Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 3: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 3: for everybody today. What do we have, Grissel.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do lots of stuff happening today and this week,
Speaker 1: both in terms of foreign affairs and here domestically. So
Speaker 1: first and foremost debt sealing negotiations that seem like they
Speaker 1: were going, then they broke down. Now they're back. We'll
Speaker 1: tell you the very latest stuff. Everything we know there.
Speaker 1: It's a very obviously chaotic and uncertain situation. Also, surprise, surprise,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden caved on F sixteen's to Zelenski called it
Speaker 1: here unfortunately, So we'll tell you the details about that.
Speaker 1: What he was saying in the past, and what are
Speaker 1: you saying now. We got a bunch of new contenders
Speaker 1: jumping into the GOP race this week as well, some
Speaker 1: of them a little bit surprising, so we have those details.
Speaker 1: We also have some new details about Epstein and Bill Gates,
Speaker 1: questions about whether or not he tried to blackmail him.
Speaker 4: It looks like he did.
Speaker 1: And we have revelations about Dianne Feinstein being even more
Speaker 1: ill and in even worse health than we even knew about,
Speaker 1: so really sad and really kind of enraging. Details there
Speaker 1: regarding Nancy Pelosi, why she's propping up Diane Feinstein. We
Speaker 1: have some answers there as well. Before we get to
Speaker 1: any of that, though, thank you so much to all
Speaker 1: of the premium subscribers who signed up last week. We're
Speaker 1: getting super close to getting our new set. We're getting
Speaker 1: pictures all the time. It looks absolutely beautiful. We've got
Speaker 1: it scheduled, we're getting updates, and we are going to
Speaker 1: have an exclusive reveal premium subscribers, so stay tuned for
Speaker 1: that as well.
Speaker 2: That's right, keep that in mind for the exclusive reveal.
Speaker 2: And our plan has always been we've got to have big,
Speaker 2: big interviews with the new studio. We really want to
Speaker 2: make our mark on the scene and Luckily enough, RFK
Speaker 2: Junior actually just reached out.
Speaker 3: Crystal wants to come back on.
Speaker 2: Not only that, we'll have Maryanne on as well during
Speaker 2: that week, and we are working right now and getting
Speaker 2: another candidate, a major candidate also at the desk. So
Speaker 2: I know that it's something so important to everyone out
Speaker 2: there about having these big, big interviews, and yeah, I'm excited.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Unfortunately, this desk it's just like, looks a little
Speaker 4: awkward with three people. As much as we love it
Speaker 4: with two.
Speaker 1: People, I think it looks really nice, but when we
Speaker 1: have one, and I really want to be able to
Speaker 1: have two people on the set at least and have
Speaker 1: it look really nice. And the new set is going
Speaker 1: to be that way, so it'll be a great venue
Speaker 1: for more big interviews.
Speaker 4: I actually so.
Speaker 1: Bobby Kennedy texted me and encouraged me to share some
Speaker 1: of the exchange with all of you our audience. First
Speaker 1: of all, he said how grateful he was to be
Speaker 1: on the show, and he said, this is the kind
Speaker 1: of exchange I had at the dinner table every night
Speaker 1: growing up. I had fun, and I'd love to come back.
Speaker 1: I know he's got a big trip to the border planned.
Speaker 1: You know, I got a lot of questions for him
Speaker 1: there as I'm sure you do as well. So maybe
Speaker 1: we'll get him on the schedule for once he gets
Speaker 1: back for that. But super thanks to him, and you know,
Speaker 1: just a super nice.
Speaker 3: Guy, classic guy. Yeah right, let's get to it.
Speaker 4: All right, So debt ceiling a lot of developments.
Speaker 1: As I indicated before, it looked like things were progressing.
Speaker 4: Then there was a complete blow up.
Speaker 1: Former President Trump wive in a not that helpful way
Speaker 1: to say Republicans shouldn't back down an inch. House Freedom
Speaker 1: Caucus also concerned that they're not getting enough found in
Speaker 1: the negotiation. So things broke down. But we do have
Speaker 1: a plan today for Biden and McCarthy to meet. Biden
Speaker 1: made some comments while he was in Japan about how
Speaker 1: he is viewing this negotiation.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 5: Before I left for this trip, I met with all
Speaker 5: four congressional leaders and we agreed the only way to
Speaker 5: move forward was in a bipartisan agreement. And I've done
Speaker 5: my part. We put forward a proposal of the cuts
Speaker 5: spending by more than a trillion dollars on top of
Speaker 5: the nearly three trillion dollars in depths of reduction that
Speaker 5: I previously proposed to the combination of spending cuts and
Speaker 5: new revenues. Now it's time for the other side to
Speaker 5: move from their extreme positions because much of what they've
Speaker 5: already proposed is simply quite frankly unacceptable. And so let
Speaker 5: me be clear, I'm not going to agree to a
Speaker 5: deal the protects, for example, thirty billion dollar tax break
Speaker 5: for the oil industry, which made two hundred billion dollars
Speaker 5: last year. They don't need an incentive another thirty billion
Speaker 5: dollars while putting healthcare of twenty one million Americans at
Speaker 5: risk by going after Medicaid. I'm not going to agree
Speaker 5: to a deal to protects two hundred billion dollars in
Speaker 5: excess payments for pharmaceutical industries and refusing to count that
Speaker 5: while cutting over one hundred thousand school teachers and and
Speaker 5: assistants jobs, thirty thousand law enforcement officers jobs cut across
Speaker 5: the entire United States of America. I'm not going to
Speaker 5: agree to a deal that protects wealthy tax sheets and
Speaker 5: crypto traders while putting food assistants at risk for nearly
Speaker 5: one hundred Why assuming nearly one million Americans.
Speaker 1: So you can see some of how he is taking
Speaker 1: out his position, saying, look, these guys wanting to put
Speaker 1: new revenues on the table, oil subsidies to stripping those away,
Speaker 1: any sort of closing of loopholes, they won't consider any
Speaker 1: of that. And meanwhile, they want to take away assistance
Speaker 1: from the neediest Americans. He also made some comments about
Speaker 1: one of the sort of Plan B options that has
Speaker 1: been floated by a lot and that progressives like Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren and others have been pushing for the President
Speaker 1: to go forward with, which is invoking the fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 1: basically saying, listen, this whole debt sailing nonsense is unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: We're going to go ahead and spend and borrow the
Speaker 1: money that we need to based on what was appropriated
Speaker 1: in Congress.
Speaker 4: Biden, you know, not.
Speaker 1: Totally taking it off the table, but they've been sort
Speaker 1: of from the White House point cold water on that idea.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to what he had to say there.
Speaker 5: I'm looking at the fourteenth Amendment whether or not we
Speaker 5: have the authority. I think we have the authority. The
Speaker 5: question is could it be done and invoked in time
Speaker 5: that it could not would not be appealed, and as
Speaker 5: a consequence, past the dating question and still the fall
Speaker 5: of the debt, that's a question that I think is unresolved.
Speaker 1: So not saying he's saying, listen, I think we have
Speaker 1: the authority, but in terms of it working those way
Speaker 1: through the courts, it's probably going to be challenged.
Speaker 4: I'm not sure that that's the best option.
Speaker 1: And the reporting behind the scenes also suggests that even
Speaker 1: though you do have you know, a number of progressive
Speaker 1: senators in particular, pushing for that, the White House seems
Speaker 1: to be very nervous about actually invoking it and going
Speaker 1: that run.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: The other thing is that I'm realizing, and having spoken
Speaker 2: to some of the people who are involved in this,
Speaker 2: is that one of the things with the fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 2: is if you were going to do it.
Speaker 3: You actually probably should do it before the ex of the.
Speaker 2: Debt ceiling, because if you're trying to do it after
Speaker 2: the expiry of the debt ceiling, what ends up happening
Speaker 2: is you're going to have the crash.
Speaker 3: Then you're going to have even more uncertainty.
Speaker 2: You're going to remove some of the incentive to negotiate
Speaker 2: with Kevin McCarthy and all that to come to a
Speaker 2: legal or at least a solution that was previously accepted
Speaker 2: by the markets, and you're going to have to tack
Speaker 2: it to the Supreme Court, which then if they tank,
Speaker 2: it will go even more down and then you have
Speaker 2: to go back to the table, and you're basically extending
Speaker 2: the painful period of markets and negotiations.
Speaker 1: The flip side of that is, so on the Fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 1: the bet if you were to invoke it would be
Speaker 1: that the courts are more interested in protecting capital than
Speaker 1: they are siding with their partisan brethren, because obviously it's conservative,
Speaker 1: Republican Supreme Court. So if you did this beforehand, which
Speaker 1: I'm inclined to say, like you like if you were
Speaker 1: going to go this, or you should have just done
Speaker 1: it from the beginning. No, we're not negotiating, we're doing
Speaker 1: clean debt ceiling, or I'm voting the fourteenth Amendment because
Speaker 1: it's my power to do this whole thing is nonsense,
Speaker 1: and have done.
Speaker 4: That from the beginning.
Speaker 1: Part of perhaps a rationale for waiting is that you
Speaker 1: actually do want that pressure to be put on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So it's like Chief Justice John Roberts, Do
Speaker 1: you really want to be the dude that crashes the
Speaker 1: entire global economy? Whereas if you haven't breached the debt
Speaker 1: ceiling yet, that gives them some comfort to take the
Speaker 1: partisan side kick it back to Congress and not have
Speaker 1: the sort of blood on their hands of being the
Speaker 1: ones most directly causing a potential global financial catastrophe. So
Speaker 1: there are some sort of rational logical reasons to wait,
Speaker 1: but I am doubtful. I personally think that they should
Speaker 1: invoke the fourteenth Amendment. I think they should go in
Speaker 1: the direction of that, or me the coin or one
Speaker 1: of premium bonds, like one of the workarounds, because otherwise
Speaker 1: you are negotiating with economic terrorists, and you're going to
Speaker 1: be forced to do this every single time the debt
Speaker 1: ceiling comes up again, and you have a democratic president
Speaker 1: and or Republican House or Senate. So you are creating
Speaker 1: a future in which this sort of brinksmanship is going
Speaker 1: to be the norm, with potentially again completely catastrophic consequences
Speaker 1: as we laid out last week. So that's why I
Speaker 1: really think you need What they really should have done
Speaker 1: is when they.
Speaker 4: Had full control, I should have gotten rid of the
Speaker 4: debt sealing. That was what they really should have done.
Speaker 1: But now that we're we are where we are, we
Speaker 1: have got to make it so that this type of
Speaker 1: type of brinksmanship is not the norm in Washington as
Speaker 1: it is becoming.
Speaker 2: I was gonna say the biggest, probably the most foolish
Speaker 2: thing that was done, was when Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi
Speaker 2: did not pass a clean debt ceiling during the lame duck.
Speaker 2: I have no idea why they didn't do it. There
Speaker 2: really was no good reason as why they shouldn't have.
Speaker 1: They should have gotten when they had full control, they
Speaker 1: should have gotten rid of the debt ceiling altogether.
Speaker 2: And they just and you know why they didn't want
Speaker 2: to do it, because they wanted just to avoid a
Speaker 2: temporary headline before the midterms that they ended up doing
Speaker 2: pretty well in to be like Democrats raise the you
Speaker 2: know whatever.
Speaker 4: To illuminating dead ceiling to google plex.
Speaker 2: Or something like that, because you technically haven't need to
Speaker 2: put a number. The idea, and actually I think the
Speaker 2: correct number was to put a number that was so
Speaker 2: high it was effectively unprintable, and thus we would describe
Speaker 2: it in such a way that it wouldn't hit home,
Speaker 2: like a quadrillion dollars or something like that. Anyway, look,
Speaker 2: the mistake that they made was that they didn't do it.
Speaker 2: Now they're in that position where it's done. This is
Speaker 2: basically it, and we're in it now and Biden and
Speaker 2: McCarthy are now set to meet at some point today.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. This is
Speaker 2: after Crystal negotiations broke down over the weekend. The problem
Speaker 2: of the details on this, though, are very wishy washy,
Speaker 2: like we're not exactly quite sure where the major sticking
Speaker 2: parts are.
Speaker 3: So we have some indications.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so.
Speaker 1: Top line, Republicans want there to be a total drop
Speaker 1: indiscretionary spending in nominal terms. Biden has floated, Okay, how
Speaker 1: about if we have a drop in spending if you
Speaker 1: account for inflation. So number one, like top line, those
Speaker 1: are very different starting points. And you also have Biden
Speaker 1: setting spending caps for two years. Republicans want to set
Speaker 1: them for six years. So you have a difference in
Speaker 1: the top line number that's quite significant, and then you
Speaker 1: have a difference in the timeframe.
Speaker 4: But perhaps even.
Speaker 1: Trickier are some of the details here. Republicans want to
Speaker 1: actually increase military spending. Remember at the beginning, they were
Speaker 1: floating like, well, maybe we'll cut them, but no, that's
Speaker 1: not happening. They want to increase military spending. That means
Speaker 1: they have to cut even more from things that benefit
Speaker 1: you know, a social safety net programs effectively. Obviously, that
Speaker 1: is a real problem for Biden and for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: many of whom and not just like the fur furthest left,
Speaker 1: but a large chunk of whom have expressed deep unhappiness
Speaker 1: and an unwillingness to go along with a deal that
Speaker 1: would make deep cuts to those programs.
Speaker 4: So that's a major issue.
Speaker 1: You also have the fact, as I mentioned before, Republicans
Speaker 1: completely unwilling to put any sort of you know, closing
Speaker 1: the carried interest loophole, rolling back some of the Trump
Speaker 1: tax cuts for the richest among us, rolling back oil
Speaker 1: company subsidies. They will not put any new revenue on
Speaker 1: the table. So you just have some really pretty hard
Speaker 1: ideological differences here that are difficult to see how they're resolved.
Speaker 1: You also had a former President Trump weighing in saying
Speaker 1: basically like don't give an inch and willing to blow
Speaker 1: up the whole thing.
Speaker 4: You have the House Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 1: Who are the ones that pushed this whole brinksmanship to
Speaker 1: start with. And it's almost like Kevin McCarthy, the hostage shaker,
Speaker 1: is also being held hostage by the House Freedom Caucus.
Speaker 1: It's kind of the dynamic that's going on here. So
Speaker 1: he has to make sure whatever he deal he strikes
Speaker 1: is going to be acceptable to the furthest right faction
Speaker 1: of his caucus, because otherwise his ass and his speakership
Speaker 1: is on the line here too.
Speaker 2: This is actually something where people need to understand. McCarthy
Speaker 2: does not care either way. He probably would just do
Speaker 2: a clean debt ceiling if it was personally up to him,
Speaker 2: but that's not really what is on the table. What
Speaker 2: people don't understand is that McCarthy, even if he wanted to,
Speaker 2: could not sign a deal without the Freedom Caucus and
Speaker 2: without the chip Roys and all of them of the world,
Speaker 2: because not only could they the deal, they can also
Speaker 2: tank his speakership. And actually, this is why I actually
Speaker 2: think that the current way that this is being negotiated
Speaker 2: is a mistake. McCarthy does not have the power. He
Speaker 2: only has a power over some portion of.
Speaker 3: The GOP Caucus.
Speaker 2: They need to get the Freedom Caucus guys, Chip Roy
Speaker 2: and all those other people who are in there, because
Speaker 2: otherwise you're going to possibly negotiate a deal which will
Speaker 2: just get killed. The other thing is that a friend
Speaker 2: was explaining to me the way that the House has
Speaker 2: been set up under GOP rule. Not only could McCarthy
Speaker 2: and all of them not be able to get their votes,
Speaker 2: they wouldn't even be able to get it out of
Speaker 2: the Rules Committee. So if people remember, they GOP had
Speaker 2: to acquiesce to allowing a lot of these guys into
Speaker 2: the influential Rules Committee, which advances legislation to the floor.
Speaker 3: They would not even let him do that.
Speaker 2: So there are multiple blocks that are basically built within that. Effectively,
Speaker 2: between five to ten members of the House are the
Speaker 2: only people who you really are negotiating with in this
Speaker 2: current exchange, at least on the Republican side.
Speaker 3: And let's look you want to say about them, I
Speaker 3: don't really agree with them on a lot, but.
Speaker 2: They believe deeply ideologically we have to massively slash government spending.
Speaker 3: They actually they actually.
Speaker 2: Probably are people who would be okay with the military
Speaker 2: spending cuts and all that the negotiation compromises.
Speaker 3: They're like, as long as we get our nominal, we
Speaker 3: don't care.
Speaker 2: So then you've got the balance that you've effectively explained
Speaker 2: where we would have an increase right in military spending, right,
Speaker 2: and then a decrease in overall other discretionary spending, which
Speaker 2: is a very very tiny portion of government spending. And
Speaker 2: then finally, what I think is absolutely one percent dead
Speaker 2: and gone is the IRS.
Speaker 3: I think IRS funding is gone.
Speaker 2: There's I don't see any way that that will possibly
Speaker 2: come to the table. And there's also probably not all
Speaker 2: of the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, but portions of
Speaker 2: the Inflation Reduction Act which are dead and gone too.
Speaker 4: Well. And here's the thing with the IRS.
Speaker 1: You know, you just say, okay, we're going to cut
Speaker 1: some of this new spending on the IRS, that actually
Speaker 1: blows up the deficit, that creates a bigger hole that
Speaker 1: you have to fill with other cuts. Why because money
Speaker 1: spend on additional IRS agents to go after the wealthiest
Speaker 1: that actually increases revenue. So for every dollar you spend
Speaker 1: on IRS agents, it actually increases revenue.
Speaker 4: In by more than that dollar.
Speaker 1: So there, you know, ideological crusade against this new funding
Speaker 1: of the IRS that actually makes it so that the
Speaker 1: deficit is even worse, and the death situation is even worse,
Speaker 1: and so it creates the need, necessitates additional discretionary spending cuts,
Speaker 1: and makes things actually even more difficult. So that's why
Speaker 1: it's hard to see how these pieces come together. And
Speaker 1: is Joe Biden and you know the other Democrats who
Speaker 1: back the Inflation Reduction Act, are they just going to
Speaker 1: stand by watch the thing gutted.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: It seems to me like maybe none of the potential
Speaker 1: outcomes seems likely to me, all of them seem like,
Speaker 1: I don't know how this is going to come together.
Speaker 1: Obviously something is going to happen. Somehow We're going to
Speaker 1: end up, you know, dealing with this situation. We always
Speaker 1: have in the past at least so fingers crossed. But
Speaker 1: at today I feel like maybe the discharge petition route
Speaker 1: maybe is the most likely because just to remind people
Speaker 1: how that works, if you could get all Democrats and
Speaker 1: five Republicans to sign on to a dis just called
Speaker 1: a discharge petition in the House for a clean debt
Speaker 1: ceiling increase or something approximating it, then you can bypass
Speaker 1: that House Freedom Caucus Stacked Rules Committee. You can bypass
Speaker 1: Speaker maccarth. You can bring something to the floor of
Speaker 1: the House to vote on and move forward, and then
Speaker 1: you know, then it has to pass the cent and
Speaker 1: you got to get you know, ten Republicans over there
Speaker 1: to go along with you as well, which is not
Speaker 1: easy either. But if you had I think if you
Speaker 1: had a massive catastrophic stock market crash, maybe that would
Speaker 1: apply enough pressure on people that they'll, all right, we
Speaker 1: just got to move forward with something here. We cannot
Speaker 1: afford to let the economy totally tank.
Speaker 3: That's what I would say.
Speaker 2: I would say, status quo, we're probably going to default.
Speaker 2: Most likely, I would say more than fifty percent current
Speaker 2: status quo. I think that the entire game changes when
Speaker 2: there is a default. So if there is a default,
Speaker 2: at least in name only uncertainty in the market, you
Speaker 2: see a twenty percent drop in the S and P
Speaker 2: five hundred, that's when people start to freak out and
Speaker 2: people's principles go out the window. But knowing these freedom
Speaker 2: Caucaus guys haven't seen and covered these people for a while,
Speaker 2: I don't think.
Speaker 3: They're gonna be the first of all.
Speaker 4: Well, here's the other thing.
Speaker 2: I think Biden and the Democrats are going to be
Speaker 2: the first people to buckle, and we're going to see
Speaker 2: massive sequestration or something like that across the board.
Speaker 1: Maybe right, Because the other thing is that some of
Speaker 1: these people, like psychopathically, don't really care if you lose
Speaker 1: your job and your life is ruined as long as
Speaker 1: it's bad for Joe Biden personally and so tanking the
Speaker 1: economy under his watch they look at that and well,
Speaker 1: that's too bad, but you know, it's bad for him politically,
Speaker 1: and maybe it hands us more power next election cycle.
Speaker 1: A lot of these people are craven enough to think
Speaker 1: that way. So it definitely does put more pressure on
Speaker 1: the Democratic side because they're you know, they're in charge
Speaker 1: in the White House if you have a massive crash.
Speaker 1: So we'll see how this all goes. Let's just put
Speaker 1: this last piece up on the screen. As we mentioned before,
Speaker 1: they are set to meet. Biden and McCarthy are set
Speaker 1: to meet today. They spoke by phone on Sunday. McCarthy
Speaker 1: was upbeat, they say, told reporters of the Capital the
Speaker 1: call with Biden was productive and that the on again
Speaker 1: off again negotiations between his staff and White House representatives
Speaker 1: are focused on spending cuts, so we'll keep you updated.
Speaker 1: And just a reminder, somewhere around June first is when
Speaker 1: the stuff hits the fan.
Speaker 4: So we are mere days away.
Speaker 1: At this point, I think it's time for everybody to
Speaker 1: really sit up and pay attention, because, as we laid
Speaker 1: out for you last week about the potential doomsday scenario scenarios,
Speaker 1: this is nothing to mess around with.
Speaker 2: No, certainly, I mean, it will affect everybody's retirement portfolios.
Speaker 2: It could even affect some of the banks and cause
Speaker 2: a liquidity crisis, it could call it.
Speaker 3: There's all kinds of crazy things. Nobody knows.
Speaker 2: Nobody really has any idea how any of it would happen.
Speaker 2: And yeah, they create extraordinary pressure. And at this point
Speaker 2: until there is some sort of crash, I actually don't
Speaker 2: know if there will be a major movement. Okay, let's
Speaker 2: go in and let's talk about Ukraine. MAS updates in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: After the G seven summit in Hiroshima, President Zelenski made
Speaker 2: an appearance with President Biden. President Biden reversing long standing
Speaker 2: US policy policy that he himself set only a couple
Speaker 2: of months ago about No.
Speaker 3: F sixteens to Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Now, the initial announcement is that they will be training
Speaker 2: Ukrainian pilots on the F sixteen platform, with possible delivery
Speaker 2: in the months to come. Here is what President Biden
Speaker 2: had to say. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: You know my private meeting with President Zelensky after the
Speaker 5: G seven meeting and with his staff, I told in
Speaker 5: the United States, together with our allies and partners, is
Speaker 5: going to begin training Ukrainian pilots in fourth generation fighter aircraft,
Speaker 5: including F sixteens. It is for them. I have a
Speaker 5: flat assurance from the from Zelenski that they will not
Speaker 5: they will not use it to go on move into
Speaker 5: Russian geographic territory.
Speaker 3: Got a flat assurance.
Speaker 2: I guess you could take that to the bank, right right, Well,
Speaker 2: it's interesting.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: January from twenty twenty three, just four months ago, President
Speaker 2: Biden walking across the South Line at the White House
Speaker 2: on his return, a reporter shouts out, will you give
Speaker 2: F sixteens to Ukraine? He says no. He then follows
Speaker 2: up in an interview with CBS news is David Muir,
Speaker 2: where he explained very cogently why he did not think
Speaker 2: that Ukraine needed F sixteen fighter jets, why he thought
Speaker 2: that the risk was too high, why he wanted to
Speaker 2: avoid World War III, and he had quote discussed the
Speaker 2: issue quote very carefully with his allies.
Speaker 3: Now people need to remember this about the F sixteens.
Speaker 2: Even if the US doesn't provide the F sixteens to Ukraine,
Speaker 2: because it is our plane, we have to sign off
Speaker 2: on any export from any NATO ally or any ally
Speaker 2: actually that has them before they sell them. We get
Speaker 2: like a first ride of refusal effectively on any such deal. So,
Speaker 2: of course, since the surplane, our permission, where the decision maker,
Speaker 2: even if we're not the ones who technically give them
Speaker 2: to them, the decision from the top has always been
Speaker 2: there's no way because they would likely use them, at
Speaker 2: least in air to air combat with Russia, and it
Speaker 2: could easily bleed over onto Russian territory.
Speaker 3: Now, the other one, which is obvious to all.
Speaker 2: Of us, is what qualifies Because according to the Russians,
Speaker 2: Crimea is Russian territory. Now according to US and according
Speaker 2: to Ukraine it's disputed or it's straight up Ukrainian.
Speaker 3: Well, what does that mean? And what do we also know?
Speaker 2: We know from our own reporting here at breaking points
Speaker 2: whenever we had our hands on those initial Pentagon documents.
Speaker 3: Put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: We know from our own intercepts of President Zelenski.
Speaker 3: That the CIA and the US Intelligence.
Speaker 2: Committee believes that Ukrainian President Selenski wants long range missiles
Speaker 2: and wants fighter jets specifically so he can strike deep
Speaker 2: inside of Russia. And if you're one of those NAFO
Speaker 2: idiots and if you think that we're lying, the Washington
Speaker 2: Post reported it too. It talked about, what do they say, Crystal,
Speaker 2: the aggressive behind the scenes presidence. This was like five
Speaker 2: days ago, you know, right before this announcement. So look,
Speaker 2: there is no reason to believe Zelenski literally at all.
Speaker 2: All of the things that he wants to do behind
Speaker 2: the scenes are right out here in the open. Because
Speaker 2: of those leaked documents. Three months ago, we made the
Speaker 2: decision not to provide them for him. Because of documents
Speaker 2: like this, We're like, no, he's probably going to use
Speaker 2: it to strike Russia. But now apparently you can just
Speaker 2: take his word to the bank. The government which has
Speaker 2: bombed the Crimeane bridge, which has assassinated people on Russian soil,
Speaker 2: which may have had a whole hand in the nord
Speaker 2: Stream pipeline bombing, and then consistently deny.
Speaker 3: Oh and then what the most recent Kremlin attack?
Speaker 4: Right? Hey, Kremlin literally like a couple.
Speaker 2: Of days ago, right, And so I already know that.
Speaker 2: You know, people are like, how can you blame I
Speaker 2: don't blame them. Nobody is blaming them. If I were them,
Speaker 2: I would be begging for F sixteen's be calling for
Speaker 2: no fly zone.
Speaker 3: All of that.
Speaker 2: Russia is the aggressor, there's no question. If they're using
Speaker 2: it just in a defensive capacity, that would be great.
Speaker 2: But there's a reason that President Biden and his advisors
Speaker 2: and many others did not want to do any of this.
Speaker 2: And it's specifically because the risk on this is so high.
Speaker 2: Once you know the CRIMEA scenario, it really is the
Speaker 2: nightmare one because that is where total ambiguity. Technically everybody's
Speaker 2: acting in you know, their best interests and all that
Speaker 2: in the eyes of you know, each other's allies, but
Speaker 2: could easily lead to a different situation. And we specifically
Speaker 2: our own reporting, our own raw documents show not only
Speaker 2: does he want to strike inside CRIMEA, wants to strike
Speaker 2: deep inside of establish Russian territory, supply bases and all
Speaker 2: of that with a US provided NATO provided platform, and
Speaker 2: US provided and NATO provided munitions. I mean, this literally
Speaker 2: was exactly what they told us they were going to
Speaker 2: avoid from day one, Crystal, and now they've reversed themselves
Speaker 2: completely on a dime and are expecting us all just
Speaker 2: not to pay attention to this is probably the most
Speaker 2: significant action outside of the Patriot missiles since the decision
Speaker 2: on the no fly zone.
Speaker 1: And I listened to Jim Sullivan try to explain why
Speaker 1: now and why not before he was in an interview
Speaker 1: with Jake Tapper, and of course Tapper's pushes like to
Speaker 1: the Hawker side, like well, why.
Speaker 4: Didn't you give him sooner? Which, frankly, if you are
Speaker 4: going to give him an out, that's a good Question's actually.
Speaker 1: A reasonable question, even though you know, I object to
Speaker 1: the fact that me he's always pushing the hawkish direction
Speaker 1: rather than like, what the hell are you doing here?
Speaker 1: What are you thinking? Why has your thinking changed so
Speaker 1: much that previously you said no and now suddenly you're sure.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's going to be no problem whatsoever. Zelenski,
Speaker 1: of course, he wouldn't strike on Russian soil when.
Speaker 4: We already know they are I mean, Biden.
Speaker 1: I can't believe that he is this naive or foolish
Speaker 1: to think that really they're going to hold to their
Speaker 1: word and only defensive purposes, et cetera, because we already
Speaker 1: know that they have not held to that whatsoever. And
Speaker 1: to your points are are like, I don't blame them whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I blame our leadership, primarily because we are the ones
Speaker 1: that are driving this train. So Sullivan had no coherent
Speaker 1: response for why now and why not earlier? And it
Speaker 1: just comes back to that quote, like you know, over
Speaker 1: a long enough time horizons, Zelenski gets everything that he wants.
Speaker 4: Yes, what's he going to push for next?
Speaker 1: You know what's going to be the next step forward
Speaker 1: that eventually six months from now, that's going to be
Speaker 1: a flat no now and six months from now. But
Speaker 1: I don't be okay, sure, here you go, no problem.
Speaker 1: Where does how does this thing?
Speaker 4: Ultimately? And this is extremely dangerous.
Speaker 1: We know it's extremely dangerous based on the actions that
Speaker 1: Selensky's already taken and from the leaked intercepts that we
Speaker 1: know what he is pushing for even more aggressive action
Speaker 1: behind the scenes we have just are handing him a
Speaker 1: whole set of tools to engage in even more dangerous,
Speaker 1: even more escalatory action that could draw us even more
Speaker 1: directly into this conflict. And if you think Russia sees
Speaker 1: any difference between US directly providing f sis and our
Speaker 1: ally some ally providing them in US providing the training, you're.
Speaker 2: A fool, well, because we're the ones who have to
Speaker 2: rubber stamp it. Yes, Okay, ask yourself this, if what's
Speaker 2: a Russian allied nation. If Tajikistan bombed the US base
Speaker 2: in Afghanistan with the Russian plane, we're gonna blame Tajikistan.
Speaker 2: We're gonna blame Russia, all right, use your brain here.
Speaker 2: So this is part of the problem where the idea
Speaker 2: and the decision matrix that I keep reading behind the
Speaker 2: scenes is, well, we provided them with X and the
Speaker 2: Russians didn't do anything, and then we provide them with what,
Speaker 2: and the Russians didn't do anything. So if we provide
Speaker 2: them with this, we just believe that they won't do anything.
Speaker 2: And it's one of those where it's like you're right
Speaker 2: until you're wrong, and then the risk of being wrong
Speaker 2: is so high that everyone could die and we could
Speaker 2: embroil in a massive conflict.
Speaker 1: And I actually don't even accept that the Russians didn't
Speaker 1: do anything, because I mean they had a draft, they
Speaker 1: called up a bunch of right men. I mean they
Speaker 1: have you know, they went back to hitting Kiev like
Speaker 1: they actually have done things and escalated in response to
Speaker 1: what they perceive as escalations from US and from the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian instagraup. So what's what's the next step up the
Speaker 1: escalation ladder from their perspective, And when do we get
Speaker 1: to a point where we accept, Okay, this risk is
Speaker 1: way too high.
Speaker 4: To me, we are long past that.
Speaker 3: Well, what's so stupid about it?
Speaker 2: In my mind? And I already know the Ukrainian people whatever,
Speaker 2: these people will get very angry with what I'm saying
Speaker 2: is all.
Speaker 3: Of this is over a scrap of eastern Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Like, how in any world is this worth it in
Speaker 2: any way to all of our core national interests. We
Speaker 2: would never risk nuclear conflict over a scrap of disputed
Speaker 2: territory that has changed hand multiple times over the last
Speaker 2: several centuries. For what I mean, it's like, what possible
Speaker 2: benefit are we getting out of this?
Speaker 1: Well, because they don't see it as over a scrap
Speaker 1: of land.
Speaker 3: It's about democracy.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean that's nonsense too.
Speaker 1: They don't see it as being oh it's this great
Speaker 1: war between democracy and authoritarianism. They see it as part
Speaker 1: of this you know, global sort of like Cold War
Speaker 1: and Hot War. In Ukraine, they have said outright, you know,
Speaker 1: they want to weeke in Russia. They want to they
Speaker 1: hope Putin will be deposed and pushed.
Speaker 4: Down over all of this.
Speaker 1: At the beginning of this conflict, there were several times
Speaker 1: where they openly admitted what the real aims and goals were,
Speaker 1: because they don't want a Russia and China alliance that
Speaker 1: can you know, really rival US as superpowers in the world.
Speaker 1: So that's a real goal here. I mean, whatever you
Speaker 1: think of this conflict, don't believe any of the happy
Speaker 1: talk about oh this is about democracy, or about this
Speaker 1: is about Ukrainian sovereign you know, territorial disputes or whatever.
Speaker 1: That's what this is really all about. And you know,
Speaker 1: we're all just like ponds and playthings in their game.
Speaker 2: It worked out real well in South Vietnam and for
Speaker 2: exact for Presidents Lensky. We shouldn't forget that what was
Speaker 2: the one thing that he begged the American people for
Speaker 2: whenever he was here in Washington, and then frankly demanded
Speaker 2: publicly that we give him F sixteen's. He always gets
Speaker 2: what he wants. Here's what he had to say at
Speaker 2: the time.
Speaker 6: We don't have the fight su jounts to deal with
Speaker 6: it to counter rock the Russian hips, and we really
Speaker 6: need this and really appeal to the President that they
Speaker 6: could start training Ukrainian pilots and the President Biden told
Speaker 6: me that it will be worked upon, and I believe
Speaker 6: that United States will give us the opportunity to defend
Speaker 6: our skies.
Speaker 3: He was right, he made that prediction only three months ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, outside of the no fly zone, not one person
Speaker 2: could point me one thing that he didn't get eventually
Speaker 2: that from what he wanted. And on top of that, actually,
Speaker 2: let's go to the next part here, because it's so important, Crystal,
Speaker 2: is that this comes on the heels of a major
Speaker 2: loss for Ukraine. Although many people apparently are trying to
Speaker 2: spin it differently, the head of the Wagner Group, President Putin,
Speaker 2: have all come out and said that the eight months
Speaker 2: struggle between Russia and Ukraine over the strategic city of
Speaker 2: Bakhmut is now over and that they are claiming full
Speaker 2: control of Bakmu. Now President Zelenski, to be clear, is
Speaker 2: denying this. Let's go and put the next one up
Speaker 2: there on the screen. He was asked about it while
Speaker 2: he was in Hiroshima. He said, quote though, that Russia's
Speaker 2: had fully controls the city or sorry. He denied that
Speaker 2: Russia fully controlled the city, but then said that there's
Speaker 2: nothing left but dead Russians who are in the city,
Speaker 2: and that Bakhmut is only in our hearts because it
Speaker 2: has all been completely destroyed.
Speaker 3: Now on that, I don't think there.
Speaker 2: Is any dispute, but I am really beginning to feel
Speaker 2: like I'm losing my mind to here, Crystal. Because Zelensky
Speaker 2: poured billions of dollars of ammunition and artillery into this battle.
Speaker 3: The theory was, well.
Speaker 2: We're gonna keep killing as many Russians as possible. We're
Speaker 2: on the defensive, they're on the offensive. We can bleed
Speaker 2: him dry. This will be our stand. I mean, am
Speaker 2: I the only guy who remembers that he literally bought
Speaker 2: a brought a Brockmud flag to Washington that was signed
Speaker 2: by the guys.
Speaker 3: That's that's how important.
Speaker 2: This victory was like it was their Battle of the Bulge,
Speaker 2: like it was their big turnpoint. I mean, look, and
Speaker 2: I don't say this with relish. They just lost a
Speaker 2: major battle of attrition. Now everyone in the media is
Speaker 2: trying to spin it and they're like, oh, this is
Speaker 2: actually a pyrrhic victory for Russia.
Speaker 3: Maybe.
Speaker 2: I mean, certainly they lost a ton of people taking
Speaker 2: the city. I'm not saying it's to their benefit really
Speaker 2: at all. I mean, I don't think any of these
Speaker 2: people should be dying anyways, But there's a reason that
Speaker 2: they were fighting over this city in the first place.
Speaker 2: David Sachs actually had a pretty good summary. Number One,
Speaker 2: backBut is a regional transport and logistics hub. It gives
Speaker 2: a Russia now access to roads and to rail, and
Speaker 2: it places larger cities with an easier range of Russian artillery,
Speaker 2: which is exactly why Zelenski and his government didn't want
Speaker 2: them to take it in the first place. Number Two,
Speaker 2: it has unique defensive fortifications. They have a network of
Speaker 2: subterranean salt mines and tunnels one hundred miles, which is
Speaker 2: what contributed a lot to its defensibility, and it provides
Speaker 2: an underground complex to stockpile weens, munitions and equipment, other
Speaker 2: lines of defense. But Bachmut may have been very unique
Speaker 2: for Ukraine. The idea also is what I just pointed out.
Speaker 2: This was their moral stand. This was there like our
Speaker 2: big thing. Now, look, let's caveat it with this. This
Speaker 2: all could be part of a faint right they lose Bakmut,
Speaker 2: they're pretending to be on the back foot, and this
Speaker 2: is all in the you know, gearing up for a
Speaker 2: major spring counter offensive like what they had last year.
Speaker 2: I want to be very clear, it very possibly could
Speaker 2: be something like that. But one other theory that is
Speaker 2: out there is that Russia actually may have used Bakmut
Speaker 2: as a trap crystal to lure Ukrainian troops in generals,
Speaker 2: causing them huge casualties and possibly imperiling their ability.
Speaker 3: For their counter offensive.
Speaker 2: And you know why I'm thinking that, or why I
Speaker 2: think that there is some credence because US generals told
Speaker 2: them this months ago.
Speaker 3: Put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is from CNN, okay, and it shows, you know,
Speaker 2: the laundering of the deep state press. But they're like
Speaker 2: the US and its allies want Ukraine to change its
Speaker 2: battle tactics. In the spring, because they are pointing out
Speaker 2: that the Ukrainians have poured massive amounts of our US
Speaker 2: taxpayer provided aid into this battle.
Speaker 3: They lost a ton of people.
Speaker 2: It's been a brutal war of attrition, and at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, Russia has an industrial base and
Speaker 2: can draft as many people as it wants, and Ukraine
Speaker 2: is a wiped out country with no industrial base, no currency,
Speaker 2: completely propped up by the US and the Western allies
Speaker 2: basically at the charity of our taxpayers. They have nothing
Speaker 2: and they would fold instantly as opposed to where the
Speaker 2: Russians are. So if you look at the long term
Speaker 2: prospects on this, this is not a good sign.
Speaker 3: Well, it's not good for them.
Speaker 1: This is what the US was trying to persuade them.
Speaker 1: It's basically like, look, y'all, a war of attrition, this
Speaker 1: is not a good landscape for you because Russia has
Speaker 1: massive industrial capacity, and if we were going to go
Speaker 1: all in with Ukraine in a war of attrition, we
Speaker 1: would be ramping up industrial capacity. Obviously we're not doing that,
Speaker 1: just drawing down the stockpiles that we already have. So
Speaker 1: you have both sides in this bach.
Speaker 4: Mot battle claiming.
Speaker 1: That their goal is basically to turn it into a
Speaker 1: meat grinder for the other side and to you know,
Speaker 1: wear them down so that they're in a stronger position
Speaker 1: here for whatever offensive or whatever action is to come.
Speaker 1: But that cannot you know, So even though Ukrainians are
Speaker 1: saying like, oh, this was our goal all along, which
Speaker 1: just to wear down the Russian so that we're in
Speaker 1: a stronger position, but you know, ultimately you have to
Speaker 1: say the side that won the battle probably is likely
Speaker 1: to have taken fewer losses, is likely to be in
Speaker 1: the stronger position moving forward, certainly has one a prize
Speaker 1: that is of some strategic value in terms of how
Speaker 1: the conflict unfolds. And then the other thing that is
Speaker 1: wild to me. I keep in mind, this was the
Speaker 1: longest and bloodiest battle of the whole war. This has
Speaker 1: been going on for months. The amount of manpower, the
Speaker 1: amount of deaths, the amount of material that was used
Speaker 1: here is quite astonishing. So now for the media to
Speaker 1: buy the line of like, oh, it's really no big deal,
Speaker 1: pyrrhic victory, no problem. I mean, that's just that has
Speaker 1: to be dishonest. That is like, really obviously dishonest that
Speaker 1: they've been talking about this for months. They've I saw
Speaker 1: headlines even last week they were like the Ukrainians are
Speaker 1: doing well, they're gaining ground, et cetera. Reddit here, and
Speaker 1: then you know, and then days later it's like, well,
Speaker 1: it looks like they lost, but it's no big deal.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about it. Everything is still going according to planned.
Speaker 1: So it also I think reveals a lot of media
Speaker 1: dishonest as well.
Speaker 3: Credit. I mean, it is stunning actually to behold, and.
Speaker 2: You know, I mean even now I'm reading they're like,
Speaker 2: as Ibakhok slips, Ukrainian forces pushed to encircle the city.
Speaker 2: You know, they're doing their best to try and retake
Speaker 2: some of the ground. So of course, look, it's not
Speaker 2: over now. They want to make the Russians suffer because
Speaker 2: they're going to have to hold the city after they
Speaker 2: took it, and it would be a bad look, of course,
Speaker 2: if they were able to. So I'm not saying that
Speaker 2: the battle is over or any of that in any
Speaker 2: way more though, they are the ones who spent thousands
Speaker 2: of men, billions of dollars of AMMO and of artillery
Speaker 2: on defending this city. So then you can't turn around
Speaker 2: and tell us that this was some major strategic victory apparently,
Speaker 2: right for Ukraine.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's insane.
Speaker 1: And where's that spring offensive. We've been here in Seisa.
Speaker 3: Too on that one. I have no idea, but I
Speaker 3: do know this.
Speaker 2: They probably spent a hell of a lot of AMMO
Speaker 2: and artillery on this battle that our generals were like, hey,
Speaker 2: you shouldn't do this because it's going to bleed away
Speaker 2: from that and we don't have billions more dollars to
Speaker 2: send you, you know, our Congress, we're in the middle
Speaker 2: of a bet ceiling fight.
Speaker 3: There ain't another fifty billion come in your.
Speaker 1: Way, which could be the reason why Biden caves at
Speaker 1: this point for US sixteens, because I think you might
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, this is and this is always
Speaker 1: the logic is pointed out by our friend Bronco Marcitic,
Speaker 1: which is, if Ukraine is doing poorly, you know, just
Speaker 1: lost the Battle of back Mood, it's all right, we
Speaker 1: got to back them up so that they can gain leverage,
Speaker 1: so that they're in a better position for whatever negotiations
Speaker 1: may theoretically come down the line. And if they're doing well,
Speaker 1: then it's like, oh, let's make a win. Let's give
Speaker 1: them more so that they can, you know, just take
Speaker 1: back their territory.
Speaker 4: Altogether, both roads lead.
Speaker 1: To us sending more, doing more, escalating more, and it
Speaker 1: just it just appears to be an endless cycle. So,
Speaker 1: you know, no way to know if that's the reason
Speaker 1: why F sixteen's have been proffered at this particular juncture,
Speaker 1: but I don't think it's crazy to imagine that either.
Speaker 3: There we go, who knows. We'll keep everybody.
Speaker 1: Updated, all right, So let's turn to domestic politics in
Speaker 1: a huge week, in some ways one of the biggest
Speaker 1: weeks yet in terms of the Republican primary. Let's start
Speaker 1: with Trump's primary rival here, Ron de Santis. He just
Speaker 1: had a pretty revealing call with donors. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen, where he made his strongest case yet
Speaker 1: against Trump. Now, let's just pause for a moment and
Speaker 1: note the grotesqueness of American politics.
Speaker 4: Where your most sort of direct.
Speaker 1: And honest comments come to a bunch of billionaire donor
Speaker 1: class elites. But that is the reality that we live in. Here,
Speaker 1: the headline is Biden and Me. DeSantis privately tells donors
Speaker 1: Trump can't win in a phone call with top donors,
Speaker 1: the Florida governor took his most direct shots yet at
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. He is expected to officially enter the presidential race.
Speaker 1: This article says next week. That would be this week
Speaker 1: he is expected to enter the race. Let me give
Speaker 1: you some of the quotes from this call, which by
Speaker 1: the way, a New York Times reporter was on, so
Speaker 1: you know, certainly intentionally there as well. He said that
Speaker 1: there were only three quote, credible candidates in the race.
Speaker 1: Quote you have basically three people at this point that
Speaker 1: are credible in this whole thing, Biden, Trump, and me.
Speaker 1: And I think of those three, two have a chance
Speaker 1: to get elected president Biden and Me based on all
Speaker 1: the data and the swing states, which is not great
Speaker 1: for the former president and probably insurmountable because people are
Speaker 1: not going to change their view of him. He is
Speaker 1: expected to file paperwork ahead of another donor meeting in Miami,
Speaker 1: which is happening on May twenty fifth. Today is May
Speaker 1: twenty second, so you can see it's probably going to
Speaker 1: be like Tuesday Wednesday. He's also likely to release a
Speaker 1: video that coincide with that official entrance in the week,
Speaker 1: and it is very intentional that he's launching and then
Speaker 1: doing this big donor meeting down in Miami. He wants
Speaker 1: to have this big financial show of force going into
Speaker 1: the race. But noteworthy Soger, in this call, he really
Speaker 1: didn't talk much about issues, especially some of the issues
Speaker 1: that have been upsetting to the donor class that would
Speaker 1: be Ukraine and abortion in particular. Instead, he's really leaning
Speaker 1: into his electability argument of listen, how do we feel
Speaker 1: about Trump? People hate him, that the views on him
Speaker 1: are hard, and I'm the guy that can win.
Speaker 4: I'm the one who's credible.
Speaker 1: To defeat Biden in twenty twenty four, and so that's
Speaker 1: why you should be on my team.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's a good case. I think
Speaker 2: he might even be right. The only problem are the
Speaker 2: pesky GOP voters who have decided in the primary. And
Speaker 2: we've talked about this before. This a give me a
Speaker 2: great test as to my theory that Republicans, as far
Speaker 2: as I can tell, don't care about electability, or at
Speaker 2: the very least care much more about the person that
Speaker 2: they like than they do about electability. Because of the
Speaker 2: past track record where they said, we don't really like McCain,
Speaker 2: we don't agree with him on a lot, but we'll
Speaker 2: vote for him because they tell us he's going to
Speaker 2: get elected. We're like, okay, and then twenty twelve, we
Speaker 2: hate Obama. We hate him so much. Our heart wants
Speaker 2: to go with Bachman. Our heart wants to go with
Speaker 2: Sarah Palin. Our heart wants to but the elites tell
Speaker 2: us Mitt Romney. So we're like, okay, we'll do Mitt Romney.
Speaker 2: And he loses too, and then they're like, you know what,
Speaker 2: We're done. We're not listening. We're going with Trump.
Speaker 3: He's gonna lose, He's gonna lose, He's gonna lose, like
Speaker 3: we love him anyway. And then he won.
Speaker 2: And so you can see from that why a lot
Speaker 2: of people have a tremendous amount of faith not only
Speaker 2: in Trump, but dismiss a lot of the electability concerns
Speaker 2: because they heard it for so long. They literally went
Speaker 2: with their heart and they actually got what they wanted well.
Speaker 1: And I think it also shows you, unsurprisingly, the way
Speaker 1: the interests of the donor class and the interests of
Speaker 1: the base, so you're not necessarily aligned for the base.
Speaker 4: Do they really expect.
Speaker 1: To get anything out of Washington, whether it's Trump or
Speaker 1: Biden or whoever you know who is there at the
Speaker 1: White House. They don't really expect these people to be
Speaker 1: able to improve their lives with Trump. They feel like
Speaker 1: at least they get the fight and the you know,
Speaker 1: triggering the Libs that sort of bolsters them and you know,
Speaker 1: is something that they.
Speaker 4: Enjoy to watch unfold.
Speaker 1: Well, the donor class, they do expect to get something
Speaker 1: out of the occupant of the White House.
Speaker 4: They want to get their tax cuts.
Speaker 1: They want to get their brakes, they want to get
Speaker 1: their subsidies, they want to get that special treatment that.
Speaker 4: They are well and accustomed to.
Speaker 1: So for them, yeah, electability is kind of everything because
Speaker 1: they want to buy in on the winning ticket so
Speaker 1: they can get whatever goodies it is that they want
Speaker 1: to further fatten their own bottom lines. So there is
Speaker 1: a real divide in terms of the interest of these
Speaker 1: two groups of.
Speaker 4: People on the electability piece.
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe he's right and maybe he's not, because certainly,
Speaker 1: that six week abortion ban is going to be in
Speaker 1: every Democratic ad if you were the nominee going into
Speaker 1: the fall, and we've seen the way that that has
Speaker 1: turned into an extremely potent issue for Democrats in election
Speaker 1: after election after election. So you know, I think it's
Speaker 1: to me, it's very up in the air. Which of
Speaker 1: these men is more electable. We don't have an element
Speaker 1: for it.
Speaker 4: But there was a.
Speaker 1: Focus group, the results of which were just published this morning,
Speaker 1: of voters who voted for Trump in twenty sixteen and
Speaker 1: then voted for Biden in twenty twenty, and basically everybody
Speaker 1: in the group hates.
Speaker 4: Both of them.
Speaker 1: Biden they offered up were you know, a week tired,
Speaker 1: like the things that you would expect, but when you
Speaker 1: asked about Trump, the emotions were even stronger. It was
Speaker 1: like terrified, horrible, right, horrifying. These are not the exact words,
Speaker 1: but you can get the sense of like one was
Speaker 1: like not really crazy about this guy, and I'm not
Speaker 1: sure he's up to it, and this one it was
Speaker 1: like this is a horror show and we absolutely can't
Speaker 1: go back there. So of that group of people, you
Speaker 1: still had a majority saying, am I'm not crazy about Biden,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to stick with them. You had I
Speaker 1: think three who were going to go back to Trump,
Speaker 1: and you had three out of the fifteen who were like,
Speaker 1: I'm either not going to vote or maybe I'll vote for.
Speaker 4: A third party.
Speaker 1: This is the electability argument that the Biden team has
Speaker 1: always banked on which is lesser or two evils.
Speaker 4: You may not like me, you may not want me
Speaker 4: to run, but you don't.
Speaker 1: Want to go back to this guy Trump either, and
Speaker 1: you know that's what they're hoping is going to work
Speaker 1: out for them. The one thing that I will say
Speaker 1: with regard to that focus group, I mean, number one,
Speaker 1: you're talking about fifteen people, so always take it with
Speaker 1: a great assault.
Speaker 4: Number two.
Speaker 1: Biden needed all fifteen of those in order to defeat
Speaker 1: Trump last time around. So if you're losing fix of
Speaker 1: those fifteen, either to third party candidates or to Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: I'm not positive that math works out for him, because
Speaker 1: don't forget, this was a very close race that came
Speaker 1: down to, you know, tens of thousands of votes and
Speaker 1: a handful of states.
Speaker 4: It was not a landslide.
Speaker 2: The other problem for DeSantis is that even though I
Speaker 2: do believe he would be a strong general election candidate,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that he would win. But I do
Speaker 2: think that he would be strong just because you'd be
Speaker 2: stripped of some of the stop to steal nonsense, and
Speaker 2: he would at least, at the very least have to
Speaker 2: contest only on abortion and I'm not saying that he
Speaker 2: wouldn't lose that too, but I think it would be
Speaker 2: stronger ground, whereas Trump has to deal with both of them.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 3: The problem, though, is.
Speaker 2: That to coalesce all these people together, he needs the
Speaker 2: entire pop never Trump coalition, maybe not Trump coalition, and
Speaker 2: some of the Trump coalition.
Speaker 3: And what's the issue? Put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Many Republicans who are in the party at the elite
Speaker 2: level don't necessarily think he can do it. We're about
Speaker 2: to talk about Chris Christy and Tim Scott and vivek
Speaker 2: Ramaswami and Nikki Haley and Kris san Nunu and Asa Hutchinson.
Speaker 2: And apparently this guy in North Dakota, Governor Doug Bergean
Speaker 2: wants literally before I've never even heard of this guy,
Speaker 2: Apparently he wants to run. Glenn Youngkin just put out
Speaker 2: a video which makes him look like he might run,
Speaker 2: even though he says he might not run. A lot
Speaker 2: of people are riching for that lane because it's one
Speaker 2: of those Why not me? Why shouldn't I be the
Speaker 2: alternative to Trump? Why should we all coalesce around DeSantis?
Speaker 2: Don't forget this either. The Republican Party does not have
Speaker 2: the Obama equivalent of Democrats. The Democrats had Obama who
Speaker 2: was willing to called Buda Jedge and.
Speaker 3: Cloba Charm was like, hey, you guys gotta get out
Speaker 3: of here. It's over.
Speaker 2: You're dropping out of the race here endorsing Biden, and
Speaker 2: they said, okay, we're going to do it.
Speaker 3: And because that.
Speaker 2: Made it very very easy for him to come in
Speaker 2: and to beat Bernie on Super Tuesday. Well, the split
Speaker 2: field from twenty sixteen, we literally had a movie where
Speaker 2: this all played out. Crystal Republican Party officials desperately wanted
Speaker 2: John Kasik, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. They were like,
Speaker 2: all but one of you needs to drop out. We
Speaker 2: need to coalesce around a Trump alternative. And not one
Speaker 2: of them would do it. And nobody is strong enough
Speaker 2: in the party like Romney who had no credibility, McCain
Speaker 2: was barely alive, Like none of them had any of
Speaker 2: the credibility to call them and be like you need
Speaker 2: to drop out. So there's no figure, there's no forcing function,
Speaker 2: and as long as a lot of them have donors
Speaker 2: and at least one delusional billionaire to back your campaign,
Speaker 2: you're good to go.
Speaker 3: You can just keep running.
Speaker 2: So I think that it's the same you know, tragedy
Speaker 2: or what was a tragedy of errors like comedy of
Speaker 2: errors and Prisoner's dilemma that happened in twenty sixteen, which
Speaker 2: is playing out exactly the same way.
Speaker 1: Now, yeah, let's move to this next piece of some
Speaker 1: of the candidates who are jumping in this week, because
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 4: You're exactly right.
Speaker 1: DeSantis really only shot was if he was strong enough
Speaker 1: a Trump alternative to clear the field of everybody else
Speaker 1: and have everybody coalesced behind him. That dream is dead.
Speaker 1: You now have put this up on the screen. Tim
Speaker 1: Scott has made it official, filing to run for president
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four. We're going to get a big
Speaker 1: speech from him. Expectation is heavy on sort of biographical details.
Speaker 1: Tim Scott is embracing the movement conservative reaganesque type messaging.
Speaker 1: His advisors were telling reporters they don't feel like they
Speaker 1: need to make a contrast with Trump because it's so obvious.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure who it's obvious too, but anyway, that's
Speaker 1: their bet is that they don't actually have to go
Speaker 1: after Trump. He can just talk about his own thing
Speaker 1: and his up from the you know, up from poverty
Speaker 1: by the bootstrap story, and have this sort of positive,
Speaker 1: optimistic message and avoid criticizing Trump or really any of
Speaker 1: the other candidates.
Speaker 4: That's the bet that he is making.
Speaker 1: You know, we had a reporter on here last week
Speaker 1: just to play like Devil's Advocate in favor of Tim Scott,
Speaker 1: who said that the Trump people tell her that they
Speaker 1: are actually more worried about Tim Scott than you might think.
Speaker 1: That he unites a lot of factions of conservatives and
Speaker 1: is this very you know, likeable, effective politician, and so
Speaker 1: they feel like there may be more juice behind him
Speaker 1: than you might think. He also has a significant amount
Speaker 1: of money behind him too.
Speaker 4: He's already launched a six.
Speaker 1: Million dollar ad campaign in key presidential primary states that
Speaker 1: happen on Friday, and he is scheduled to announce actually today,
Speaker 1: so we'll get a sense of what that speeches and
Speaker 1: the details that are inside of it, and you know,
Speaker 1: let's be real too. Like the Tim Scott play is
Speaker 1: also to lean into sort of like conservative identity politics,
Speaker 1: similar to Nicki Haley, his fellow South Carolinian, lean into
Speaker 1: the biography you know, inspiring, very inspiring biography, lean into
Speaker 1: identity while also pretending like you don't really care about
Speaker 1: identity and it doesn't matter, and hope that that's enough alone,
Speaker 1: without going directly, without kicking sideways at Trump.
Speaker 2: And at the same time, you got Chris Christy. You
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. New Hampshire media
Speaker 2: reporting multiple sources of direct knowledge telling me Chris CHRISTI
Speaker 2: will be announcing a run for president in the coming days.
Speaker 2: The campaign will focus on New Hampshire and will have
Speaker 2: a financial backing of Mets owner Steve Cohen, amongst other
Speaker 2: Remember when I was talking about delusional billionaires there, that's
Speaker 2: where it's coming from.
Speaker 1: Well, let me say with Chris Christy, I don't think well,
Speaker 1: Chris Christy may be delusional enough to believe that he
Speaker 1: can win the Republican primary and be president, but what
Speaker 1: he laid down is basically like I can be the
Speaker 1: solution to this prisoner's dilemma. All you people are too
Speaker 1: afraid to attrack Donald Trump, and frankly for good reason,
Speaker 1: because it's never worked out well for anyone on the
Speaker 1: Republican side who came at Donald Trump. They always end
Speaker 1: up weekend and he always ends up stronger. So Christy
Speaker 1: thinks enough of his rhetorical jousting abilities to try to
Speaker 1: do to Donald Trump what he did to Marco Rubio
Speaker 1: famously back in twenty sixteen. So I think his theory
Speaker 1: and what the billionaires backing him are hoping, is that
Speaker 1: he can be like a guided missile aimed right at
Speaker 1: Trump to try to blow him up and make room
Speaker 1: and possibility for the other candidates. Now do I think
Speaker 1: that that's going to work out? Probably not, But it
Speaker 1: actually is more of a It makes more sense to
Speaker 1: me than some of the other folks that are in
Speaker 1: the race. At least he has like an idea of
Speaker 1: what his purpose is and doesn't really have an expectation.
Speaker 1: At least the people that are backing him don't really
Speaker 1: have an expectation that he'll end up being the guy.
Speaker 2: You know what it actually kind of hit home for
Speaker 2: me is I was like, if Chris Christy runs and
Speaker 2: he's going to be on the debate stage, I don't
Speaker 2: see any way that Trump would come to the debate
Speaker 2: because he would just beaying, why would I put myself
Speaker 2: in a situation where I'm going to take you where
Speaker 2: I coming attacks exactly I'm already the number one. And
Speaker 2: actually just and if DeSantis shows up, he looks like
Speaker 2: he's one of this other band of like marry people,
Speaker 2: like nine other candidates who are all just talking about
Speaker 2: Trump without Trump even at the attendance.
Speaker 3: Why would you even go?
Speaker 2: I mean, look, maybe he'll go just because he can't
Speaker 2: stand the media attention of him not going. But at
Speaker 2: the same time, it's like it hasn't he's threatened and
Speaker 2: he's thought about it before. Vivike Ramaswami too. Just to
Speaker 2: show people about how many billionaires and others are out there.
Speaker 3: Shopping, put this up there.
Speaker 2: Rupert Murdoch actually just met with vivike Ramaswami in late
Speaker 2: April and New York, according to two people. One person
Speaker 2: described it as a getting to know you session, where
Speaker 2: Murdoch often meets with rising political figures. Look, what do
Speaker 2: you take away from that? It's that these guys they're
Speaker 2: craven in the way that they only care about what's
Speaker 2: good for them. They are incredibly fickle. So first Murdoch
Speaker 2: was all in on DeSantis and he's like, well, maybe
Speaker 2: you can't win.
Speaker 3: So they're willing to just pull the plug from you.
Speaker 2: They don't have as the level of organic support and
Speaker 2: all that, and without that, when their ability to just
Speaker 2: shift and walk away possibly from you know, DeSantis and
Speaker 2: go to somebody else. Apparently Ken Griffin, you know, is
Speaker 2: another billionaires thinking a lot like this. Well, if those
Speaker 2: are the people who you were entirely reliant on, you're
Speaker 2: in a bad situation.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: They the billionaire class.
Speaker 1: I mean there are just ideological in terms of what
Speaker 1: means for their.
Speaker 3: Own bottles by and large.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, they're happy to play the field. They
Speaker 1: don't have any loyalty. They want to get on the
Speaker 1: team of whoever is going to be the winner, who
Speaker 1: can give them those you know, special goodies or whatever
Speaker 1: it is they want out of the White House.
Speaker 4: So yeah, there's there's no loyalty there.
Speaker 1: And I think that DeSantis has shown enough weakness that
Speaker 1: the field is now very large. The piece about the debates,
Speaker 1: it's so, you know, I think you're one hundred percent correct.
Speaker 1: Trump is going to look at this and say, why
Speaker 1: would I open myself up to these attacks when I'm
Speaker 1: over fifty percent.
Speaker 4: In the polls. I don't need to do that.
Speaker 1: DeSantis has been a very cloistered candidate, is starting to
Speaker 1: open himself up and take more interviews and you know,
Speaker 1: sort of get into the fray a bit more. But
Speaker 1: he also hasn't performed all that well when he is
Speaker 1: in the mix, so you could very easily see him saying,
Speaker 1: you know what, this isn't really worth it for me either.
Speaker 1: And on the Democratic side, obviously, Joe Biden the danc
Speaker 1: have already said we're not having a primary, We're having
Speaker 1: a coronation, We're not doing any debates, forget about it.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, you've got like eighty percent of the country
Speaker 1: that are like, we don't want either of these two
Speaker 1: guys who are both you know, past their prime to
Speaker 1: the extent they had a prime that we wanted to,
Speaker 1: you know, to reckon with. So it's a very depressing
Speaker 1: and dispiriting state of the country, state of our democracy
Speaker 1: that we face coming into this election cycle where basically
Speaker 1: everyone is just betting on being slightly better than the
Speaker 1: other guy.
Speaker 4: That the entire public hates.
Speaker 1: They don't feel any sort of pressure to hold themselves
Speaker 1: out to any sort of process of democratic accountability, and
Speaker 1: it's just a it's a really sad, pathetic state of
Speaker 1: affairs that we face at the moment.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, And in terms of democracy, it's awful and
Speaker 2: it just shows you how like this system really needs
Speaker 2: to change, but it's not going to. My main takeaway though,
Speaker 2: is that it really is twenty sixteen all over again.
Speaker 2: It may not be sixteen candidates, but really, as evidenced
Speaker 2: by what happened in twenty sixteen, Kasik and Creuse alone
Speaker 2: were enough to split the anti Trump vote to guarantee
Speaker 2: Trump the nomination. It only took two, you know, semi
Speaker 2: viable candidates. And let's be real, Kasik was tiny. Even
Speaker 2: Kaseik was like nothing compared to Cruise, but he was
Speaker 2: just enough to make sure would be able to Yeah, exa.
Speaker 1: And you now is kind of a similar type candidate
Speaker 1: to Kaiseik Gues who's the governor of New Hampshire and
Speaker 1: they love him in that stage. He's one of the
Speaker 1: highest rated approval rating governors in the entire country as
Speaker 1: a Republican in the state of New Hampshire, which has
Speaker 1: been voting blue of late, and so very likely that
Speaker 1: he would win the New Hampshire primary, which is early on.
Speaker 1: And you know, I mean it just even someone like
Speaker 1: that can take a chunk out of what DeSantis would
Speaker 1: need because what's his bet.
Speaker 4: His bet is let me win in the early state.
Speaker 1: You do in Iowa, need to gotta in Iowa, got
Speaker 1: to win New Hampshire. And so if you have one
Speaker 1: of those taken off the table by someone and then
Speaker 1: you have the vote super divided in Iowa, Iowa where
Speaker 1: there is a strong evangelical contingent that might you know,
Speaker 1: like a Mike Pence also and might have a lot
Speaker 1: of loyalties there as well, it makes the math very
Speaker 1: difficult for him. And I do think his electability case
Speaker 1: to the donor set has taken a bit of a
Speaker 1: beating as well, from his symbols on Ukraine where he
Speaker 1: was kind of all over the place, from his extreme
Speaker 1: positioning on abortion. You know, they're also remember these are
Speaker 1: these are businessmen. They're looking at the fight with Disney
Speaker 1: or like, brother, would you get yourself into and I'm
Speaker 1: not sure we're really with you and on your side
Speaker 1: in this one. So they're looking at that too, very negatively.
Speaker 1: You guys probably saw the news that Disney decided to
Speaker 1: pull out this like multi billion dollar development in the
Speaker 1: state of Florida. Thousands of employees that aren't going to
Speaker 1: locate there over their fight and dispute and now legal
Speaker 1: battle with Ron DeSantis. So there's a lot of messiness
Speaker 1: as he's set to launch just this week.
Speaker 2: There you go, all right, that's where the lay of
Speaker 2: the land is. Okay, let's go to the next one here,
Speaker 2: not surprising, but I guess stunning, just to see it
Speaker 2: all out in the open, plain English.
Speaker 3: Put it up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein appeared to threaten the Bailgates over a Microsoft
Speaker 2: co founder's affair with a Russian bridge player. So a
Speaker 2: lot of interesting characters at the center of this story. Basically,
Speaker 2: this goes back to twenty thirteen where Bill Gates apparently
Speaker 2: sorry twenty ten. Bill Gates apparently is obsessed with the
Speaker 2: game Bridge, like the card game. He met a Russian
Speaker 2: girl who was in her twenties who was apparently very
Speaker 2: good at Bridge. They ended up having an affair. She's
Speaker 2: founded an organization where she wanted to teach other people
Speaker 2: how to play.
Speaker 3: Bridge and spread the game of Bridge.
Speaker 2: She asked Bill Gates for money. Gates apparently turned her down.
Speaker 2: Then Epstein somehow inserted himself into the mix. He ended
Speaker 2: up meeting this girl. This is all post sex conviction.
Speaker 2: By the way, by Epstein eventual release, he's a registered
Speaker 2: sex offender at this time. What he does is he
Speaker 2: apparently backs some of her charity and then she says,
Speaker 2: I want to go to coding school and he Epstein.
Speaker 2: She lets us drop in a meeting with Epstein. Epstein says, okay,
Speaker 2: I'll foot the bill for it. So this all appears
Speaker 2: to be you know this, this is the state of affairs. Well,
Speaker 2: then Epstein wants to start some sort of multi billion
Speaker 2: dollar charity fund with JP Morgan and Chase. It would
Speaker 2: be like some grand, big fund with multiple billionaires would
Speaker 2: donate to and he would be the kind of executive
Speaker 2: director of By the way, by doing so, he would
Speaker 2: have earned millions of dollars a year in fees for
Speaker 2: serving as the you know, executive director of said fund.
Speaker 2: Gates and people around Gates turn him down. They say, no,
Speaker 2: we're not interested. Well, this apparently pissed off Epstein. So
Speaker 2: Epstein then sent an email to Bill Gates where he
Speaker 2: tried to get Gates to reimburse him for the cost
Speaker 2: of sending this Russian bridge player to the coding school.
Speaker 2: Basically a subtle hint of Hey, man, if you don't
Speaker 2: donate to my fund, I will expose that you had
Speaker 2: this previous affair. Now combine this crystal with past reporting
Speaker 2: and allegations by Gates's ex wife that he would often
Speaker 2: complain about his marriage and would even go to him
Speaker 2: for advice to Epstein, so it's not outside the realm
Speaker 2: of possibility that Epstein not only knew about this because
Speaker 2: Gates had mentioned it, but he was aware of multiple
Speaker 2: other affairs that Bill Gates had conducted while he was married,
Speaker 2: previously to his ex wife and then finally, probably the
Speaker 2: most insane part of all of this is that days
Speaker 2: before Epstein died again, days before he died in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 2: he changed his will and actually named Bill Gates's right
Speaker 2: hand men as the backup executor without ever talking to him.
Speaker 2: That backup right hand man says Epstein did not discuss
Speaker 2: that idea with him beforehand, and that he declined to
Speaker 2: serve quote. He says he couldn't have listed Bill because
Speaker 2: that would have been too obvious, so he chose me.
Speaker 2: I have come to believe it was a retaliatory move
Speaker 2: against Bill Gates, as in it was like a shot
Speaker 2: across the bow about how close their relationships and tie
Speaker 2: him into everything. So I think that the rab wild
Speaker 2: in terms of how deep the rabbit hole goes. This
Speaker 2: is just the surface, and it is confirmation of what
Speaker 2: all of us suspected that he would get you know,
Speaker 2: elites into compromise positions by inviting them to his island,
Speaker 2: flying them on the plane, and making them feel like
Speaker 2: everything was cool, and then using that information to blackmail
Speaker 2: them in business transactions.
Speaker 3: This is it. It's clear as day.
Speaker 2: He used information that he gleaned from his personal relationships
Speaker 2: and extra marital affairs that would have been publicly embarrassing
Speaker 2: and used it directly in terms.
Speaker 3: Of a business relationship.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And then this is clear cut.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And then the only question is whether there were also
Speaker 1: governments like our own right or Israel is exactly that
Speaker 1: also would have found that sort of compromising information on
Speaker 1: the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet useful
Speaker 1: to their ends as well, which is the other part
Speaker 1: of this that you know, I think we've all long suspected.
Speaker 1: But yeah, this was what he did. He would make
Speaker 1: you feel like he would do everything to make you
Speaker 1: feel like he was your best friend. Even we got
Speaker 1: the details from the Wall Street Journal, They've been on
Speaker 1: it in terms of this recent reporting that he would
Speaker 1: make people feel like they were, you know, his number
Speaker 1: one friend.
Speaker 4: He'd figure out what type of sushi they.
Speaker 1: Wanted, what were their little needs that they had that
Speaker 1: they needed met, you know, Noam Chomsky and whatever this
Speaker 1: account transfer was, Like, whatever problem you had, Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: was going to be there for you to try to
Speaker 1: make it go away, and he was going to invite
Speaker 1: you to all these you know, Glamour's gatherings, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and everybody was in the club.
Speaker 4: So what's the problem here.
Speaker 1: If he's being accepted by Bill Gates and all these
Speaker 1: other billionaires, then surely it's fine for you to associate
Speaker 1: with him as well. And then whatever compromising information he
Speaker 1: could get on you, you know, from being at his parties,
Speaker 1: being on his jet, being on his island, from knowing
Speaker 1: about your affairs, whatever it is, then he would weaponize
Speaker 1: to try to get from you whatever it was that
Speaker 1: he wanted.
Speaker 4: So you can see the game here.
Speaker 1: I mean, you see this uh Les Wexner, who was
Speaker 1: his primary benefactor obviously and probably the primary source likely
Speaker 1: of Epstein's wealth and his ability to live like a
Speaker 1: billionaire himself, even though there isn't a lot of record
Speaker 1: of him having a lot of like big clients that
Speaker 1: would really justify this type of lifestyle. Very similar dynamic
Speaker 1: there as well. And then it is quite a tantalizing
Speaker 1: and bizarre detail well that it was literally days before
Speaker 1: he died. However you want to make of that, that
Speaker 1: he changes the executor the backup executor on his will,
Speaker 1: that is a pretty extraordinary detail there.
Speaker 2: What is clear to me is that what is very
Speaker 2: clear and obvious to me about what's happening is that
Speaker 2: somebody who has access to a whole lot of Epstein
Speaker 2: information leaked it all to the Wall Street Journal and
Speaker 2: they have been doing drib drib drib reporting about the
Speaker 2: Gnometomski meeting. They did the Larry Summers story originally, and I.
Speaker 3: Don't think it takes much of a genius to figure
Speaker 3: this out.
Speaker 2: I think it was the US Virgin Islands because the
Speaker 2: US Virgin Islands has an ongoing suit with Epstein about
Speaker 2: against Epstein's estate not only for the victims, but to
Speaker 2: expose some of his dealing.
Speaker 3: Clearly, they have access to.
Speaker 2: His calendars and to his emails and some other things
Speaker 2: and other information that's not come out publicly that now
Speaker 2: is being deployed in the press, most likely as an
Speaker 2: effort to try and get the Epstein State to settle
Speaker 2: or at the very least pay them, you know, whatever they.
Speaker 3: Want in terms of that suit. Now I actually am against.
Speaker 2: I just want this information published, and this is my
Speaker 2: message to the.
Speaker 3: US Virgin Islands and others.
Speaker 2: Get your bag, but also publish everything you got because
Speaker 2: this is such a matter of public interest now, you know,
Speaker 2: because this is only scratching the surface in terms of
Speaker 2: the wealthiest, most powerful men. We need to know more
Speaker 2: about the governments like aud Barack he is reelly Prime
Speaker 2: Minister who slept over at his house constantly, or Bill
Speaker 2: Clinton in the number of times that he, you know,
Speaker 2: flew on the jet. I mean, that's the other thing
Speaker 2: that it becomes so crazy, like when you're reading this
Speaker 2: is the amount of times that they were just flying
Speaker 2: casually on each other's private jets from different destinations, and
Speaker 2: the idea that they didn't know each other obviously deeply
Speaker 2: and intimately whenever the calendar shows that.
Speaker 3: They met dozens of times.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, we even showed that former Obama
Speaker 2: lawyer who had met many times with Epstein then went
Speaker 2: to go work as a top lawyer I think for
Speaker 2: Goldman Sachs. I mean, there were several other meetings and
Speaker 2: things that have taken place, which it's very difficult to explain.
Speaker 2: And this lawsuit I think has the keys to a
Speaker 2: lot more info about him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well they just started looking at us as well, right, So,
Speaker 1: I mean it really is crazy the number of people
Speaker 1: that he in the highest echelons of society was able
Speaker 1: to associate and ingratiate himself with. Yeah, it really is astonishing.
Speaker 1: I mean you just look at these reports and you're like,
Speaker 1: was there any elite in the world that didn't end
Speaker 1: up having some sort of Jeffrey Epstein connection.
Speaker 3: So the answer is no, yes.
Speaker 1: So anyway, we'll see what the Wall Street Journal drops next.
Speaker 1: But this Bill Gates piece is pretty extraordinary.
Speaker 4: All Right.
Speaker 1: We have some more details about Diane Feinstein, oldest serving
Speaker 1: member of the Senate currently, who is in very poor health,
Speaker 1: who has facing calls to resign, who is clearly unable
Speaker 1: to really perform the very basics of her job. There
Speaker 1: has been reporting for years now about how her memory
Speaker 1: has been fading as she ages, and how she's been
Speaker 1: in decline that appeared to have been accelerated by this
Speaker 1: about of shingles that they had previously acknowledged there were
Speaker 1: some complications with while we are getting a sense now
Speaker 1: of exactly what those those complications were, and they are
Speaker 1: quite dire. Let's put this up on the screen from
Speaker 1: the BBC. Senator Diane Feinstein suffered brain inflammation as a
Speaker 1: complication of shingles.
Speaker 4: She had encephalitis.
Speaker 1: She contracted encephalitis that is a type of brain inflammation.
Speaker 1: She also developed Ramsey Hunt syndrome that can cause that
Speaker 1: facial paralysis that you are seeing there. They put on
Speaker 1: a statement that the encephalitis I'm talking about Feinstein's office,
Speaker 1: the encephalitis resolved itself, but she continues to deal with
Speaker 1: Ramsey Hunt syndrome. Let me just read you a little
Speaker 1: bit of this article so that you can see the
Speaker 1: technical medical details. She did return on May tenth, after
Speaker 1: nearly three months of absence. She'd been admitted to the
Speaker 1: hospital after being diagnosed with shingles in late February. Her
Speaker 1: spokes been told the BBC on Thursday that she previously
Speaker 1: disclosed she had several complications related to her shingles diagnosis,
Speaker 1: and those complications included Ramsey Hunt syndrome and encephalitis. It
Speaker 1: continued while this encephalitis resolved itself, she still has that.
Speaker 4: Ramsey Hunt syndrome she's dealing with.
Speaker 1: Her aid statement contradicted the senator's own remarks on Thursday.
Speaker 1: According to CNN, the network quoted Miss Feinstein herself as
Speaker 1: denying she had encephalitis, saying, quote, it really has never
Speaker 1: been diagnosed properly, and it was a really bad flu.
Speaker 4: It can result in.
Speaker 1: Symptoms including personality changes, seizures, confusion, and problems with site
Speaker 1: or hearing, according to the Mayo Clinic. So her health
Speaker 1: and her ability to capacity to perform the most basic
Speaker 1: functions of this job already engraved out, just further degraded
Speaker 1: by the health complications that she is suffering, including brain inflammation.
Speaker 1: And you know, it is a very sad story. But
Speaker 1: you also see, and we'll get into this part in
Speaker 1: just a second, the way that the political class, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi in particular, but a bunch of California Democratic elites,
Speaker 1: are using her as a pawn to get their own
Speaker 1: way in terms of politics. And it is just obviously
Speaker 1: it's just grotesque at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, that is the part where I thought we
Speaker 2: should spend time because this shows you how craven and
Speaker 2: repulsive these people are. Yes, they are literally willing. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. They are literally willing.
Speaker 2: Nancy Pelosi has deployed her own daughter, who literally does
Speaker 2: not work for Diane Feinstein in any way, to be
Speaker 2: the primary caregiver and to shepherd her away from the media.
Speaker 2: Now it is clear here that what they are trying
Speaker 2: to do is drag her base literally across the finish line,
Speaker 2: regardless of her mental faculties. Because if she were to
Speaker 2: resign from office, Crystal Governor Gavin Newsom has said that
Speaker 2: he would appoint.
Speaker 3: A black woman.
Speaker 2: And if that black woman, who currently would be very
Speaker 2: likely to be appointed is Barbara Lee, who is running
Speaker 2: for the Senate against Adam Schiff.
Speaker 3: And guess what, Pelosi endorsed Adam Schiff.
Speaker 2: Therefore, if her and her henchwoman, her daughter allow find
Speaker 2: sign to go, then it's very likely that their chosen
Speaker 2: Adam shift candidate will not be the next Senator because
Speaker 2: whoever gets appointed to the seat very obviously would have
Speaker 2: a better leg up in the overall primary.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, am I wrong here?
Speaker 2: Or is that not the most obvious thing about what's
Speaker 2: going on the moment you learn it's Christine Pelosi, Pelosi's
Speaker 2: daughter rolling her around the capitol.
Speaker 1: It's not Christine plus honestly her name is her oldest daughter.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I apologize, I apologize.
Speaker 4: Still a Pelosi daughter, Yes.
Speaker 3: Pelosi daughter who was rolling her around the capitol.
Speaker 2: How can you possibly think like this is not what's
Speaker 2: going on here?
Speaker 1: Well, and you will recall when congressmon ro'connell, also of California,
Speaker 1: began publicly calling for fine Stein's resignation. Remember what the
Speaker 1: Pelosi people said to the press and what Pelosi said.
Speaker 1: Number one, she called him sexist, which is disgusting. Number Two,
Speaker 1: they insinuated that he was the one with the political
Speaker 1: motives because he supports Barbara Lee. I don't know if
Speaker 1: he's publicly endorsed her or not, but you know they're
Speaker 1: clearly more ideologically aligned. He likes Katie Porter Barbara Lee
Speaker 1: more than he likes Adam Schiff. And so they accused
Speaker 1: him of having the ideological and political motive here.
Speaker 4: Well, that was clearly projection. I mean they're the ones.
Speaker 1: Who are this is elder abuse at this point, propping
Speaker 1: up Seinstein and at great risk to her own health
Speaker 1: and you know, survival, length of survival to come to
Speaker 1: DC and face this kind of intense media scrutiny and
Speaker 1: you know, long schedule when she should be at home
Speaker 1: recovering and enjoying.
Speaker 4: The last years of her life.
Speaker 1: So it really is disgusting to see the way that
Speaker 1: they are toying with, you know, the people of the country,
Speaker 1: toying with their own constituents in California, hamstringing the work
Speaker 1: of the Senate, and also this woman that they, you know,
Speaker 1: really pretend to revere.
Speaker 4: This is incredibly damaging.
Speaker 1: For her and just very no doctor would recommend that
Speaker 1: she go and serve in her capacity as US senator
Speaker 1: right now, because she is so clearly not up to
Speaker 1: the rigors.
Speaker 4: Of that job.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, I actually even read more about how many, unfortunately,
Speaker 2: many of the people who find Sime still at this
Speaker 2: point is able to recognize and to trust are all gone.
Speaker 2: Her former chief of staff, he's gone. Her husband died
Speaker 2: very recently. That was a big blow, But he was
Speaker 2: one of the only people who very likely could have
Speaker 2: been like Hey, Diane's time to hang it up, like
Speaker 2: we got to go.
Speaker 3: And she won't.
Speaker 2: She won't do it her own kids and apparently but
Speaker 2: also Pelosi and others who could do it just won't.
Speaker 2: And so I think it's obvious. I think it's very
Speaker 2: obvious what.
Speaker 1: They able to get Krick and Adam's shift as senator. Oh,
Speaker 1: I mean that is that is gross on every level.
Speaker 4: It is so gross.
Speaker 1: This person that you consider to be a friend, and
Speaker 1: you're doing this to her her in service of your
Speaker 1: own like political agenda.
Speaker 3: And that's the thing, is it.
Speaker 2: Why else would her daughter be the one chauffeuring her around?
Speaker 3: There's no other reason. Yeah, especially whenever.
Speaker 4: You're well, they're very close for a long time. I know, no, okay.
Speaker 2: Okay, just this appeared out of nowhere just to wheel
Speaker 2: her around the capitol. I don't believe it. I don't
Speaker 2: believe it for a second.
Speaker 4: All right, talker, what are you looking at?
Speaker 2: Well, in retrospect, probably the most insane thing that ever
Speaker 2: happened during the pandemic had nothing to do with lockdowns.
Speaker 2: It was simple and when we will be telling our
Speaker 2: kids about twenty five years from now, used cars went
Speaker 2: up in value the sky actually did turn green. I
Speaker 2: myself benefited from it. My jeep was involved in an accident.
Speaker 2: Mechanic looked me dead in the eyes after fixing it, and
Speaker 2: he said, you would be an idiot not to sell
Speaker 2: this the day I took it out of the shop
Speaker 2: because it would never be worth that much again, by
Speaker 2: my estimation, he saved me like five thousand dollars, which
Speaker 2: I needed after losing that exact amount on Blockfi after
Speaker 2: it went bank, So I owe him one. Outside of
Speaker 2: my own personal experience, though the car market is one
Speaker 2: of the most important in the United States to the
Speaker 2: average consumer, the wild swings that have happened within it
Speaker 2: actually tell us a lot about the modern economy and
Speaker 2: to understand exactly where we are, take a look at
Speaker 2: this chart. As you can see, prices were relatively flat
Speaker 2: during the zero inter straight period of ten twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: and then they absolutely lost their minds. Used cars spike
Speaker 2: to forty five percent above inflation during the pandemic, before
Speaker 2: falling to fourteen percent below inflation, before again last month
Speaker 2: spiking seven percent. On top of these crazy swings and
Speaker 2: used car prices, though, is a steady trend, which is
Speaker 2: awful for everyone. All goods and services, as you can see,
Speaker 2: remain up five percent from the previous average, with new
Speaker 2: car prices right there with them. The question of why
Speaker 2: those new cars not only remain up but may not
Speaker 2: go down anytime soon is a fascinating one.
Speaker 3: This investigation sought to get to the bottom of.
Speaker 2: One expert, who runs a car app that monitors prices
Speaker 2: across many dealerships, actually explained it this way.
Speaker 3: Maker factories shut down during COVID.
Speaker 2: When they spun back up, there's a huge shortage of semiconductors.
Speaker 2: With that shortage, they then prioritize their most expensive models
Speaker 2: over cheap cars. This way, the only ones that get
Speaker 2: produced actually make them a big profit. Then, though, when
Speaker 2: they get to the dealer, the dealer takes advantage of
Speaker 2: the shortage and the premium product goes even higher by
Speaker 2: racking up the price more.
Speaker 3: Than they ever could have dreamed before.
Speaker 2: Twenty nineteen, one government estimate actually found that auto dealers
Speaker 2: make up anywhere between one third and two thirds of
Speaker 2: all new car inflation that consumers are experiencing. It must
Speaker 2: be a good line of work if you can get it.
Speaker 2: These car dealers are printing money all throughout the pandemic,
Speaker 2: and now, as you can see from the chart before you,
Speaker 2: they continue to do so largely because they have discovered
Speaker 2: their game. They're going after wealthy clients who have a
Speaker 2: ton of money post pandemic, and in many cases can
Speaker 2: pay straight cash. They don't have to worry about a
Speaker 2: car payment. This, of course, reduces the number of people
Speaker 2: who can even consider a new car, given that the
Speaker 2: current average price for a new vehicle hovers around a
Speaker 2: whopping fifty thousand dollars. This is what makes used car
Speaker 2: price so powerful. They make up more than two thirds
Speaker 2: of the entire car market. But I've got bad news
Speaker 2: too for everyone on that front. The share of used
Speaker 2: vehicles for sale today in the US today below twenty
Speaker 2: thousand dollars remains near the bottom. To put it in perspective,
Speaker 2: more than sixty percent of used cars sold before twenty
Speaker 2: nineteen or below twenty grand. Today that number is thirty percent.
Speaker 2: In fact, a new analysis finds quote even the average
Speaker 2: seven year old vehicle with seventy five thousand miles on
Speaker 2: it is selling for more than twenty thousand dollars.
Speaker 3: The current average selling price of a used car.
Speaker 2: Is some twenty eight thousand, three hundred and eighty one dollars,
Speaker 2: which feels crazy to say out loud in my head,
Speaker 2: that's what a new car to sell for.
Speaker 3: Yet here we are.
Speaker 2: This underscores again just how much the backs of the
Speaker 2: poor and the middle class are against the wall. A
Speaker 2: sizeable portion of the US population is quite literally a
Speaker 2: blown tire away from bankruptcy with very little options if
Speaker 2: they get in even a slight pegle where you need
Speaker 2: a new.
Speaker 3: Vehicle other than the one which you are driving.
Speaker 2: Really, what this underscores is the death of entry ease
Speaker 2: in the country. There are no more starter homes because
Speaker 2: the average price of a home is four hundred and
Speaker 2: thirty six thousand dollars. That's thirty two percent, an increase
Speaker 2: in two years. The average mortgage payment is now twenty
Speaker 2: three hundred dollars per month. That's thirty grand a year
Speaker 2: after taxes. Of course, that includes shelter. So if you
Speaker 2: abide by the rule that mortgage payments should be no
Speaker 2: more than let's say a third of your take home pay,
Speaker 2: it really means your pay needs.
Speaker 3: To be like ninety grand. Now.
Speaker 2: Average household income in the US is seventy five thousand, dollars,
Speaker 2: which means that for most people, they responsibly probably should
Speaker 2: not buy a house in this current environment. Roll in
Speaker 2: a car payment to that. Per Bank Create data, the
Speaker 2: average car payment today is between five hundred and seven
Speaker 2: hundred dollars per month.
Speaker 3: Not only that, car.
Speaker 2: Insurance rates have skyrocketed lately, adding an additional two thousand
Speaker 2: dollars per year. On average, the total of what I
Speaker 2: call the existence tax is actually getting to a point where,
Speaker 2: even on average income, it is getting straight up uncomfortable.
Speaker 3: And I will end with this.
Speaker 2: The way that economists and even people like us sometimes
Speaker 2: talk about inflation and overall prices, it really misses the mark. Yeah,
Speaker 2: core CPI, core inflation, all that stuff, it misses this point.
Speaker 2: Certain prices are just more important than others. The price
Speaker 2: of housing, the price of a car, the price of gas,
Speaker 2: the price of food, healthcare. Those matter more than any others.
Speaker 2: They're burned into our everyday ability to survive. And when
Speaker 2: we start seeing not only inflation in those areas, but
Speaker 2: inflation and wild swings that vary more than the prices
Speaker 2: of random consumer goods like TVs, then we have a
Speaker 2: really screwed up economy. And funnily enough. The overall fix
Speaker 2: to this is it's probably pretty simple. We just need
Speaker 2: more cars. We have so much demand, not enough supply.
Speaker 2: The reason for our lack of supply is because of
Speaker 2: financialization within the car industry and current government subsidies which
Speaker 2: are for electric vehicles definitely cool and obviously for the future,
Speaker 2: but still remain prohibitively expensive. The number one target for
Speaker 2: our government policy makers should be cost and standard of living.
Speaker 2: All else should flow from that decision matrix. Instead, we
Speaker 2: got the worst of both worlds. You got runaway free
Speaker 2: market capitalism combined with government incentives that are doing very
Speaker 2: little to scratch any of the surface. We have a
Speaker 2: building problem, and we need to get to work on this.
Speaker 2: Yesterday twenty eight thousand dollars for the average price.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: Chrystal, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 1: Well, guys, the story had everything to make it catnip
Speaker 1: for right wing media. According to The New York Post,
Speaker 1: about two thousand homeless veterans had been kicked out of
Speaker 1: an other state New York hotel called the Crossroads in
Speaker 1: order to free up space for migrant asylum seekers. Now
Speaker 1: head of that nonprofit group, Sharon Tony Finch, relayed the
Speaker 1: harrowing tale of the New York Post. She said, one
Speaker 1: of the vets called me on Sunday. He told me
Speaker 1: he had to leave because the hotel said the extended
Speaker 1: state is not available. Then I got another call. We
Speaker 1: didn't waste any time, the advocate said. That's when we
Speaker 1: started on Monday Monday to organize when and where to
Speaker 1: move them all. I am glad you called me today,
Speaker 1: she told the Post. Last night, I was crying now.
Speaker 1: The conservative media ecosystem quickly picked up the story.
Speaker 4: They ran wild with it.
Speaker 1: Calumnist at the Post said Joe Biden should quote burn
Speaker 1: in hell for this. Fox News in particular, of course,
Speaker 1: they leaned in heavily to this two perfect tale of
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants, supplanting men who had served our country. On
Speaker 1: Outnumbered hosts said the incident proved Biden was a liar
Speaker 1: when he said God Bless the troops and that he's
Speaker 1: quote more concerned about the needs of the UN, about
Speaker 1: the World Economic Forum than he is about his own
Speaker 1: American citizens. Just one little, tiny problem turn out the
Speaker 1: whole thing was a complete hoax, cooked up by a
Speaker 1: right wing Jesse Smollette to fan the flames of the
Speaker 1: nation's media fueled culture wars. A local paper, the Mid
Speaker 1: Hudson News, actually exposed the entire scam. First, they did
Speaker 1: the most basic act of journalism, which either Fox or
Speaker 1: The New York Post could have done before running with
Speaker 1: the story that had absolutely no backing. They called the
Speaker 1: hotel that was supposedly at the center of this veterans
Speaker 1: booted for migrant story found they denied every aspect of
Speaker 1: it completely. The hotel did actually have some asylum seekers
Speaker 1: as guests, but no one had been kicked out for them,
Speaker 1: and in fact, they had plenty of rooms available to
Speaker 1: accommodate veterans or anyone else who wanted to stay there.
Speaker 1: A second hotel in Fishcale, New York, where the veterans
Speaker 1: were supposedly relocated, also denied the basics of the story. Next,
Speaker 1: you had a Republican state lawmaker who had taken up
Speaker 1: the mantle of advocating for these supposedly displaced veterans, admitted
Speaker 1: to the paper that appeared the whole story was fake.
Speaker 1: After the head of that nonprofit originally quoted by the Post,
Speaker 1: was enable to produce any evidence of his veracity, and
Speaker 1: then ultimately ghosted him and to put the final nail
Speaker 1: on the coffin here. The paper then identified homeless men
Speaker 1: who'd been recruited by that nonprofit head Sharon Tony Finch,
Speaker 1: with food, alcohol, and the promise of a cash payment
Speaker 1: to lie and pretend that they were the men who
Speaker 1: had been kicked out of the hotel. According to the
Speaker 1: Mid Hudson News, one of the men said Finch told
Speaker 1: them they were going to a meeting where she would
Speaker 1: be explaining how they'd been kicked out of a hotel
Speaker 1: to make room for migrants. She told us to act
Speaker 1: like we were the veterans that had been displaced, and
Speaker 1: she told us that if asked, we were supposed to
Speaker 1: say we had been kicked out, and Sharon found us
Speaker 1: rooms in Fishkill.
Speaker 4: He also noted that men who.
Speaker 1: Were unwilling to answer were told to respond with I'm
Speaker 1: too traumatized to talk about it if asked. In the end,
Speaker 1: this lady did not even give these men the two
Speaker 1: hundred dollars cash payment she had lured them with. Now,
Speaker 1: after Fox spent hours flogging the story, in emotional language.
Speaker 1: They attempted to clean up their mess with a couple.
Speaker 4: Of short corrections.
Speaker 1: You can bet millions of people who heard the original
Speaker 1: story they will never hear that it all turned out
Speaker 1: to be complete and utter hoax. Workers for the hotel
Speaker 1: at the center of the lie they have been besieged
Speaker 1: by irate phone calls and physical threats. Now, the sad
Speaker 1: thing is this wasn't even close to the only national
Speaker 1: culture war story that was revealed as a hoax. Just
Speaker 1: in the last week, a Senate candidate who had claimed
Speaker 1: that he witnessed child sex trafficking while working at an
Speaker 1: adult bookstore. He was forced to retract his story and
Speaker 1: admit he had lied and sworn affidavit after being charged
Speaker 1: with making a full statement. He confessed quote on April ninth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, I went to work at the Mistress.
Speaker 1: When I arrived at work, I noticed a young girl
Speaker 1: and an elderly male in a store near the atm. I
Speaker 1: immediately recognized this as an opportunity to potentially obtain traction
Speaker 1: from my political career.
Speaker 4: He continues.
Speaker 1: I use the opportunity to take photographs of a child
Speaker 1: and send it to my followers. This is a topic
Speaker 1: of serious concern amongst my voter base, and I intentionally
Speaker 1: brought attention to a situation that simply did not occur.
Speaker 1: Goes on to express regret for slandering and investigating law
Speaker 1: enforcement officer, potentially endangering the child that he photographed, and
Speaker 1: causing cops to spend hundreds of hours investigating what was
Speaker 1: a fake crime. There was also a viral video incident
Speaker 1: involving a supposedly racist Karen fighting over a rental bike
Speaker 1: with a group of young black men. She was accused
Speaker 1: by famous civil rights attorney Ben Crump of attempting to
Speaker 1: steal the bike from these young black men. He wrote
Speaker 1: on Instagram, this is Krump quote. She grossly tried to
Speaker 1: weaponize her tears to paint this man as a threat.
Speaker 1: This is exactly the type of behavior that has endangered
Speaker 1: so many black men in the past. Well turns out
Speaker 1: the instant judgment might have been exactly backwards. This nurse,
Speaker 1: who is six months pregnant, provided receipts then independent showing
Speaker 1: she had paid for the bike in question, a fact
Speaker 1: that was not shown in the video, which led to
Speaker 1: her being smeared nashally as a racist and also being
Speaker 1: put on leave from her job as a nurse. According
Speaker 1: to her lawyer, she paid for the bike, was then
Speaker 1: heckled and harassed by the young men who physically pushed
Speaker 1: her and the bike back into the docking station, causing
Speaker 1: it to relock. One of the men, which you can
Speaker 1: see in the vid, then covered up the QR code
Speaker 1: on the bike rack to prohibit her from checking.
Speaker 4: That bike out again.
Speaker 1: So instead of a racist Karen, this video might actually
Speaker 1: show the tail end of a pregnant nurse being mocked, harassed,
Speaker 1: and intimidated by a group of young men. Now we
Speaker 1: didn't cover any of these stories, not because we're such
Speaker 1: geniuses that we can intuitively spot every fake the incident
Speaker 1: hits the partisan press, but because we try not to
Speaker 1: do news analysis by anecdote. After all, let's say that
Speaker 1: the racist Karen incident was true. Does one light white
Speaker 1: lady being fragile and manipulative really tell us anything more
Speaker 1: broadly about the country. Factually grounded anecdotes they can be
Speaker 1: useful to help give color to establish facts, data policy, or.
Speaker 4: They can also be useful to help formulate a hypothesis
Speaker 4: than that you then test.
Speaker 1: But on their own they're mostly just propaganda, mostly emotional manipulation.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, too, we have become a.
Speaker 1: Nation of easy marks, millions of culture war poison brains,
Speaker 1: just prime for the next viral video or anecdote to
Speaker 1: confirm what we think we already know, with media goules
Speaker 1: ready to cherry pick stories to reinforce our elaborate mind palaces,
Speaker 1: and fame hungry Charlatan's ready to outrite concoct narratives that
Speaker 1: are tailor made to draw us in, with irresistible culture
Speaker 1: war bait pundits and influencers ready to pounce in order
Speaker 1: to boost their own clout too. And this is all
Speaker 1: before AI generated deep fakes thoroughly flood the zone, making
Speaker 1: it even more difficult.
Speaker 4: To separate fact from fiction.
Speaker 1: Be wary of these two perfect culture war flashpoints stories,
Speaker 1: reject the news outlets that routinely traffic in them, and
Speaker 1: be especially skeptical when a story matches up with your
Speaker 1: existing worldview a little bit too perfectly. This homeless veterans,
Speaker 1: and you think of this one.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: Thank you, guys so much for watching. We really appreciate Crystal.
Speaker 3: You're going to be out tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I've got kindergarten graduation apparently a thing. So yeah, we're
Speaker 1: in the all the end of school year madness. So
Speaker 1: I'll be out on Tuesday, but then I'm going to
Speaker 1: fill in for Ryan on Wednesday on Counterpoints.
Speaker 4: So we're doing a little switch.
Speaker 2: As you guys always wanted. You wanted multiple switcheroos, So
Speaker 2: that's there it is. We've we've got the you know,
Speaker 2: the game to please you, got the Bro Show, We've
Speaker 2: got the Girl what is it, the Girl show?
Speaker 3: Whatever?
Speaker 2: You ladies, ladies, ladies. So we'll see you guys tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Me and Ryan.
Speaker 2: Thank you for everybody who's been signing up premium. We
Speaker 2: really appreciate it helping us as we approach our new set,
Speaker 2: new studio, new vision for Breaking Points, breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: Otherwise, we'll see you soon.