky. Number one, Number two,
Speaker 1: within two hours, you had a video of people literally
Speaker 1: pulling it up. Already, DoD has released even more of
Speaker 1: what has come out from the Chinese balloon of navy
Speaker 1: divers and others who are recovering some of this. In
Speaker 1: all three now of the UFO cases, they say, no,
Speaker 1: they're preparing the ground for we're never going to find it.
Speaker 1: Then they want you to forget about it. I honestly
Speaker 1: think that's what's happening. That's it. They want you to
Speaker 1: run out the clock so that people move on to
Speaker 1: whatever is next, and we forget about the fact that
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, if it was one you know, the
Speaker 1: one over the Aleutian Islands or whatever, and they're like, listen,
Speaker 1: it's tough out there. Okay, maybe, but all three after
Speaker 1: we literally just saw you have no trouble whatsoever getting
Speaker 1: the Chinese buy balloon. Like I'm sorry, I just don't
Speaker 1: believe it. I just don't believe it. The idea And listen,
Speaker 1: I saw because you tweeted about the Alyssa's loot. Kids
Speaker 1: tell me hotering, and I saw kinds of people blow
Speaker 1: like you don't get it, like here on it really
Speaker 1: does get crazy. On there's like, okay, I believe you,
Speaker 1: but also really the United States military is unable to
Speaker 1: deal with choppy waters. I I just don't buy it.
Speaker 1: I do not buy it. So I also think it's
Speaker 1: interesting that the one piece of information that they did
Speaker 1: allow to leak out, and make no mistake about it,
Speaker 1: it was allowed to leak out, is the piece from
Speaker 1: this memo about what they think the one over Alaska
Speaker 1: ultimately was, which is like the most like everybody calmed down,
Speaker 1: it's just another balloon, nothing to see here. But again,
Speaker 1: if they knew these were all balloons, if they had
Speaker 1: specific information about what was going on here and it was,
Speaker 1: you know, nothing really to see here, some corporate balloon
Speaker 1: or whatever, which is something that they've floated that like
Speaker 1: some it could be some corporate company balloon or then
Speaker 1: why didn't the company come out and say it, Yeah,
Speaker 1: then I mean they would tell us that if it
Speaker 1: was something that was as little or as insignificant as that. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: so I don't know what's going on, but I definitely
Speaker 1: know that we are not getting the full story of
Speaker 1: what they know and what they've been able to accomplish.
Speaker 1: It not even close. And let's put this up there
Speaker 1: on the screen for the next one. You know, we
Speaker 1: already have here x Norad commanders saying the UFOs are
Speaker 1: a quote concerted effort to test out outdated systems. He
Speaker 1: might be right, but the more important one is the headline.
Speaker 1: We still have not recovered any debris from the three
Speaker 1: that were shot down over the weekend, and the Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense, Lloyd Austin, actually talked about that on a trip.
Speaker 1: The audio is a little weird because he was speaking
Speaker 1: right outside of an airplane, but we're going to play
Speaker 1: it for you. Let's go and take a listen. Because
Speaker 1: we've not been able to definitively assess what these recent
Speaker 1: objects are. We've act that out of an abundance of
Speaker 1: caution to protect the our security and interest. That's why
Speaker 1: we have teams working hard to track down the debris
Speaker 1: from over the weekend. Got teams working hard, but we
Speaker 1: still haven't been able to do it. Okay, maybe, and
Speaker 1: you know, some of the stuff that's coming out about
Speaker 1: these initial encounters are pretty crazy, let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: put this up there on the screen. So last night
Speaker 1: it broke from Lucas Tomlinson. He's a great Pentagon reporter.
Speaker 1: I remember him for my days there. He says, quote,
Speaker 1: the US Air Force F sixteen that shot down the
Speaker 1: unknown object over lake here on yesterday missed on its
Speaker 1: first attempt. It's not clear where the first missile landed.
Speaker 1: A second sidewinder air to air missile was needed. Each
Speaker 1: Sidewinder AIM nine X costs over four hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: So I asked some of my aviation geek friends about this,
Speaker 1: and there are a couple of things that we can learn.
Speaker 1: Number one is the indication of using this missile means
Speaker 1: that the actual object had a heat signature, because apparently
Speaker 1: it can't lock on unless there's heats signature. Second, though
Speaker 1: they don't miss That's why we spend four hundred grand
Speaker 1: a missile on them. Do you believe have a heat signature?
Speaker 1: I don't know. So that was one of these I said, Well,
Speaker 1: they said depends if a propulsion system except okay, maybe
Speaker 1: that one was totally unclear, But really to me was well,
Speaker 1: did it have the ability to maneuver away? From it,
Speaker 1: like did it dodge it? I mean, the whole point
Speaker 1: is we spend the equivalent of a house per missile,
Speaker 1: and we have one hundred and ten thousand of these
Speaker 1: missiles in our arsenal. By the way, why do we
Speaker 1: have them? Because they're very accurate. They go all the
Speaker 1: way back I believe until the nineteen fifties that we
Speaker 1: keep engineering for it's considered like the gold standard for
Speaker 1: the US Air Force. And specifically the fact that they
Speaker 1: missed a lot of people were raising questions about that.
Speaker 1: They're like, wait, does that mean that? First of all,
Speaker 1: we remember that some of the pilots had talked about
Speaker 1: how the sensors were jammed. I don't know if people
Speaker 1: know this, but actively jamming radar is an act of
Speaker 1: war under our rules of engagement. So that means if
Speaker 1: that's what happened they said sensors and yes, necessarily use
Speaker 1: the word radar. But I am taking a lot of
Speaker 1: interest here in these pilots. I looked it up. We
Speaker 1: spent six million dollars just to train the pilot. The
Speaker 1: aircraft itself, who knows, I mean tens of millions of
Speaker 1: dollars the aircraft is it costs thirty thousand dollars per
Speaker 1: flight hour and four hundred thousand per missile, Like these
Speaker 1: are sophisticated pieces of military equipment, and they don't miss
Speaker 1: all that often, specifically for this reason. So that's pretty extraordinary.
Speaker 1: It's extraordinary that it missed. Could be human error, I
Speaker 1: mean could be, although you know, I think we spend
Speaker 1: house per missiles so that you don't have human error
Speaker 1: in these situations. All you really have to do is
Speaker 1: lock on and press a button. But I guess it
Speaker 1: technically could have been a misfire. But then why are
Speaker 1: we spending four hundred thousand dollars missile anyway, So I
Speaker 1: have a lot of questions about this one. I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess if I was going to try to get
Speaker 1: into like you know, what the excuse could be. I
Speaker 1: remember before the Chinese by balloon was shot down, there
Speaker 1: was a lot of analysis of like, actually it's more complicated,
Speaker 1: like take down a balloon. You think it is because
Speaker 1: of the altitude and because it's a different size or whatever.
Speaker 1: Show maybe it's because these aren't designed to take down balloons.
Speaker 1: That's maybe possible. But this whole portrait is either one
Speaker 1: of a gigantic cover up or just like an embarrassing
Speaker 1: display of mass incompetence and like revealing how you know,
Speaker 1: before Russia invaded Ukraine, are just like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: the Russian military whatever. And then once they did invade Ukraine,
Speaker 1: was like, yeah, this isn't all that. It was really
Speaker 1: correct up to be getting some of those vibes here.
Speaker 1: It's either, like I said, either there's a lot that
Speaker 1: we're not being told, which I think is very possible,
Speaker 1: if not likely, or we are much less competent than
Speaker 1: what we think and what we ultimately portray to the world.
Speaker 1: It's one of those two things going on here. And
Speaker 1: by the way, combination of both. Yeah, that's true, too
Speaker 1: thin of both. I mean, one thing I know is
Speaker 1: that we are being spun as much as possible, and
Speaker 1: they are Look, without a doubt, I read you those
Speaker 1: three separate quotes that they gave about debris recovery. They
Speaker 1: are setting it up so that it'll either be weeks
Speaker 1: before you get something or they're just gonna say that
Speaker 1: we never found anything at all. My entire monologue today,
Speaker 1: by the way, is about the history of UFO cover ups,
Speaker 1: about Roswell and all that, and exactly why I am
Speaker 1: so skeptical in all of this, because the longer you
Speaker 1: wait and the longer you you know, have for them
Speaker 1: to possibly fabricate evidence, come up with a new story
Speaker 1: and all that, it's just like the early days of
Speaker 1: many of the UFO. I wonder, you know how the
Speaker 1: explanation is, like, Okay, after the Chinese by balloon, then
Speaker 1: we recalibrated the radars so are more sensitive, and we're
Speaker 1: like looking at these higher altitudes, et cetera, and looking
Speaker 1: for things that are as small as a car. I
Speaker 1: wonder if they're going to recalibrate them so that they
Speaker 1: can just pretend like none of this is happening again,
Speaker 1: Like yeah, yeah, we're good. Have the whole point. That's
Speaker 1: exactly what you know you A few people have been
Speaker 1: saying this whole time. They're like, you have no idea
Speaker 1: what's up there because you're not looking for it. It's
Speaker 1: like the you know there. I was reminded of the
Speaker 1: scene from The Hunt for Red October where there's the
Speaker 1: new submarine and the sonar system doesn't know how to
Speaker 1: code the submarine. They're like calling it deep sea noises
Speaker 1: because they'd never heard the noise before. So how is
Speaker 1: your equipment is only as good as you know to
Speaker 1: what to look for. If you're not looking for anything,
Speaker 1: then you can say that you've never seen anything before.
Speaker 1: And then luckily they had human ingenuity as that character
Speaker 1: in the movie Jonesy, great character who was like, no,
Speaker 1: there's actually something else going on here. Well, we've had
Speaker 1: that now, we've read multiple Jonesy's and pilots and Ryan
Speaker 1: Grays and David Fraber and many others. A tic Tac Pilots. Well,
Speaker 1: I believe he's on TV last night. All of these
Speaker 1: people are the highly sophisticated warfighters, people who've flown thousands
Speaker 1: and thousands of hours. Like you really, as Tom Rogan said,
Speaker 1: if you believe that they're mentally unsound to make up
Speaker 1: a UFO story, why did we leave them in charge
Speaker 1: of these highly expensive, multi hundred million dollar aircraft in
Speaker 1: charge of supporting US troops and bombing enemy Tartans. Completely
Speaker 1: incredulous for us to believe that. I think the last
Speaker 1: thing that I would to say on this this morning
Speaker 1: is there's a lot of discussion of like, is this
Speaker 1: sosia to distract from something else, Traine derailment or whatever Ukraine,
Speaker 1: who knows. And the reason I don't think so is
Speaker 1: because I don't think they would do something that was
Speaker 1: like so embarrassing for it, Like this does not look
Speaker 1: good for them. They're not enjoying this, Like it's humiliating
Speaker 1: they're having to pretend or potentially like I guess be
Speaker 1: honest about but I don't really buy it that they
Speaker 1: can't even get the debris from these things. And I
Speaker 1: have no idea what's going on, Like this has not
Speaker 1: been a good look for anyone in charge of the
Speaker 1: military or in this administration. So yeah, I think it's
Speaker 1: in competence. I think that the media would be happy
Speaker 1: to ignore the trained derailment and any other number of stories.
Speaker 1: They do it all the time without needing some like
Speaker 1: giant UFO type sy up. So that's why I'm really
Speaker 1: not sort of buying that explanation for what's going on. Yeah, look,
Speaker 1: I personally think the most mid take on the internet
Speaker 1: is that this is all a syeop and it's largely because,
Speaker 1: as you said, like they hate that they have to
Speaker 1: do this, and by the way, they're going out of
Speaker 1: their way to try and keep it out of the
Speaker 1: news as possible to keep everybody calm down, which is all.
Speaker 1: It fits very well with UFO history, of which I'll
Speaker 1: get into, So we'll leave it at that. Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: we'll leave it at that. But let's just say all
Speaker 1: of this is straight out of the playbook. Let's go
Speaker 1: ahead and move on to Ukraine. Some crazy news yesterday
Speaker 1: still I really don't know yet what to make of,
Speaker 1: but significant. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 1: The US Embassy issued a flash to all American citizens
Speaker 1: in Russia with pretty stark language, quote, do not travel
Speaker 1: to Russia due to unpredictable consequences of the Russian invasion
Speaker 1: of Ukraine. US citizens who live or travel in Russia
Speaker 1: must immediately leave the country. I think one of the
Speaker 1: extraordinary things about this advisory is not we advise US
Speaker 1: citizens to leave, It says must immediately leave the country.
Speaker 1: That's one of the most stark warnings that I've ever
Speaker 1: seen from a US embassy and from a US consulate.
Speaker 1: And what was really crazy is that it was done
Speaker 1: in conjunction with a couple of other nations. Go and
Speaker 1: put the next one up there on the screen. The
Speaker 1: French did not go as far as we did, but
Speaker 1: they said, quote France strongly urges its citizens to leave
Speaker 1: Russia if their presence is quote non essential after the
Speaker 1: invasion of Ukraine. The weird thing about this is that
Speaker 1: the invasion happened a year ago, so why are we
Speaker 1: urging them to leave right now. So there's a couple
Speaker 1: of indications of things that I've seen. Number one was
Speaker 1: that they possibly have received intelligence. Brazil also joined in
Speaker 1: on this, by the way, so you got France, Brazil
Speaker 1: in the US. So maybe they received indications that the
Speaker 1: Russian government, you know, after the whole Britney grinder situation,
Speaker 1: was looking to take more hostages possible. But you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know why things would speed up now. Number
Speaker 1: two is maybe we're about to go do something there
Speaker 1: that might cause them to crack down or Ukrainian friends. Right.
Speaker 1: Did not escape me that the US and France or
Speaker 1: two the nations that actually are two nations that manufacture
Speaker 1: fighter jets. So yeah, that's not That's one that I'm
Speaker 1: not necessarily putting away. The other one is just that
Speaker 1: the intelligence said is that a major Russian offensive is
Speaker 1: about to kick off, of which we brought everybody yesterday,
Speaker 1: and that in conjunction with that they anticipate retaliation against
Speaker 1: American citizens, possibly also civil unrest because we could have
Speaker 1: Russia possibly moving to a second draft. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that's what's happening. I'm saying that these are all the
Speaker 1: initial speculations that I've seen. But I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: they don't just say this every day, yeah, which is
Speaker 1: you must leave the country. I mean, I've never seen
Speaker 1: a country advisory like that. Yeah, I mean, we don't
Speaker 1: know what it means. Is just worth taking note of.
Speaker 1: And the things that we do know is it is
Speaker 1: widely expected that Russia is planning to mount a major
Speaker 1: offensive before Ukraine gets their hands on tanks, and as
Speaker 1: you know, spring starts to arrive in Ukraine, we know
Speaker 1: that Russian shelling has actually ticked up up already. There's
Speaker 1: some speculation that that offensive has already begun, so you know,
Speaker 1: the expectation is and there's a reason also why Zelenski
Speaker 1: has taken this time to go to travel around to
Speaker 1: Western allies and ask for fighter jets in particular and
Speaker 1: longer arranged missiles, and to secure the tanks that have
Speaker 1: already been promised. So clearly there is an expectation that
Speaker 1: some major offensives are coming now, and maybe this relates
Speaker 1: to that. Maybe this is about something else. There's no
Speaker 1: way to know before it all unfolds. Yeah, look, there's
Speaker 1: just it's an extraordinary situation. I think that that's probably
Speaker 1: where we'll leave it. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 1: the screen, and this could have some indication of it,
Speaker 1: which is that if you'll remember that city of Bakhmud,
Speaker 1: where President Zelenski visited and liberated right before he came
Speaker 1: to the United States and famously brought the flag of
Speaker 1: liberation to the floor of the US Congress. Well, Ukraine
Speaker 1: actually just told AID groups yesterday USAD groups specifically, you
Speaker 1: need to leave. Nobody knows what that might mean, but
Speaker 1: it is likely a prelude to Ukrainian withdrawal. So AID
Speaker 1: groups and civilians are no longer allowed to enter the city.
Speaker 1: As of Monday, the military said that the fighting is
Speaker 1: continuing to intensify the strategic city in eastern Ukraine, of
Speaker 1: which the Russians are expected to mount an offensive on.
Speaker 1: They said that the reason they wouldn't allow it was
Speaker 1: because of the danger that's going to be posed by
Speaker 1: street fighting and the ban on volunteer access has been
Speaker 1: in the past a pre lead to Ukrainian withdrawal. Ukrainian
Speaker 1: military sets No, we have retained control of the city.
Speaker 1: We can resupplier troops, we can evacuate our wounded, but
Speaker 1: well it's a precarious situation. Nonetheless, at the very least
Speaker 1: it is being contested, right Crystal. So that's what we
Speaker 1: can that's what we can surmise. I think the message
Speaker 1: which really underscores the fact that this war unfortunately has
Speaker 1: a long way to go, and the fact that Ukraine
Speaker 1: you know, really unperformed expectations and you know, had a
Speaker 1: stunningly successful performance in the spring and summer offensive. No
Speaker 1: guarantees for the future. Russia has had time now to
Speaker 1: incorporate those hundreds of thousands of troops that they called
Speaker 1: up before and send them into the front lines, and
Speaker 1: so you know, there's a fear that the dynamics could
Speaker 1: ultimately be shifting in real time right now. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: Let's go to the second part here. It's pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: Let's put this up there on the screen. This has
Speaker 1: to do with Ukraine and its dealings with American financial institutions.
Speaker 1: So here the headline is that Ukraine plots post war
Speaker 1: rebuilding effort with JP Morgan Chase as Is Advisors. So
Speaker 1: JP Morgan yesterday in a deal with the country of Ukraine,
Speaker 1: said that it is going to tap its debt, capital
Speaker 1: market operations, payments, and commercial banking, infrastructure investing expertise to
Speaker 1: help the country stabilize its economy and credit rating, manage
Speaker 1: its funds, and advance its digital adoption whatever that means.
Speaker 1: What it really means, though, is that JP Morgan is
Speaker 1: going to work with Ukraine to raise private investment to
Speaker 1: help rebuild and invest for future growth in Ukraine, including
Speaker 1: quote renewable energy, agriculture and technology. So outside of the
Speaker 1: initial things that they say, the reason why I think
Speaker 1: it's important is that these major walls, street banks, they
Speaker 1: are seeing some real profit opportunity here in Ukraine. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know, this is a it's really disgusting to see.
Speaker 1: But of course, you know, whenever you knockohole city down
Speaker 1: after the war, somebody's got to rebuild it, somebody's got
Speaker 1: to finance it. And it's not just the US government
Speaker 1: that's getting in on this. Also, Zelenski clearly sees this
Speaker 1: as a critical avenue. Not only would JP Morgan just
Speaker 1: yesterday he met with the IMF, the International Monetary Fund
Speaker 1: to secure even more loans to the Ukrainian government. Right now,
Speaker 1: Jamie Diamond is saying that the Bank has led a
Speaker 1: twenty billion dollar debt restructure for Ukraine last year and
Speaker 1: has committed millions of dollars of support for Ukrainian refugees.
Speaker 1: But the reason why this is the prelude to possibly
Speaker 1: something much grosser and much more nefarious. Let's put this
Speaker 1: next one up there on the screen, is that we
Speaker 1: had a previous one we were going to cover back
Speaker 1: in December, but it fits with this very importantly. Zelenski
Speaker 1: announced an alliance with Blackrock for reconstruction of Ukraine. Now
Speaker 1: that Blackrock Reconstruction was signed back in December with the
Speaker 1: CEO Larry Fink. Blackrock said that rebuilding Ukraine could take
Speaker 1: Crystal between seven to eight hundred billion dollars, and they're
Speaker 1: pointing specifically to the new partnership where they will advise
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian government on how to structure the country's reconstruction funds.
Speaker 1: So you could see and opera, this is Iraq and
Speaker 1: Afghanistan levels of graft if they want it to be.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're getting their little hands in this one.
Speaker 1: I love the way they paint it, like their restructure.
Speaker 1: We're gonna help them raise Well, what's your fee? And
Speaker 1: also the reason why this matters to all of us is, look, Ukraine,
Speaker 1: they can do whatever they want, but here's the deal.
Speaker 1: They don't have a real economy. We're the ones who
Speaker 1: are paying all their bills. We're the ones who are
Speaker 1: going to guarantee all of their debt. We are literally
Speaker 1: running their central bank and paying of they're balancing their
Speaker 1: budgets right now. We out American taxpayers will be the
Speaker 1: ones who are basically guaranteeing much of this debt. And
Speaker 1: how much money are they gonna make well off of
Speaker 1: all of these guarantees and these private investors they're guarantee
Speaker 1: in my company, Ukraine government that is a de facto
Speaker 1: bet on the United States government. So we're basically facilitating
Speaker 1: a massive wealth transfer. Well, yeah, there's a lot going
Speaker 1: on here. Western capital has been circling Ukraine like vultures
Speaker 1: for years now. Even before this war, Ukraine already had
Speaker 1: a lot of debt with IMF. The IMF, of course,
Speaker 1: is like a tool of imposing you know, a shock
Speaker 1: doctrine and has already forced a bunch of changes to
Speaker 1: open up the economy so that Western capital could come
Speaker 1: in and profit off of their agriculture sector as one
Speaker 1: key example here, because Ukraine, of course known as the
Speaker 1: bread basket of Europe and of the region. Ukraine is
Speaker 1: a country that you know, suffered almost more than any
Speaker 1: in struggled after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So
Speaker 1: there's long been a push to okay, any state owned
Speaker 1: enterprise is they need to be privatized. We need to
Speaker 1: open up markets to Western capital. So this is a
Speaker 1: more accelerated, more aggressive push in the same direction that
Speaker 1: they have been pushing for a long time to impose
Speaker 1: basically like neoliberal shock doctrine of the sort that we
Speaker 1: have imposed in lots of places around the world. Zelenski
Speaker 1: actually gave a speech back at the end of January
Speaker 1: to the US National Association of State Chambers where he
Speaker 1: talked some about this approach and encouraging banks like Goldman,
Speaker 1: Sacks and JP Morgan to come and be part of
Speaker 1: this effort. He said, is already clear this will be
Speaker 1: the largest economic project of our time in Europe. It's
Speaker 1: obvious that American business can become the locomotive that will
Speaker 1: once again push forward global economic growth. He went on
Speaker 1: to thank investment firms black Rock, Goldmen Sacks and JP Morgan.
Speaker 1: He says, and everyone can become a big business by
Speaker 1: working with Ukraine and all sectors from weapons and defense
Speaker 1: to construction, from communications to agriculture, from transport to it,
Speaker 1: from banks to medicine. And I invite you to work
Speaker 1: with us right now. I think it's always important to
Speaker 1: keep an eye on the people who are profiting from
Speaker 1: a war and from disaster, and very clearly here the
Speaker 1: Titans of Wall Street are getting their hooks into Ukraine
Speaker 1: and hoping to make a big profit on the other
Speaker 1: side of this. And it's disgusting to watch it unfold. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it really is the whole thing. Look, we're going to
Speaker 1: watch it closely. Indeed, all right, something else we've been
Speaker 1: keeping a close eye on is what the hell is
Speaker 1: going on with that train to railment in Ohio. We
Speaker 1: have some big updates for you there. But this morning
Speaker 1: we woke up to the news that there is another
Speaker 1: train with some toxic chemicals which derailed in Houston. They
Speaker 1: are actively monitoring the air quality go ahead and put
Speaker 1: we have some images here we can put up on
Speaker 1: the screen for those of you who are just listening,
Speaker 1: I'll describe it. You can see a number of cars
Speaker 1: of this train that have derailed off the tracks right
Speaker 1: next to some sort of a major interstate highway there
Speaker 1: that you can see. You've got a closer in look
Speaker 1: of these cars that have come off the tracks. Now
Speaker 1: this morning, we have some news about exactly what happened here.
Speaker 1: It does appear to be a somewhat different situation than
Speaker 1: what unfolded in Ohio. Specifically, local news are reporting that
Speaker 1: a truck driver died and several freight train cars were
Speaker 1: derailed during a Monday morning collision northeast of Houston. That
Speaker 1: crash was between an eighteen wheeler and a Union Pacific train,
Speaker 1: and twenty one train cars were derailed, and a hazardous
Speaker 1: materials team from Union Pacific was on site and monitoring
Speaker 1: air quality as a precaution. A spokesperson for the railway
Speaker 1: Union Pacific confirmed that its has met crews were on
Speaker 1: the site and estimated that a hunter gallons of diesel
Speaker 1: fuel were released by the truck that was involved in
Speaker 1: the crash, and they say, from what we're being told
Speaker 1: and shown, there's no major chemicals to be concerned about.
Speaker 1: More so household chemicals on board for retail purposes. Not
Speaker 1: a large quantity from what we're being told. But keep
Speaker 1: in mind is the corporate line of what is going
Speaker 1: on with that trade to railmen, and they are apparently
Speaker 1: do have hasmat response on the scene monitoring air quality.
Speaker 1: So that's what we know about that one. We will
Speaker 1: keep an eye on that. But going moving to Ohio,
Speaker 1: this is I would say it's astonishing. It's really just
Speaker 1: par for the course. Pie Footagic is the Secretary of Transportation. Now,
Speaker 1: he wanted this job. He didn't want to be he
Speaker 1: was offered some other show. This was the job he
Speaker 1: wanted because he thought it would be prestigious and easy
Speaker 1: and could just fly around ribbon cutting ceremonies talking about infrastructure.
Speaker 1: It has turned out to be one of the most
Speaker 1: critical jobs in the entire country. Now, if you were
Speaker 1: you know, if he was the man he presents himself as,
Speaker 1: this would be an opportunity to rise to the occasion.
Speaker 1: Demonstrates the American people, his competence, his concern his care
Speaker 1: for supply chains for rail lines, for airline passengers. But
Speaker 1: instead he doesn't do any of that. I mean, he
Speaker 1: seems to be number one, thoroughly incompetent, two completely asleep
Speaker 1: at the switch. So again part of the course, he
Speaker 1: was speaking at the National Association of Counties, supposed to
Speaker 1: be touting their infrastructure project, which again is the only
Speaker 1: thing he really cares about because it doesn't require him
Speaker 1: to do anything, just like you know, trot around the
Speaker 1: country like some little celebrity. Says nothing, nothing in this
Speaker 1: speech about this massive ecological catastrophe that is unfolding in
Speaker 1: the state of Ohio. Instead, this is what he has
Speaker 1: to talk about. To work with your contractors, to work
Speaker 1: with your community colleges on building a workforce that reflects
Speaker 1: the community. We have heard way too many stories from
Speaker 1: generations past of infrastructure where he got a neighborhood, often
Speaker 1: a neighborhood of color, that finally sees the project come
Speaker 1: to them, but everyone in the hard hats on that
Speaker 1: project looking like you know, doing the good paying jobs
Speaker 1: don't look like they came from anywhere near the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: You can build community wealth that will help close wealth
Speaker 1: gout gaps in this country if we can tear down
Speaker 1: those barriers. But that happens at the delivery level. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what this guy is focused on about workplace diversity.
Speaker 1: When there's a goddamn trained de world and toxic chemicals
Speaker 1: that are being speak out into the public, you just
Speaker 1: what you can just see so clearly, Like he did
Speaker 1: really poorly at his presidential campaign with anyone who was
Speaker 1: I mean, he didn't do that well overall, but he
Speaker 1: did pretty well with white people and nobody else. Okay,
Speaker 1: he got like what one percent of the black vote
Speaker 1: in South Carolina. It was a pathetic performance and he
Speaker 1: has no idea how to actually appeal to people, so
Speaker 1: he thinks this is the way to further his presidential ambitions,
Speaker 1: rather than actually deal with the very real problems that
Speaker 1: are in his portfolio that he is supposed to be
Speaker 1: focused on. Guess what, I'm sure there are some black
Speaker 1: folks in Ohio who are concerned about this trained derailment.
Speaker 1: More to the point, everybody in America would like to
Speaker 1: see you actually do your job and deliver for the
Speaker 1: people who are relying on you to deliver for them.
Speaker 1: So that's pete. Meanwhile, we are getting more details about
Speaker 1: exactly what is going on in Ohio, and it's quite scary,
Speaker 1: you know, we've been talking about the fact. So this
Speaker 1: train derailed. There was a lot of corporate malfeasance and
Speaker 1: corruption that basically went into creating the conditions of this derailment.
Speaker 1: So that's story number one. We had a great guest
Speaker 1: on yesterday who talked about that. But as this is
Speaker 1: all unfolding, you know, the residents of East Palestine have
Speaker 1: been given the all clear. Everything's fine. You can go
Speaker 1: about your business, go back to your homes. This is
Speaker 1: no problem. We took care of it. But the reports
Speaker 1: from on the ground are quite different. And local news
Speaker 1: had a hazardous material expert on who is warning about
Speaker 1: the potential effects of what was released here in some
Speaker 1: pretty stark terms. Let's take a listen to what he
Speaker 1: had to say. Basically, nuke to town with chemicals so
Speaker 1: we could get a road open. The US Environmental Protection
Speaker 1: Agency sent a letter to Norfolk Southern stating that evelene
Speaker 1: glico monobutle ether at the Lexo acrile and isobuteline. We're
Speaker 1: also in the railcars that were derailed, breached or on fire.
Speaker 1: So he says there, we basically nuked a town with
Speaker 1: chemicals so we could get a railroad open and goes
Speaker 1: on to express concern about future cancer clusters, which given
Speaker 1: that what was released here in this controlled, controlled release
Speaker 1: was is a known carcinogen. So meanwhile, on the ground,
Speaker 1: you know, we're lucky to have a couple partners have
Speaker 1: done great reporting here. Lever News has done some of
Speaker 1: the best reporting about the corruption that the and the
Speaker 1: greed that led to the situation to start with, and
Speaker 1: Status KU has been on the ground interviewing residents. Jordan
Speaker 1: Sheridan of Status qu talked to a fox keeper who
Speaker 1: had one of his foxes died and others of them
Speaker 1: clearly visibly ill after the release of these toxic chemicals.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 1: So that they've tested the blood levels and there's raised
Speaker 1: liver enzymes, and the chloride levels in the blood are
Speaker 1: on the high end of normal, and the lung are inflamed.
Speaker 1: There's the eye irritation, and there is neurological issues going on,
Speaker 1: which is also things that happened from the chloride vinyl
Speaker 1: chloride exposure. And I have others that also have neurological
Speaker 1: issues that they're not themselves at all from it. And
Speaker 1: I'm really worried, and just to give you a sense,
Speaker 1: this isn't cherry picked. There are a lot of reports
Speaker 1: coming from locals who are there on the ground. This
Speaker 1: one was on TikTok, someone who was taking a look
Speaker 1: at the what they describe as hundreds of dead fish
Speaker 1: that are turning up in streams there. Let's take a
Speaker 1: look at that. I think it's important for people to
Speaker 1: see the dead fish. I'm gonna walk under the bridge
Speaker 1: here above and show you coming right up another fish.
Speaker 1: There's hundreds of them up here. So hundreds of dead fish,
Speaker 1: other animals like foxes that are dying. National Journal actually
Speaker 1: SAGA had a good report where they talk to people
Speaker 1: who were on the ground and you're talking about people
Speaker 1: who even after the all clear was given, they didn't
Speaker 1: come back fully to their homes, but they went back
Speaker 1: to to get something that they needed, you know, an
Speaker 1: id something. So they're literally in and out, eyes are
Speaker 1: watering and burning and headaches. And this is after they've
Speaker 1: been told oh, it's it's all good, it's all fine.
Speaker 1: That report, this is this just breaks my heart. To
Speaker 1: give you a sense of what people are going through
Speaker 1: there talk about a woman named Andrea Beldon who noticed
Speaker 1: her two year old cat, Leo, lying motionless, heart racing
Speaker 1: and breathing labored. Remained way Overnight he was found to
Speaker 1: have congestive heart failure, Fluid filled around his heart and lungs,
Speaker 1: His liver enzyns shot up. Medication was not working, he
Speaker 1: wasn't moving, he wasn't eating, wasn't drinking, wasn't going to
Speaker 1: the bathroom. To continue treatment, she would have had to
Speaker 1: come up with eighteen thousand dollars. So she went to
Speaker 1: the railway North Norfolk Southern and said, hey, listen, the
Speaker 1: vet says, this is connected to what you all did.
Speaker 1: Pay like, let me keep my cat alive. They said no,
Speaker 1: maybe in the future. Fat lot of good that does
Speaker 1: her now and she had to put the cat to sleep,
Speaker 1: And even after putting the cat down, she still owes
Speaker 1: almost ten thousand dollars for the treatment that Leo had
Speaker 1: already received. Just horrible, just to give you a sense of,
Speaker 1: you know, one small piece of the nightmare that people
Speaker 1: are going through. And then of course people are terrified,
Speaker 1: what is this doing to my kids? What is this
Speaker 1: doing to me? What does this mean for my future?
Speaker 1: And so far there's no indication that Norfolk Southern has
Speaker 1: you know, any plan to pay people for anything close
Speaker 1: to the damages that they have likely encouraged. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: and look, I mean you know we've covered here. The
Speaker 1: unions were warning about this. I mean that goes back
Speaker 1: to why the railway deal was a crime in the
Speaker 1: first place. And then second, I mean, where is where's
Speaker 1: our government? Like? Yes, President Biden has there's two probably
Speaker 1: the biggest stories in the country, and my estimation right
Speaker 1: now are UFOs and Ohio. He hasn't said a word
Speaker 1: about either of them. Where are you? And then his
Speaker 1: deputized people, you know, one is abroad talking about you know, oh,
Speaker 1: we haven't recovered any debris yet. The other one is
Speaker 1: talking about workplace diversity. I mean, we have no confidence
Speaker 1: that anything is going to happen. If I was one
Speaker 1: of those people, is no way in hell I'm going
Speaker 1: back there. Yeah, not a chance. Yeah. There's a guy
Speaker 1: who I have no idea the credibility of the sky,
Speaker 1: but he's on TikTok and he seemed like he knew
Speaker 1: what he was talking about. It seemed like he was
Speaker 1: a chemist. He had sort of like detailed knowledge about
Speaker 1: this particular chemical and the way it interacts with water
Speaker 1: and air and what temperature it boils at, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But one thing he said that definitely rang true for
Speaker 1: me based on what I've observed for the news is
Speaker 1: he said, listen, I study these industrial accidents all the
Speaker 1: time because it was like a particular fascination for him.
Speaker 1: He's like, the pattern is always the same. The company
Speaker 1: puts out the most positive, like optimistic statement about what's
Speaker 1: going on. The politicians they don't know and sometimes are
Speaker 1: in bed with these people, and so they just pairrot
Speaker 1: whatever the corporate line ultimately is. The media is not
Speaker 1: expert on what these chemicals are and what the fallout
Speaker 1: effects might be, et cetera, et cetera, so they also
Speaker 1: just parrot whatever the politicians are saying. So ultimately, what
Speaker 1: you're getting in all of these incidents in terms of
Speaker 1: the first blush impression is usually just whatever the corporate
Speaker 1: line is. And so that's why I too, would be
Speaker 1: deeply skeptical that it is actually safe in the area,
Speaker 1: that adequate testing has been done, that they even know
Speaker 1: what the potential fallout of such a thing could be.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've never had a situation before with this
Speaker 1: much of this particular chemical and being burned, and how
Speaker 1: much seeped into the ground and how much went out
Speaker 1: in the air, And now we know that it's seeped
Speaker 1: into the Ohio River basin. What does that mean? I
Speaker 1: think one thing that we've you know, we see with
Speaker 1: the UFOs too, is like they pretend like they, oh,
Speaker 1: we were super competent, we know what's going on. We've
Speaker 1: got this lockdown. They don't really know, especially the local
Speaker 1: but they're guessing. The media is guessing, and so I
Speaker 1: would take a lot more seriously the people who are
Speaker 1: living there, who are trying to go about their daily
Speaker 1: lives and are continuing to see and experience directly negative
Speaker 1: effects of whatever the hell happened here. Absolutely, we're going
Speaker 1: to stay on it, guys. Yeah, one hundred percent. Another
Speaker 1: thing we wanted to take a look at is Washing
Speaker 1: Post has a new in depth report about the way,
Speaker 1: especially Jared Kushner, but also Donald Trump himself has profited
Speaker 1: off of their deep ties and relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: I mean, this has major implications for the foreign policy
Speaker 1: of their administry in the past, also major implications for
Speaker 1: what their foreign policy would be if they end up
Speaker 1: back in the White House. Let's go and put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. Some of this covers things we've
Speaker 1: covered before, but it goes into great depth and there's
Speaker 1: additional detail. Their headline is after helping Princes Rise, Trump
Speaker 1: and Kushner benefit from Saudi funds, an investment fund overseen
Speaker 1: by Crown Prince mohammedd Ban Salmon is backing ventures that
Speaker 1: profit the former president and his senior advisor, raising questions
Speaker 1: of conflict. Now you all will recall under the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: Kushner in particular, and some of these details are really
Speaker 1: revealed for the first time in this report. He was
Speaker 1: the one who was really pushing Trump to cozy up
Speaker 1: to the Saudi Arabian government and especially to MBS. He
Speaker 1: was the one who Trump initially didn't want Saudi to
Speaker 1: be his first foreign trip. Kushner was the one who
Speaker 1: really kind of put the screws to him and pushed
Speaker 1: him to do that. And now potentially, in exchange, NBS
Speaker 1: has really bailed Kushner out of some difficult financial straits
Speaker 1: and funded almost all of this two billion dollar fund
Speaker 1: that Kushner raised. Let me read you a little bit
Speaker 1: of what this says, because the details here are stunning.
Speaker 1: They say, the day after leaving the White House, Jarek
Speaker 1: Kushner created a company that he transformed months later into
Speaker 1: a private equity firm with two billion dollars from a
Speaker 1: sovereign wealth fund chaired by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed ben Salman.
Speaker 1: Kushner's firm structured those funds so they didn't have to
Speaker 1: disclose the source. According to previously unreported details of SEC
Speaker 1: forms reviewed by The Washington Post, his business used a
Speaker 1: commonly employed strategy that allows many equity firms to avoid
Speaker 1: transparency about funding sources, something I would argue we should
Speaker 1: probably change. On Trump's side, they talk about how a
Speaker 1: year after his presidency, Trump's golf courses, oh they began
Speaker 1: hosting tournaments for the Saudi Fund back to live golf
Speaker 1: separately the former Presidence family company the Trump Organization. They
Speaker 1: secured an agreement with a Saudi real estate company that
Speaker 1: plans to build a Trump hotel as part of a
Speaker 1: four billion dollar golf resort in Oman. They also talk
Speaker 1: about here how Trump acknowledges that he bailed MBS out,
Speaker 1: especially with regards to the murder of Jamal Kushogi. He
Speaker 1: says said in a recorded interview quote, I saved his ass.
Speaker 1: According to the Trump Shapes by Post associate editor Bob Woodward,
Speaker 1: he refused to endorse the CIA's conclusion. He equivocated about
Speaker 1: Muhammad's involvement. He opposed releasing of the report, and vetoed
Speaker 1: a congressional bill to block arm sales to the Kingdom.
Speaker 1: President sent Mike Pompeo, who had replaced Rex Tillerson as
Speaker 1: Secretary of State, to meet with the Prince and remind
Speaker 1: him of his debt. By the way, Kushner has also
Speaker 1: reportedly raised at least another five hundred million from his
Speaker 1: company from unknown international investors since he filed that his
Speaker 1: SEC form last year. He has not identified the source
Speaker 1: of that money. And just to put the numbers in
Speaker 1: stark relief here, let's go and put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. As of last year, Kushner's firm reported that
Speaker 1: two point five point one billion out of two point
Speaker 1: five four billion under management came from foreign sources. Two
Speaker 1: billion of that from directly from MBS more or less.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've talked here before about the fact that
Speaker 1: the review board for this investment initially we're like, no,
Speaker 1: we don't think that Jared Kushner is has the skill set,
Speaker 1: he's not qualified. We don't want to invest this money
Speaker 1: with him. And MBS came in over the top and
Speaker 1: basically made this investment happen. So it is a disgusting,
Speaker 1: disgusting display. I mean, the most direct example you can
Speaker 1: possibly imagine of like the intermingling of politics, foreign affairs
Speaker 1: and personal wealth and you know, correct, straight pay to play.
Speaker 1: Kushner is going to personally pocket twenty five million in
Speaker 1: management fees just off the Saudi money alone. All right,
Speaker 1: So that's it. Fantastic wealth coming straight off of the
Speaker 1: MBS relationship that he built in the White House. There's
Speaker 1: no way to describe. This is as corrupt as it
Speaker 1: possibly gets. It is just as bad as Hunter Biden.
Speaker 1: It is just as bad as Chelsea Clinton sitting on
Speaker 1: the board of Expedia or whatever because she's very qualified
Speaker 1: of course. Yeah yeah, yeah, that's exactly why. I mean,
Speaker 1: every time I look at these and you have these
Speaker 1: relations who are of people who are in power, the
Speaker 1: level of brazenness that they are allowed to get away
Speaker 1: with is outrageous. And here's the crazy part, guys. This
Speaker 1: is totally legal, It's all legal. But that doesn't make
Speaker 1: it right, two point five to one billion dollars in
Speaker 1: form is anybody in the United States willing to give
Speaker 1: this guy money? No, because we don't know he's an idiot,
Speaker 1: so we has to go. It's a reason why two
Speaker 1: point five one of the two point five four I
Speaker 1: did the mask is all raised overseas. That is ninety
Speaker 1: eight point eight percent. And by the way, he is
Speaker 1: the son in law technically of a billionaire, right, so
Speaker 1: by this it doesn't even look like his own wife
Speaker 1: will give him his money. Like people give him money.
Speaker 1: They giving him money here. The Saudis and possibly some
Speaker 1: other oligard didn't even want to do it until the
Speaker 1: Crown Prince literally was like, no, you're gonna give Jared.
Speaker 1: Let me ask Look, let the money sink in. He's
Speaker 1: getting filthy rich off of his time in the White House.
Speaker 1: Just ask yourself this. Yeah, they end up back in
Speaker 1: the White House with you know, Trump making whatever he's
Speaker 1: making from live golf, and Jared with his two billion
Speaker 1: dollars in the fun You think they're really going to
Speaker 1: be first and foremost concerned about whatever the American interest
Speaker 1: is with regards to the Saudis. Come on, you don't
Speaker 1: think this is going to impact their decision making. You
Speaker 1: don't think that this possibility impacted their decision making last
Speaker 1: time around. I don't think anyone could tell you with
Speaker 1: a straight face that this has no impact on the
Speaker 1: way that they will ultimately conduct their foreign policy with,
Speaker 1: you know, a nation that is both very important and
Speaker 1: with which we have somewhat of a fraught relationship at
Speaker 1: the moment. I mean, this isn't some bit player. This
Speaker 1: is a major player, especially when it comes to energy
Speaker 1: and the price of gas at the pump. So it's
Speaker 1: disgusting and we cannot focus on it possibly enough, because
Speaker 1: it is such a brazen, brazen example of pay to play.
Speaker 1: The same time, we've got a little Elon Musk back
Speaker 1: and forth. This is an interesting one, all right. Put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen from media. Elon Musk is
Speaker 1: defending restricting Ukraine military Internet service, saying, quote, we will
Speaker 1: not enable escalation of conflict that may lead to World
Speaker 1: War three. This came in response put this next piece
Speaker 1: up on the screen to astronaut Scott Kelly, who actually
Speaker 1: is Mark Kelly's brother. He said to Elon, Ukraine desperately
Speaker 1: needs your continued support. Please restore the full functionality of
Speaker 1: your Starlink satellite defense from a gemicidal invasionist not in
Speaker 1: offensive capability survival, Innocent lives will be lost. You can help,
Speaker 1: thank you, to which Elon replies, what you see on
Speaker 1: the screen here, you're smart enough not to swallow media
Speaker 1: and other propaganda bs. Starlink is the communication backbone of Ukraine,
Speaker 1: especially at the front lines where almost all other Internet
Speaker 1: connectivity has been destroyed. But we will not enable escalation
Speaker 1: of conflict that may lead to World War three, he
Speaker 1: went on. In response to another person. Here he says, listen,
Speaker 1: SpaceX commercial terminals, like other commercial products, are meant for
Speaker 1: private use. Put this next one up on the screen, guys,
Speaker 1: not military. But we have not exercised our right to
Speaker 1: turn them off. We're trying hard to do the right
Speaker 1: thing where the right thing is an extremely difficult moral question. Now,
Speaker 1: you guys know I haven't been the biggest, biggest you
Speaker 1: on fan on this. I will one hundred percent defend him.
Speaker 1: And by the way, you know it's not clear one
Speaker 1: hundred percent what they have done to limit starlink service.
Speaker 1: They did announce they are going to limit it. There's
Speaker 1: some Wall Street Journal reporting that says Basically, Ukrainian soldiers
Speaker 1: say it's working largely as usual for frontline communications, but
Speaker 1: some units had reported issues with terminals attached to strike drones.
Speaker 1: So again, not one hundred percent clear the ways that
Speaker 1: they have restricted it. But I think he's trying to
Speaker 1: strike what to me seems like a relatively reasonable balance,
Speaker 1: trying to avoid escalation leading to World War three. And
Speaker 1: also Sager is very much in line with the original
Speaker 1: rationale and explanation from the US government of what they
Speaker 1: would be doing visa of the Ukraine. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: his point is not wrong. Well, he's like, look, this
Speaker 1: is supposed to be a commercial device. It's not even
Speaker 1: supposed to be used for military purposes. And you know
Speaker 1: why you don't want to use for military purposes because
Speaker 1: now you're opening yourselves up to the world of sanctions
Speaker 1: and you're working opening up yourself. You're in a different
Speaker 1: realm than you ever intended to be. And you know,
Speaker 1: at the right right now, I mean, he already talked
Speaker 1: about how they were providing Ukraine like hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars in free service with high speed internet connectivity,
Speaker 1: and he's like, I guess we'll just keep doing it.
Speaker 1: But the core beef was the Starlink was like, hey, Pentagon,
Speaker 1: you pay for it, you know you're the one, and
Speaker 1: they're like, no, we're not going to do This is
Speaker 1: outrageous because they initially provided free service to Ukraine. Zelenski
Speaker 1: then jumping on being like Elon doesn't support Ukraine, like
Speaker 1: you know, and basically browbeating him in the press to
Speaker 1: make him bow before this. But I think it's a
Speaker 1: totally legitimate point, like if the US government wants to
Speaker 1: provide high speed interactivity, you know, to Ukrainian forces, then
Speaker 1: they are welcome to do that, but why should a
Speaker 1: private company be required to do so? And then secondary,
Speaker 1: if the private company is going to do so basically
Speaker 1: out of the goodness of their heart, is costing them
Speaker 1: a lot of money, well then they're parameters of that CEO,
Speaker 1: of their owner, and how he'd used the conflict is
Speaker 1: of course going to play a role here. This is
Speaker 1: part of what drives me crazy about the Ukrainians. You
Speaker 1: don't have a right to anything that we give you. You
Speaker 1: You should be grateful about what it is, and they're not.
Speaker 1: Like their and their defenders are constantly and I pointed
Speaker 1: to that previous Zelensky demand spider jets, all right, you
Speaker 1: build them? Okay, yeah, go for it. You don't have
Speaker 1: an industrial base. That's why you can't do it. So
Speaker 1: you should at least and say, police, can you give us,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're gonna ask us to escalate, at
Speaker 1: least be nice about it. That's one of those things
Speaker 1: where it drives me nuts. In the media and the
Speaker 1: way Elon was treated on this. You should be thanking
Speaker 1: God for him for creating this technology that enables you
Speaker 1: and your military to put up even a modest defense
Speaker 1: against the Russians. You should not be demanding it, and
Speaker 1: not that you're not even paying for it, you're gonna
Speaker 1: get for free. I mean, listen, I think that I
Speaker 1: think people aren't necessarily saying Elon has to is like
Speaker 1: required to, but they're saying it'd be the right thing
Speaker 1: to do, and he's basically arguing like it's a little complicated,
Speaker 1: because you know, it's one thing. All the reporting says
Speaker 1: that Starlink has been has truly been critical for Ukraine
Speaker 1: in terms of their communications on the frontline, and Starlink
Speaker 1: is still providing that which is incredibly important, which is
Speaker 1: why I think the like antagonistic approach that Zelenski and
Speaker 1: others in Ukraine have taken has been you know, they
Speaker 1: can say whatever they want, but I think it's kind
Speaker 1: of foolish. But again, what Elon is laying out here
Speaker 1: about concerns of World War three escalation and wanting to
Speaker 1: provide you know, a communications ability on the front lines
Speaker 1: for the purpose of defense, but not wanting to be
Speaker 1: really involved in enabling any sort of offensive capabilities, in
Speaker 1: particular that could you know, strike crimea strike into Russia itself.
Speaker 1: I think again that that's a reasonable moral stand to
Speaker 1: take as he's trying to sort through, you know, what
Speaker 1: their role here should ultimately be. So so yeah, I
Speaker 1: think the Ukrainian approach here has been a bit foolish. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: you know, this has been incredibly critical for their efforts,
Speaker 1: and instead of getting any sort of like appreciation or
Speaker 1: acknowledgment of how critical they have been, you know, it's
Speaker 1: he's basically getting shpit on for getting involved at all.
Speaker 1: So it's no, but that's the thing. They're not foolish.
Speaker 1: They can get away with it. They never get called
Speaker 1: on anything. Zelenski literally lies about a Russian missile flying
Speaker 1: in poll and calling for a no fly zone. Everybody
Speaker 1: here's like, no, no, it's all you know what was
Speaker 1: crazy when that whole thing happened. Whenever it turned out
Speaker 1: that it was Ukrainian anti air missile, they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's Russia's fault, actually that our citizens were killed. What
Speaker 1: they didn't even apologize for what happened. I mean, the
Speaker 1: level of which we accommodate them is crazy. You can say, yeah,
Speaker 1: look what's going on there. It's unjust that you were invaded.
Speaker 1: I hope that you win. You know, I support your
Speaker 1: right to defend yourself, but that doesn't mean that we
Speaker 1: you know, you're always in the right. And the level
Speaker 1: of hysteria and just the inability to grapple with any
Speaker 1: critical thought on this like it is, as people can tell,
Speaker 1: drives me absolutely, especially when they're ungrateful to people like
Speaker 1: you for literally giving them tens of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: in free service of which they say is required on
Speaker 1: the battlefield, and they're so arrogant that they're willing to
Speaker 1: criticize them in public. And you know, here's the thing
Speaker 1: for all of his like I'll stand up. You still
Speaker 1: gave it to Emilan, like you didn't actually back down,
Speaker 1: So I don't know. You know, it just shows you,
Speaker 1: like how powerful they really are in the zeitgeist. Well,
Speaker 1: one thing that is not controversial would be bringing starlink
Speaker 1: capability to my home in We're all Virginia, so something
Speaker 1: we can all get hy it. I checked the map
Speaker 1: for you. It's coming in twenty twenty three. You see
Speaker 1: what they allegedly? Okay, all right, Tacker, what are you
Speaker 1: looking at? Well, everyone here knows I never miss a
Speaker 1: chance for a history lesson, So I thought, in the
Speaker 1: midst of one of the most extraordinary moments in UFO history,
Speaker 1: it's important we take a step back look at the
Speaker 1: past behavior of the US government on this topic as
Speaker 1: we attempt to parse all of what we know right
Speaker 1: now in real time. There's a lot of disbelief right
Speaker 1: now as to how the US government can shoot down
Speaker 1: three objects in the course of three days and basically
Speaker 1: tell us nothing about what's going on. But sadly, it
Speaker 1: actually fits a long time pattern of our government hiding
Speaker 1: the truth from us, and in many cases off the
Speaker 1: skating extraordinary events in the hope that we will lose
Speaker 1: interest and just move on. It's worth noting This has
Speaker 1: been a feature, not a bug, about UFOs from the
Speaker 1: very beginning. Starting at Roswell. Let's review the basic facts.
Speaker 1: We know that in the summer of nineteen forty seven,
Speaker 1: a New Mexico rancher found debris from a crashed object
Speaker 1: on his land after several UFO flying discs sidings were
Speaker 1: reported all over New Mexico. The debris was brought by
Speaker 1: the rancher to Roswell Airfield, where the commander on site
Speaker 1: inspected it and put out a statement saying, quote the
Speaker 1: many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality after
Speaker 1: the examination of the debris, and then the next day
Speaker 1: the government reversed themselves saying no, no, no, it wasn't
Speaker 1: a flying saucer or a flying disc. Actually it was
Speaker 1: a weather balloon. Here's a photo for you. They stuck
Speaker 1: to that story for fifty years, when in nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: four they said after the Cold War, actually wreckage from Roswell.
Speaker 1: It was part of a classified US government program known
Speaker 1: as Project Mogul, and it was a high altitude balloon
Speaker 1: equipped with microphones that were designed to secretly float over
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union. They came up with the weather balloon's
Speaker 1: story as a decoy. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not,
Speaker 1: But Roswell set the tone for which UFOs would be
Speaker 1: treated by the US government, lives obfuscations, sophisticated programs designed
Speaker 1: to keep as much information from the public as secret
Speaker 1: as possible. Despite the fallout of Roswell UFO sidings, they
Speaker 1: didn't stop. Not from normal people. Pilots themselves were forcing
Speaker 1: the Air Force in the US military to create a
Speaker 1: task force dedicated to studying the UFO phenomenon, and this
Speaker 1: took on a few phases. It began in nineteen forty seven.
Speaker 1: There was Project Sign, Project Grudge, and Project Blue Book.
Speaker 1: I'm skipping over a lot of history here, but the
Speaker 1: most extraordinary thing to occur during this initial phase is
Speaker 1: an alleged document that was known as the Quote Estimate
Speaker 1: of the Situation. It was written sometime if it ever existed,
Speaker 1: in nineteen forty eight. After analyzing several incidents, this document,
Speaker 1: alleged by the Project Signed member and former Air Force
Speaker 1: Captain Edward Repelled, concluded that the UFO phenomenon was extraterrestrial life.
Speaker 1: The report was approved by the group that was studying
Speaker 1: the phenomenon before being rejected out of hand by the
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. Then
Speaker 1: a critical incident happened the nineteen fifty two UFO scare
Speaker 1: right over Washington, DC. Right here, seven blips were spotted
Speaker 1: on the radar air traffic controllers at Reagan National Airport.
Speaker 1: One was moving at a very high rate of space
Speaker 1: that was irregular. US Air Force pilots were dispatched to
Speaker 1: intercept the object. They claimed they saw it with their
Speaker 1: own eyes, narrowly missed them. The radar signal was verified
Speaker 1: at nearby Bass Military Basis. In a frantic search, they
Speaker 1: still couldn't find them. A week later, the exact same
Speaker 1: thing happened again, and the headlines at the time screamed
Speaker 1: about flying discs, saucers, pilots, outflow of US jets, and
Speaker 1: the press for once was actually trying to do its job.
Speaker 1: They were hammering the Truman administration the Pentagon. They needed
Speaker 1: to provide answers. So what does the government do? What
Speaker 1: it does best, It lied first. The general responsible for
Speaker 1: answering questions about the incident obfuscated every single detail possible
Speaker 1: from the press before landing on the preferred explanation that
Speaker 1: they have today. It was a quote temperature inversion, an
Speaker 1: explanation that holds no weight at all, and one that
Speaker 1: they landed on after frantically searching internally for something that
Speaker 1: they could use that might stop people from asking questions.
Speaker 1: The second thing they did was they convened a new group.
Speaker 1: It is known to history as the Quote Robertson Panel.
Speaker 1: The panel was put together by the CIA in a
Speaker 1: joint advisory committee tasked with understanding UFOs. Now, instead of
Speaker 1: actually understanding UFOs, they reached a different conclusion. Actually, what
Speaker 1: they needed to do is a public education campaign to
Speaker 1: convince the American public that UFOs were nonsense, To weaponize
Speaker 1: the press, use prominent people in pop culture and media,
Speaker 1: including the Walt Disney Corporation, to convince Americans that UFOs
Speaker 1: were not a threat to American national security and that
Speaker 1: only cranks believed in them. This was at the height
Speaker 1: of CIA power in America, when they involved all sorts
Speaker 1: of insane black ops here in American soil and experimenting
Speaker 1: on American citizens to try and find a path to
Speaker 1: mind control. It set the tone from that day forward
Speaker 1: from Project Blue Book, where the sole purpose of the
Speaker 1: project was to stigmatize UFOs. Bury the evidence, cover it up,
Speaker 1: twist American public opinion away from any curiosity. And the
Speaker 1: reason I'm taking you through this torturous history is because
Speaker 1: this legacy of secrecy pervades the entire pedic gone Today,
Speaker 1: we are really supposed to believe we had three UFOs
Speaker 1: shot down in seven two hours, and it's not one
Speaker 1: photo of that wreckage. This is in an age where
Speaker 1: we knowingly put hell fire missiles in moving cars in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan and have had that capability for over twenty years.
Speaker 1: Keep this in mind. This is after an extraordinary five
Speaker 1: years where we have literal video evidence of insane objects
Speaker 1: moving at high rates of speed. We have pilots on
Speaker 1: the record in the media believing that they saw something extraordinary,
Speaker 1: and they have receipts to back it up. After all
Speaker 1: of that, they still drag their feet. Two congressionally mandated
Speaker 1: reports released as little information to us as humanly possible.
Speaker 1: At the same time they fulfill their Robertson panel dreams.
Speaker 1: They have stigmatized UFOs to the American public, using the
Speaker 1: media as their mouthpiece. Watch this clip that we showed
Speaker 1: you earlier, the White House telling us there's no evidence
Speaker 1: of alien spacecraft. Don't worry about it. The press corps.
Speaker 1: They giggle like little school children. I know there's been
Speaker 1: questions and concerns about this, but there is no again,
Speaker 1: no indication of aliens or extra terrestrial activity with these
Speaker 1: recent takedowns. Again, there is no indication of aliens or
Speaker 1: terrestrial activity with these recent takedowns. Wanted to make sure
Speaker 1: that the American people knew that. All of you knew that,
Speaker 1: and it was important for us to say that from
Speaker 1: here because we've been hearing a lot about it. The
Speaker 1: Robertson panel could have barely dreamed of a more compliant
Speaker 1: press core than what you have right there. The good thing, though,
Speaker 1: is we do have the Internet on our side and
Speaker 1: the ability to ask questions that we couldn't before. Maybe
Speaker 1: there's a benign explanation for what these aircraft that we
Speaker 1: shot down are. But one thing you should be sure of.
Speaker 1: Don't believe any of the assurances from the US government
Speaker 1: on any of this, and anyway, that's what I come down.
Speaker 1: I don't think people really know the history. And look,
Speaker 1: I know that it sounds crazy, but like you, 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. Are
Speaker 1: you checking a look out? Well, guys. The fallout continues
Speaker 1: over what could be the largest public corruption scandal in history. Now,
Speaker 1: as you will call, various politically connected individuals in the
Speaker 1: state of Mississippi, including former NFL star Brett Farv, are
Speaker 1: accused of stealing a combined total of some seventy to
Speaker 1: ninety million dollars that was intended for needy welfare recipients. Now,
Speaker 1: the brazen details of the scandal are truly shocking. Farv
Speaker 1: alone is said to have pocketed a million dollars in
Speaker 1: speaking fees for toks he never gave, and was working
Speaker 1: with a politically connected charity to have a multimillion dollar
Speaker 1: volleyball stadium for his daughter financed out of those welfare funds. Now,
Speaker 1: Farv denies wrong doing. He says he didn't have any
Speaker 1: idea where this money was coming from. I put that
Speaker 1: disclaimer up top because I don't want to get sued,
Speaker 1: And apparently Farv is in a litigious mood. He is
Speaker 1: now suing two commentators who opined on the matter, and
Speaker 1: even the Mississippi State Auditor I guess for daring to
Speaker 1: uncover Farv's alleged fraud. So here are the details. Farv's
Speaker 1: filed defamation lawsuits against sports commentator Shannon Sharp and Pat McAfee,
Speaker 1: along with state auditor Shad White. Apparently, he's upset with
Speaker 1: Shandon Sharp for saying that Farv was a quote sorry
Speaker 1: mofo to steal from the lowest to the low and
Speaker 1: that Farv quote stole money from people that really needed
Speaker 1: that money. Farv is also upset with McAfee for calling
Speaker 1: him a quote thief and for saying Farv was quote
Speaker 1: stealing from poor people in Mississippi. As for the state auditor,
Speaker 1: the suit accuses White of shamelessly and falsely attacking Farv's
Speaker 1: good name. Now, perhaps if you don't want to have
Speaker 1: your good name attacked, don't try to pull for welfare
Speaker 1: funds to build your daughter a stadium. Allegedly, there are
Speaker 1: though other reasons why Farv's good name may have already
Speaker 1: been sullied as well, but I digress from that. For
Speaker 1: his part, Pat McAfee doesn't seem particularly phased by the
Speaker 1: legal threats here, and I'm no legal analyst, but probably
Speaker 1: has good reason to feel fairly confident. It's hard to
Speaker 1: imagine that McAfee's commentary on publicly reported events about a
Speaker 1: very high profile person are going to meet the high
Speaker 1: legal bar for defamation. Here, in part was McAfee's mocking response,
Speaker 1: take a lot of produ our work. We had to
Speaker 1: cover that situation, and we certainly said allegedly, and a
Speaker 1: lot of people are wondering how my lawyers are going
Speaker 1: to handle us. You know it, I ain't got him,
Speaker 1: So let's ride this, bucker. I'm excited to see how
Speaker 1: it goes. I'll see you in court, Pal. Cheers to
Speaker 1: everybody in cheers or feel good Friday not being ruined
Speaker 1: at all by that in court pal. Now, if I
Speaker 1: had to guess, Far's lawsuits are less about actually winning
Speaker 1: a case in court, which again seems highly unlikely, and
Speaker 1: more about scaring other journalists and commentators away from talking
Speaker 1: about him. Judging by me writing this monologue, it's not
Speaker 1: working all that well. But there is, if anything, even
Speaker 1: more fallout in the political world, which is larger than
Speaker 1: the sports world. As you're probably aware of, Mississippi is
Speaker 1: a red state. Democrat hasn't even come close to winning
Speaker 1: for governor there since Republican Haley Barber took the office
Speaker 1: in two thousand and four. Now, when you think of
Speaker 1: competitive swing states, it's not exactly what comes to mind,
Speaker 1: but this scandal could be turning politics in Mississippi upside
Speaker 1: down because the current Governor Ryan Grimm look alike Republican
Speaker 1: Tate Reeves is deeply connected both to the scandal itself
Speaker 1: and to an and cover up, and it happens to
Speaker 1: be up for re election this very year. So far
Speaker 1: that reelect is off to a pretty rocky start. Bombshell
Speaker 1: newpoll by Tulchion Research actually has the Republican incumbent Reeves
Speaker 1: down four points to the Democratic nominee, Brandon Presley. Reeves
Speaker 1: approval rating has tanked in connection with this scandal, and
Speaker 1: voters by an overwhelming two to one marchin have a
Speaker 1: dim view of his handling of it. It's no wonder
Speaker 1: they're disgusted, because Reeves is deeply implicated in not only
Speaker 1: the scandal, but again a purported cover up. First of all,
Speaker 1: Reeves is part of the same political machine as the
Speaker 1: previous governor Phil Bryant, under whom this multimillion dollar welfare
Speaker 1: scandal all unfolded. In fact, Reeves was not just a
Speaker 1: civilian bystander to the whole corrupt affair. He was Lieutenant
Speaker 1: governor at the time and had himself benefited from the
Speaker 1: political patronage of one of the main accused wrongdoers in
Speaker 1: this whole scheme. Second of all, reeves On personal trainer
Speaker 1: is alleged to have received one point three million dollars
Speaker 1: in payments out of the welfare money, and lo and
Speaker 1: behold messages strongly suggest that Tate Reeves himself directed those payments.
Speaker 1: Reporting from Mississippi Today reveals that the alleged scheme to
Speaker 1: provide the money to the trainer was described as quote
Speaker 1: the Lieutenant governor's fitness issue, again the lieutenant governor being
Speaker 1: Tate Reefs. But what is most infuriated the Mississippi public
Speaker 1: is what appears to be a cover up. Reeves fired
Speaker 1: a lawyer who was working to recoup the stolen welfare
Speaker 1: funds after that lawyer issued subpoenas which could have proved
Speaker 1: politically damaging to the former governor or to Tate Reeves himself.
Speaker 1: That subpoena asked for documents from the University of Southern
Speaker 1: Mississippi's Athletic Foundation, and the board of that foundation just
Speaker 1: happens to be chock full of Tate Reeves' supporters and
Speaker 1: Tate Reeves donors. Reeves fired that lawyer near days after
Speaker 1: the subpoena was issued. This corruption scandal is not just
Speaker 1: some side issue in the campaign either. It's blown up
Speaker 1: into one of the top issues in this campaign in
Speaker 1: the whole state, and understandably so. Voters are rightly disgusted
Speaker 1: with a politic class that used money intended for the
Speaker 1: state's neediest to instead pad their own lavish lifestyles and
Speaker 1: reward their political cronies. In this poll, ninety three percent
Speaker 1: of respondents had at least heard something about this scandal. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't know much about the Democrat Brandon Presley. He
Speaker 1: seems like a decent candidate for the state. He was
Speaker 1: state utility regulatory blocked rate increases benefited consumers there. He's
Speaker 1: born and raised in a small town in Mississippi, pro
Speaker 1: life and pro gun for what it's worth. He apparently
Speaker 1: is Elvis's cousin, Presley Presley. You see, it's a test
Speaker 1: case over whether public revulsion to this looting of the
Speaker 1: public bursts can actually overcome the state's usual partisan tilt.
Speaker 1: We will find out in November. The Breadfarv thing is unbelievable.
Speaker 1: First of all, the gall of this man to sue them.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com. Joining
Speaker 1: me now is a good friend, Jeremy Corbell. He's an
Speaker 1: independent journalist. He's released some of the most important videos
Speaker 1: regarding thiss, So of course we had to talk with
Speaker 1: Jeremy about this entire situation. So, Jeremy, there's been an
Speaker 1: explosion of public interest in UFOs after the last couple
Speaker 1: of days in these extraordinary shootdowns. Just want to get
Speaker 1: your reaction to everything that's happening here, not only the
Speaker 1: interests of the topic writ large, but also this specific instances.
Speaker 1: What are you thinking about this? Yeah, well, look, the
Speaker 1: moment this began, people started texting me, is this war
Speaker 1: of the worlds? Is this, you know, confirmation? Are they
Speaker 1: finally dealing with this elusive what they call UAP now,
Speaker 1: which is just UFO same thing? Are we dealing with
Speaker 1: this mystery publicly? Forward facing? Unfortunately, the answer is know
Speaker 1: that this organization is incredible. We know there are balloons,
Speaker 1: we know there are Chinese spy balloons. This is something
Speaker 1: that has been happening for decades, this specific type. So
Speaker 1: what we're dealing with is the media all of a
Speaker 1: sudden grabbing on to these very specific in terminology, just
Speaker 1: trying to make everybody feel like this is a new thing.
Speaker 1: If we really cared about security in the United States
Speaker 1: on the level, we're not going to shoot a missile
Speaker 1: at a balloon. We're going to deal with, for example,
Speaker 1: what happened in twenty nineteen that is still unresolved. And
Speaker 1: I think I've proven the case very recently by bringing
Speaker 1: witnesses forward direct eyewitnesses that these UAPs unidentified anomalist phenomena,
Speaker 1: that they're under intelligent control by some actor who we
Speaker 1: don't know who it is. But we can exclude China, Russia, US,
Speaker 1: I mean, you name it, we can exclude it. So
Speaker 1: what are we not saying here? So the current events, dude,
Speaker 1: it's like this, this has been going on a long time.
Speaker 1: If we care about security, we would deal with the
Speaker 1: hacks to our cell phones before we would even care
Speaker 1: about a balloon enough to shoot it down on national
Speaker 1: television with a missile which we barely hit by the way, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Well, and how do the pilot descriptions and
Speaker 1: the limited pieces of information that we have gotten in
Speaker 1: terms of, you know, descriptions of these objects, how do
Speaker 1: those match up with previous reports and sightings. Right, That's
Speaker 1: a really important distinguishing quality here is that the UAP phenomenon,
Speaker 1: it's going on all the time, and it's over decades,
Speaker 1: if not generations. So what pilots are seeing and saying
Speaker 1: now with these particular events, it is not as extraordinary
Speaker 1: as what we have heard from like let's say, Commander
Speaker 1: David Fraber, Commander Underwood, Lieutenant Ryan Graves. But look, what
Speaker 1: we're seeing is really nothing that I see as particularly anomalous.
Speaker 1: They are saying strange words to try to inflame the
Speaker 1: UFO community. I think that that is intentional because we
Speaker 1: are what we're actually shooting down so far has been
Speaker 1: just really standard. Let's reflect on what's happened. Let's go back,
Speaker 1: because we're talking about spherical things. At George knappenin we
Speaker 1: released something called the orb This is the first piece
Speaker 1: of military film clearly identified as UAP. This is from
Speaker 1: within a classified briefing. Like a lot of the stuff
Speaker 1: that I've been able to put out, but it is
Speaker 1: inherently unclassified. That's why I can put it out. So
Speaker 1: we put this out. This is an object that is
Speaker 1: from a four second video. It's two seconds slowed down
Speaker 1: and this is from a reconnaissance plane over northern Iraq Mosol.
Speaker 1: That's why they call it the Mosol ORB. This was
Speaker 1: identified by our UAPTF, which was the task Force dealing
Speaker 1: with the Unidentified anomalost Phenomena as classified UAP, meaning it's
Speaker 1: got some sort of propulsion, some reason why it was
Speaker 1: brought into that category. And if you've seen the if
Speaker 1: you get to see the video, if people do their
Speaker 1: job and you can see the video, you're going to know.
Speaker 1: We know what balloons are. We know what those are.
Speaker 1: We don't classify those UAP. So now you've got a
Speaker 1: spherical object over a conflict zone. For the first first time,
Speaker 1: the public is seeing an image that was contained in
Speaker 1: classified briefing. Now this makes you think about the trans
Speaker 1: medium capabilities from twenty nineteen when George and I released
Speaker 1: the uss O Maha video where our government and the
Speaker 1: people that are really working this within our government, they
Speaker 1: said this is trans medium. These were coming in and
Speaker 1: out of the water and indeed I have direct reports
Speaker 1: from people who saw that at that time. So what
Speaker 1: you're seeing, Crystal, you asked the question, what you're seeing
Speaker 1: right now is a complete rewriting of our standards of
Speaker 1: rules of engagement in twenty nineteen. If this was Chinese technology,
Speaker 1: do you think it would have gotten much more coverage.
Speaker 1: We now see what happens when we simply pop a
Speaker 1: balloon with a missile from another country. We see the
Speaker 1: press coverage. What did we not see in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: We had nine pieces of corroborative visual evidence that I
Speaker 1: provided with George to the public and mass media. We
Speaker 1: didn't see this, and we still don't know the origin, intent,
Speaker 1: or capability of those objects at that time. Where did
Speaker 1: they come from, Where did they launch, where did they land?
Speaker 1: No propulsion system that we can see, and you can
Speaker 1: see that yourself in that flear footage, the black and
Speaker 1: white footage that's thermal. You should be able to see
Speaker 1: flight control surfaces, rotor wash, heat dispersing from a propulsion system.
Speaker 1: That is not a balloon, that is not something out
Speaker 1: of control, that is something in controlled flight by an
Speaker 1: unknown operator. And that slide you're showing right now that
Speaker 1: slide was also within a classified briefing, but is inherently unclassified,
Speaker 1: and it says it right there for you that they
Speaker 1: suspect it to be trans medium. Yeah, I mean, yeah, Look,
Speaker 1: this is why I thought it was important to bring
Speaker 1: you on. And in our coverage, you know, it's difficult
Speaker 1: to distinguish as well where were like, Look, you know,
Speaker 1: in some of these cases, we're not talking about anything
Speaker 1: that is even close to as anomalist or described like
Speaker 1: you said by Commander David Fraeer or Ryan Graves. One
Speaker 1: of the things we've been trying to pick up on,
Speaker 1: Jeremy is just the level of government obfuscation around keeping
Speaker 1: as much detail from the public as possible. That's something
Speaker 1: that you have dealt with now through this entire period.
Speaker 1: You've spoken previously on the Joe Rogan podcast and elsewhere
Speaker 1: about how we've actually fired on uf UAP's UOFOS, whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it, These incidents have been covered
Speaker 1: up by the government. Can you just lay that out
Speaker 1: for people. I did some of my monologue on this,
Speaker 1: the level of secrecy and really just the lack of willingness,
Speaker 1: at least until very recently, to actually want to deal
Speaker 1: with this issue. Yeah. So look, there was a heroic thing,
Speaker 1: which is where Representative Carson put together the first UFO
Speaker 1: congressional hearing in fifty three years actually, I think was
Speaker 1: the amount of time. So there are people that want
Speaker 1: to address this soberly and straight on. But the stigma
Speaker 1: that is really the thing. It's very bizarre. The stigma
Speaker 1: is what causes, as far as I can see so far,
Speaker 1: a lot of the lack of journalism and the pre
Speaker 1: bunking that is done on the UFO phenomenon. But even
Speaker 1: within our mechanisms of government, it's really stigma. It's like,
Speaker 1: we don't want to admit what's right in front of us,
Speaker 1: the UAP issue, because it has all of this baggage.
Speaker 1: But look, you have objects of unknown origin flying with
Speaker 1: impunity in our restricted airspace. We need to deal with it. Now.
Speaker 1: There is directed disinformation and misinformation about the UFO topic,
Speaker 1: and I have dealt with that specifically and personally. I'll
Speaker 1: give you an example. The only spokesperson for the UAP
Speaker 1: topic the public has is Susan go. Susan Go at
Speaker 1: the Pentagon. Now, her statements have not only been misleading
Speaker 1: to American public, other than when she did confirm, I
Speaker 1: think because it's so obvious that what I obtained and
Speaker 1: released was government film footage from active UFO investigations and
Speaker 1: did show true UAP. There has been an attempt to
Speaker 1: try to be very unclear to the American public, and
Speaker 1: she's doing that right now. Whoever is telling her to
Speaker 1: do it is who we should find out. That image
Speaker 1: I put out the Moso ORB is really important when
Speaker 1: it comes to shootdowns. I have talked about it, and
Speaker 1: I have said and everybody got real upset at me.
Speaker 1: Over a long time. We are constantly shooting at unknowns,
Speaker 1: but the rules of engagement is that it's usually over
Speaker 1: conflict zones. It's when these objects, who by the way,
Speaker 1: Russia and Syria also fire upon, so we know it's
Speaker 1: not their units, but that happens because of the proximity
Speaker 1: of UAP to ground troops. That's one of the criteria
Speaker 1: of why the fire on it. But now we're seeing
Speaker 1: it over the US and we don't know if these things,
Speaker 1: even if they are balloons, which most of them are,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't know if they're manned or unmanned.
Speaker 1: So the shootdown thing, Look, I don't have a crystal
Speaker 1: ball right. But why I know that is because I've
Speaker 1: been exposed to reports and briefings. That's why I could
Speaker 1: say it before came something everybody else was talking about nationally.
Speaker 1: Got it. I wonder what you make of the theory
Speaker 1: that this is all sort of like a syop. It's
Speaker 1: like a shiny object to keep us all talking and
Speaker 1: distracted while you know, some other major event is unfolding
Speaker 1: people when pointing to the trained derailmen in Ohio that
Speaker 1: hasn't gotten a lot of media attention, what do you
Speaker 1: make of that argument that not just these instances, but
Speaker 1: other reported instances are also part of some broader government siop. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I wish I could report to you that we have
Speaker 1: a well oiled machine where the deception is really well done.
Speaker 1: I always feel like I should be, as a journalist
Speaker 1: a few steps ahead of the BS. Right, Well, I'm
Speaker 1: about twenty and that's concerning. That's very concerning. So this
Speaker 1: idea that there's a syops and we're trying to distract people,
Speaker 1: that that's just not true. You've got maybe on a
Speaker 1: low level, sure, very very low, Like you know, Susan
Speaker 1: go at the Pentagon, whoever's telling her not to conforms
Speaker 1: certain things, but on the broad picture, I think people
Speaker 1: are really trying their best. I have met some great
Speaker 1: people within the different departments that basically say, we want
Speaker 1: to be forward facing on this issue. We realize that
Speaker 1: the pilots are having to deal with this. So that
Speaker 1: was why you saw that forward great movement Congress. Mc
Speaker 1: gallagher came up, really threw down for the American public
Speaker 1: in that UFO hearing is kind of like a hero
Speaker 1: to a lot of people in the world interested in
Speaker 1: facing this topic. So I don't feel that it's in
Speaker 1: well orchestrated and oiled machine of deception. I would like
Speaker 1: to believe that we were that sophisticated, but I think
Speaker 1: the bureaucracy, like I'm nimble, I'm on my feet as
Speaker 1: a journalist, and that's why I think journalists like myself
Speaker 1: we can get better briefings than people in Congress are
Speaker 1: sent it, which is kind of scary, right, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that's what's so important. My last question, Jeremy, is
Speaker 1: what should people look for in the coming days, not
Speaker 1: only about the shootdowns, but bro overall on the topic,
Speaker 1: and where can they learn even more about this? Sure?
Speaker 1: So I started a new show called Weaponized Podcast with
Speaker 1: my mentor and journalism George Knapp, and we have been
Speaker 1: breaking news with each episode. So what you can expect
Speaker 1: is more direct military film, UAPI, designated imagery and video,
Speaker 1: as well as a bunch of great conversations and people
Speaker 1: coming forward. You call them whistleblowers, you know, I would
Speaker 1: say they're just tell them the truth. So you expect
Speaker 1: a lot of that Weaponized Podcast dot com. Yeah awesome,
Speaker 1: All right, Well we'll have a link down there to
Speaker 1: the description. Jeremy. Really appreciate you taking the time. I
Speaker 1: know you to get up early for us. It means
Speaker 1: a lot and rely on you heavily. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Great hacking me you, Jeremy, thank you for covering this,
Speaker 1: both of you. Thank you for covering it. Yeah, measure.
Speaker 1: At the same time, Sager, we have some domestic political
Speaker 1: news breaking this morning. I know you're very excited because
Speaker 1: the former South Carolina governor and Ambassador to the UN
Speaker 1: under Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, has announced she is officially
Speaker 1: running for president. It's happening, people, it's all happening. Thought
Speaker 1: we'd give you a little taste of her announcement video
Speaker 1: and Siger and I will react on the other side.
Speaker 1: Take a look. It's a great day in South Carolina.
Speaker 1: It's a great day. It's a great day, A great day,
Speaker 1: a great day in South Carolina. We were strong, we
Speaker 1: were proud. Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven
Speaker 1: out of the last eight presidential elections. That has to change.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's record is abysmal, but that shouldn't come as
Speaker 1: a surprise. The Washington establishment has failed us over and
Speaker 1: over and over again. It's time for a new generation
Speaker 1: of leadership. You should know this about me. I don't
Speaker 1: put up with bullys, and when you kick back, it
Speaker 1: hurts them more if you're wearing heels. I'm Nikki Haley
Speaker 1: and I'm running for president. Oh my, who gave this
Speaker 1: woman the impression that anybody gives a shit about her
Speaker 1: high heels? I don't understand it, Like, where did this
Speaker 1: become a meme? And look sadly, I actually do know
Speaker 1: the answer that there is a group of cringe girl boss,
Speaker 1: conservative feminist, anti feminist morning types on Twitter who are
Speaker 1: like you go, Nikki whenever They all thought that stupid
Speaker 1: ass photo of her raising her hand was like some
Speaker 1: great big own towards Russia and China. Look, I don't
Speaker 1: know what to even say. I'm glad the brown ceiling
Speaker 1: is getting broken. Congratulations, Republicans suddenly have their own identity policy.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's that's what all this is. Look, this
Speaker 1: lady doesn't have a chance in hell. I mean that ad.
Speaker 1: It's like written by chat ChiPT It's like the most
Speaker 1: replacement I was gonna say the Really, it's like if
Speaker 1: you typed into AI, like make me a generic Republican
Speaker 1: political video for a woman of color, right, that this
Speaker 1: is what you would get. Yeah. I hope that the
Speaker 1: technology is advanced enough to make the voice a little
Speaker 1: bit less robotic than what NI going on there. Though.
Speaker 1: She tweeted this out with her comment was get excited.
Speaker 1: Time for a new generation. Let's do this exclamation point
Speaker 1: with the fifth bump and the American flag. And I
Speaker 1: just think one sure sign that a politician stands for
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing as when they talk about a new generation. Yes, good,
Speaker 1: it's a guarantee that what they really mean is let's
Speaker 1: do the same old crap we've been doing, just with
Speaker 1: like a slightly younger person. This was a Pete boodhagenchit
Speaker 1: pitch last time around, you know, nothing wrong with like
Speaker 1: great to get new blood all at whatever. But if
Speaker 1: you're leaning into my whole case is that my age
Speaker 1: is different than the person in power, like you're lacking
Speaker 1: a lot in terms of like principles and values and
Speaker 1: actually something different for the country. Nikki Haley is an
Speaker 1: unreconstructed neo conservative on foreign policy. In twenty nineteen, she
Speaker 1: gave a speech called it Now is Not the Time
Speaker 1: to give up on Capitalism, where she attacked Josh Holly
Speaker 1: and Orrin Cass and a few others friends of mine,
Speaker 1: at least in the case of Orin specifically for rethinking
Speaker 1: crazy policies like maybe hedge funds are bad, maybe private
Speaker 1: equity isn't as good as what it does, and tax
Speaker 1: cuts for these like filthy rich billionaires aren't the best
Speaker 1: most apt policy priority. Maybe that's why the financial billionaire
Speaker 1: Paul Singer happens to be bankrolling her entire campaign. The
Speaker 1: man literally cares about two things or three things. From
Speaker 1: what I hear crt Okay, whatever, you know. I guess
Speaker 1: we can be fine on that one. Israel, that's one
Speaker 1: he cares about a lot, and financial regulation making sure
Speaker 1: that you protected on those fronts. On those two, or
Speaker 1: at least two of those three. You could be guaranteed
Speaker 1: that Nikki Haley is like Lockstep. It's hilarious to how
Speaker 1: she a taxi establishment, you are the Republican establishment. What
Speaker 1: are you talking about a lot of her videos? Just
Speaker 1: like some people say, Maeric is dead, but I think
Speaker 1: America is good. Wow Okay, oh wow, Bold stands there, Nicky,
Speaker 1: way to go. So it'll be interesting, you know, to
Speaker 1: watch how this all unfolds. You have a big cast
Speaker 1: of characters that is looking at getting into We talked yesterday,
Speaker 1: Tim Scott is now looks like he's going to jump
Speaker 1: into the race. That Glenn Youngkin looks like he's going
Speaker 1: to get in. Mike Pompeio, John Bolton nobody cared, but
Speaker 1: he got in the race as well, Mi Pence obviously
Speaker 1: in Ron de Santis as the only one of them
Speaker 1: that has any real chance at this whole thing. But
Speaker 1: the thing that I'm fascinated with is how they're all
Speaker 1: going to approach Trump, right, I mean clearly her line
Speaker 1: here about like it's time for a new generation, and
Speaker 1: she makes that comment about you know, we've we've been
Speaker 1: losing the popular vote, which even that I mean, you're
Speaker 1: dealing with a Republican base that sixty seventy to seventy
Speaker 1: percent of them thinks that the twenty twenty election was stolen.
Speaker 1: So they don't even agree with you there, number one
Speaker 1: and number two. Like the new generation thing, it's just
Speaker 1: not it's not a successful attack line. People's problem with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is not actually his age. That's there's a
Speaker 1: problem with Joe Biden because he shows his age a
Speaker 1: lot more than Trump does. Trump has this weird like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, it does feel like the students just
Speaker 1: gonna haunt us forever and never go away. But but yeah,
Speaker 1: I think if that's what you're trying to lean into
Speaker 1: in terms of any kind of a contrast with Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: good luck. I mean, lord knows, there is no evidence
Speaker 1: that anybody wants a new generation. By the way, I
Speaker 1: want a new generation. But here's the deal. People my age,
Speaker 1: they really just don't vote. Unfortunately. I wish it was differently,
Speaker 1: but that's just the case. It's mostly boomers who vote,
Speaker 1: and they like Trump. They also voted for Biden. All right,
Speaker 1: So the two most likely people to be on the
Speaker 1: ballot are both going to be eighty something years old.
Speaker 1: Should they serve that term in office. Let that sink
Speaker 1: in because while many people may not want that, they're
Speaker 1: not actively involved in the political process, especially with the
Speaker 1: Republican base. You have to win a primary. There is
Speaker 1: not one shred iota of evidence that they give a
Speaker 1: damn at all about you being young, about you being new.
Speaker 1: What they care about, yeah, you're high yels. I don't
Speaker 1: think they particularly, They don't never seem to have care before.
Speaker 1: What they do care about is your ability to piss
Speaker 1: off the press and the Republican establishment. Now that's why
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis has actual chance, because the press hates him,
Speaker 1: and look, the Republican establishment not so much, but at
Speaker 1: least they haven't come out, you know, full force behind
Speaker 1: him yet. That's why Trump won the election. So look,
Speaker 1: she doesn't have a chance. This will be a fun
Speaker 1: way to watch Paul Singer waste his money, you know,
Speaker 1: I guess you know, at least it will go into
Speaker 1: the hands of well healed political consultants here in Washington.
Speaker 1: But it's pathetic and we will only likely see more
Speaker 1: of this as Tim Scott and all the Mike Pompeio
Speaker 1: and all these other narcissists think that any of us
Speaker 1: care about them at all. Well said, all right, okay,
Speaker 1: I see you later.