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 coverage.
Speaker 3: 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 1: Quite an interesting and insightful piece of reporting from the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal into what is going on with the
Speaker 1: Biden campaign.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: He's getting advice from an interesting place. The headline here
Speaker 1: is Jeffrey Katzenberg's very Hollywood advice for Joe Biden. Entertainment
Speaker 1: Mogul is a campaign advisor with Harrison Ford and Mick
Speaker 1: Jagger as presidential role models.
Speaker 4: Here's what they mean by that.
Speaker 1: Apparently, the movie Mogul has joined with other advisors in
Speaker 1: counseling President Biden to quote own his age and turn
Speaker 1: it into an asset. If Harrison Ford, eighty years old,
Speaker 1: can start in a new Indiana Jones movie and the
Speaker 1: Rolling Stones MC Jagger, who turns eighty next month can
Speaker 1: strut around the stadium stage. Katzenberg says, then Biden should
Speaker 1: lean into his longevity as a sign of wisdom and experience,
Speaker 1: while offering a sense of humor about it. They go
Speaker 1: on to say that that's one of the things Katzenberg
Speaker 1: has brought to bear. The primary thing he's brought to
Speaker 1: bearra's massive fundraising. Yeah, also muddling in a campaign that yeah,
Speaker 1: is going to need it and doesn't have a lot
Speaker 1: of grassroots fundraising support. So that's probably the most important
Speaker 1: piece of what he's offering here. But what do you
Speaker 1: think of the advice?
Speaker 5: Sager?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Look, whenever we're looking at this one, you have
Speaker 2: an eighty year old who is literate, what is it
Speaker 2: an eighty year old who is looking to inspiration to
Speaker 2: other eighty year olds. I think that there might be
Speaker 2: maybe crystal a slight difference between Biden and Mick Jagger
Speaker 2: and some others, apparently George Harrison Ford from some of
Speaker 2: it might be a drug cocktail, to be quite honest, Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 2: I guess might start shooting whatever these guys are taking.
Speaker 2: But also, look, you know what we've always talked about
Speaker 2: is like being eighty itself is not necessarily disqualification. It's about, well,
Speaker 2: when you're at that age, the risk of being mentally
Speaker 2: incapacitated as much higher, and are you beginning to show
Speaker 2: the signs of potentially getting to that point? And I
Speaker 2: think it's quite obvious if you look at Harrison Ford.
Speaker 2: The new trailer for Indiana Jones looks decent. I'm, you know,
Speaker 2: personally gonna I'm gonna wait until we actually see.
Speaker 3: The whole movie.
Speaker 2: Just like the last one Judgment, well, it's just the
Speaker 2: last one with such a disaster was screw It was horrible,
Speaker 2: the Crystal Skull. Well, Mick Jagger, of course, you know,
Speaker 2: has shown his proven ability, but with Biden, like we
Speaker 2: literally have him on camera every single day, so we know,
Speaker 2: you know what exactly it looks like and what some
Speaker 2: of the missteps are. So thus the comparison is just
Speaker 2: not the same. Both with Harrison Ford and with Mick Jagger.
Speaker 2: The proof is in the performance, and the performance here
Speaker 2: is just not even comparable. So you can't take advice, Yeah, people.
Speaker 4: Right, that's the thing is like, it's probably the best.
Speaker 6: Advice you could do, for sure.
Speaker 3: I agree, it's just.
Speaker 1: The ability to execute on that advice that remains in
Speaker 1: significant doubt. So here's part of what Biden said about
Speaker 1: his age when he was asked about it. He was
Speaker 1: actually asked about a press conference with the South Korean president,
Speaker 1: and he said, quote, with regard to age, I can't
Speaker 1: even say, I guess how old I am. I can't
Speaker 1: even say the number. It doesn't register with me. I
Speaker 1: respect them taking a hard look at it. Talking about voters.
Speaker 1: I take a hard look at it as well. I
Speaker 1: took a hard look at it before I decided to run.
Speaker 1: And I feel good. I feel excited about the prospects.
Speaker 1: I mean, one thing we have always said is if
Speaker 1: he had the ability to get out there on a
Speaker 1: debate stage and tangle with Bobby Kennedy and Marion or
Speaker 1: whoever and prove that he's up to the jug, then
Speaker 1: he should do that. But they're probably they're probably I
Speaker 1: don't think this is the right ethical, moral strategy, but
Speaker 1: they're probably executing the best possible political strategy in keeping
Speaker 1: him out of the cameras and kind of hiding from
Speaker 1: people how he is actually doing at this point. So yeah,
Speaker 1: it'd be nice if he was in a position to
Speaker 1: avail himself of this advice and lean into his age
Speaker 1: or own his age, as they say, and demonstrate that
Speaker 1: he's still just as sharp and wily as ever.
Speaker 4: But I just I don't know that you can really
Speaker 4: execute on this advice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree, And you know, look, Jeffrey Katzenberg complicated history.
Speaker 2: So on the one hand, I personally owe a lot
Speaker 2: of my childhood guy like Katzenberg. He was responsible for
Speaker 2: some of the greatest hits in Disney animation history. But
Speaker 2: also this is the guy who just did Quibbi, so
Speaker 2: maybe we should hold off on a he was more
Speaker 2: recent advice on communications, specifically in allaying younger people's fears,
Speaker 2: because it's not exactly like he knows what they want.
Speaker 4: And I'm people what Quibbi was.
Speaker 2: It was like a one billion dot maybe more boondoggle
Speaker 2: in terms of like short form content within an app.
Speaker 2: It included like the punked Rebuke and sixty minutes did
Speaker 2: deal it was time.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they was a growing cash of people.
Speaker 3: And they shut down almost overnight.
Speaker 1: A bunch of high level what's that lady's name that
Speaker 1: I don't know anyway, so former Republic that's the one
Speaker 1: for resident. Yeah anyway, Yeah, that was kind of a disaster.
Speaker 1: I forgot about that. But anyway, the Biden White House
Speaker 1: is apparently listening because he's also bringing cash to the
Speaker 1: table and that's what it takes to get an audience
Speaker 1: with the president.
Speaker 2: So there you go, folks, a stunning news story out
Speaker 2: of the SEC and JP Morgan. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen, guys. So SEC
Speaker 2: is finding JP Morgan subsidiary for deleting forty seven million emails,
Speaker 2: some related to an ongoing subpoena. The broker deal subsidiary
Speaker 2: of JP Morgan Chase four million dollars for accidentally deleting
Speaker 2: forty seven million emails for early twenty eighteen. Some of
Speaker 2: these emails were stopt by subpoenas in at least a
Speaker 2: dozen regulatory investigation. The firm in late twenty twenty one
Speaker 2: agreed to pay one hundred and twenty five million in
Speaker 2: penalties for failing to preserve text messages and other electronic
Speaker 2: communications sent from January twenty eighteen and November of twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: So they are willing to pay over one hundred and
Speaker 2: twenty five million plus another four million or one hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty nine million dollars for a loss of forty
Speaker 2: seven million emails.
Speaker 4: Do you believe a lost yeah, quote unquote, do you believe.
Speaker 2: For one second that these emails were not deeply incriminating.
Speaker 2: And here's the thing, right, you're going to pay one
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty five million just for losing the emails.
Speaker 2: How much were they going to pay for keeping the email?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Well, yeah, that's the real question.
Speaker 4: I mean, here's what's amazing.
Speaker 1: And the way that I mean, white collar crime just
Speaker 1: it's a cost of doing business. I mean, that's the
Speaker 1: way they've used. If you this penalty, this latest one
Speaker 1: of just four million dollars nothing to them, four million
Speaker 1: dollars for them, nothing, and they get to claim that
Speaker 1: they lost these millions and millions of emails. This is
Speaker 1: the third time that this hasn't It happened in late
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, as you reference. It also happened in
Speaker 1: two thousand and five when they were supposed to preserve
Speaker 1: electronic records from mid ninety nine to mid two thousand
Speaker 1: and two. JP Morgan's spokeswomen declined to comment on the
Speaker 1: latest sanction. And they claim, you know, oh, they began
Speaker 1: a project to delete their older communications and documents no
Speaker 1: longer required to be retained and oopsie, they just accidentally
Speaker 1: deleted tens of millions more that were the subject of
Speaker 1: ongoing investigations, et cetera. Is just astonishing, Like these people
Speaker 1: they literally get away with anything.
Speaker 4: They really do, they really do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look, when you have it here in
Speaker 2: front of you that you can have three separate instances
Speaker 2: where you delete emails for the SEC and you have
Speaker 2: to fined every single time, do you really believe that
Speaker 2: it can be an accidental loss. That's the other thing
Speaker 2: I have with CNBC, like, how can you in good
Speaker 2: conscience call this an accidental loss and just take them
Speaker 2: at their word. They say that there were glitches in
Speaker 2: their project which identified documents not in fact being expunged,
Speaker 2: and that while troubles shooting that issue, employees of the
Speaker 2: firm executed deletion task on electronic communications from the entire
Speaker 2: first quarter of twenty eighteen. That these employees erroneously believed
Speaker 2: that all of those documents were coded in a way
Speaker 2: to prevent permanent deletion, even though that permanent deletion had
Speaker 2: happened multiple times before and since.
Speaker 1: So here's here's the other part I like this settlement
Speaker 1: was actually they let the firm JP Morgan themselves suggest
Speaker 1: what settlement they wanted.
Speaker 3: As one does, and then the.
Speaker 1: SEC is like, all right, sure, but don't worry guys.
Speaker 1: As part of that settlement, the SEC also ordered the
Speaker 1: firm to cease and desist from committing any future violations.
Speaker 4: So I'm sure they're.
Speaker 1: Going to clean up their act here. They're going to
Speaker 1: fly right from here on out. They've learned their lesson
Speaker 1: with this, you know, pathetically small fine in the grand
Speaker 1: scheme of their massive wealth, and it'll all be good
Speaker 1: from here on it.
Speaker 2: Right, very very intelligent people who are running this country inmates,
Speaker 2: truly are the ones who are running the asylum.
Speaker 3: Fascinating moment.
Speaker 2: US Envoy for Climate Change John Kerry appeared on French television,
Speaker 2: presumably to talk about some of his climate initiatives, but
Speaker 2: he was asked about the war in Ukraine, about whether
Speaker 2: Putin was a war criminal, and also about war crimes trials.
Speaker 2: When the French host decided to hit back a little
Speaker 2: bit and say, yeah, but what about Bush and Iraq
Speaker 2: and the war that you voted for.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately it was dubbed, so we only have subtitles in
Speaker 2: terms of what was asked here, and so he says, well,
Speaker 2: he didn't know that that was a lot referencing here post.
Speaker 2: You know the evidence that was produced, people couldn't have
Speaker 2: known that there was a lie. So no, again, I
Speaker 2: think they're stretching something that's not a constructive thing. Whenever
Speaker 2: he's asked there about Iraq, it's not constructive, he says, Sir,
Speaker 2: I am not going to read debate the Iraq war
Speaker 2: here right now. We've spent a lot of time doing that. Previously,
Speaker 2: I was opposed to going in not true, thought it
Speaker 2: was the wrong thing to do, not true, but we
Speaker 2: gave the president the power regrettably the Congress based.
Speaker 3: On a lie.
Speaker 2: And when we knew it was a lie, people stood
Speaker 2: up and did the right thing.
Speaker 4: Many many years did you set up and do the
Speaker 4: right thing?
Speaker 3: That's interesting, so interesting enough.
Speaker 2: I believe Carrie does speak fluent French in terms of
Speaker 2: that debate, in terms of that appearance, but I think
Speaker 2: that is a perfect view of the hypocrisy of the
Speaker 2: way that we look and that what we talk whenever
Speaker 2: we conduct ourselves in international affairs, and that's not China,
Speaker 2: that's not India. That's not an adversary or somewhere that's
Speaker 2: non Western.
Speaker 3: That's France.
Speaker 2: That's a country which obviously rejected going into Iraq with US,
Speaker 2: but that's a country which is in NATO ostensibly our
Speaker 2: ally right, these are the people who should see things
Speaker 2: somewhat our way. But even our version of events, though
Speaker 2: whenever it comes to the way that we want to
Speaker 2: cast certain events well certainly doesn't go over that way
Speaker 2: with the rest of the world. And that is why
Speaker 2: I increasingly believe that the great divide right now is
Speaker 2: between like Western liberal thinking in terms of NATO, international
Speaker 2: World order and all that stuff, and then every other
Speaker 2: country on Earth, and increasingly the rest of the world
Speaker 2: is trending much more towards realism, towards multipolarity, towards a
Speaker 2: very traditional conduct of relations between states, whereas we're still
Speaker 2: stuck in like nineteen ninety one where we think it's
Speaker 2: the unipolar moment and we have an invaded Iraq and
Speaker 2: had the devastation of Afghanistan. I've been humiliated and yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, and had all.
Speaker 3: This other thing.
Speaker 1: We still have some kind of moral authority. I mean,
Speaker 1: you really squandered that a Raq listen, it's the least
Speaker 1: devastating part of Iraq. But you know, any idea that
Speaker 1: we have moral authority on Russia invading Ukraine was really
Speaker 1: destroyed by that moment. And Bush and Cheney obviously the
Speaker 1: number one culprits and all of their architects and enablers, etc.
Speaker 1: But it was truly a bipartisan effort. I mean, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden was really central. John Carey, he's such a mess.
Speaker 4: I don't even know.
Speaker 1: How he could really say, like, I opposed it, and
Speaker 1: I thought it was wrong at the time, he voted
Speaker 1: for the authorization, and he was still I looked it up,
Speaker 1: he was still defending it even when he was running
Speaker 1: for president, So like, it's such an attempt to rewrite
Speaker 1: history that like, oh, you had it right all the
Speaker 1: way along. And then he also offers, in the same
Speaker 1: breath the cope that you hear from Hillary Clinton and
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and other Democrats in particular, but across the
Speaker 1: board who voted to justify what ended up being totally unjustifiable,
Speaker 1: which is that like, well, we couldn't have known, we
Speaker 1: couldn't have known it was a lie at the time.
Speaker 1: Oh really, because there were people who were out there,
Speaker 1: who were raising a hell of a lot of red flags.
Speaker 1: At the time, there were a few very lonely journalists
Speaker 1: who had the story one hundred percent correct, that this
Speaker 1: was all the weapons, mass destructions and stuff was complete bullshit,
Speaker 1: and if anyone had had any curiosity at the time,
Speaker 1: you know, there were also plenty of young people like
Speaker 1: myself in college who thought this is bullshit and this
Speaker 1: is not a remote justification for you know, this up
Speaker 1: ending of the entire world, in this massive war that
Speaker 1: you were getting us into, which you know, more than
Speaker 1: twenty years later, we're still still dealing with the aftermath
Speaker 1: of So it's kind of astonishing to me, honestly, Sager
Speaker 1: that I mean, number one, just the dishonesty of Kerry.
Speaker 4: But why do you feel the need to defend Bush
Speaker 4: at this point.
Speaker 2: Well, because it's about you know, it's it's not about Bush.
Speaker 2: It reflects on him, about him. Yeah, that's what dude. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean I think that that's the ultimate problem. I mean,
Speaker 2: like you referent, like I was eleven years old whenever
Speaker 2: the US invaded Iraq, and even I remember the day.
Speaker 3: I remember exactly where I was sitting. I remember the newspaper.
Speaker 2: I remember the teacher social studies teacher, and I was,
Speaker 2: you know, shitster even at that time. And I said,
Speaker 2: wasn't this about bin Laden And she was like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, according to the president, so doam was supporting
Speaker 2: bin Lott. And I was like, well, what about weapons
Speaker 2: of mass destruction? I was like, what does that have
Speaker 2: to do with anything? And everybody's just giving me a
Speaker 2: very nasty look. I'm from a hometown where if George H. W.
Speaker 2: Bush has his library, so the Bush family they are
Speaker 2: like gods, or they were at that time where I was.
Speaker 3: And yeah, it didn't take a genius to figure it out.
Speaker 6: Yeah, you know it was.
Speaker 3: You don't have to be as smart.
Speaker 2: You don't have to be smart to think, oh, this
Speaker 2: whole smoking gun is mushroom cloud based on yellow cake
Speaker 2: and fake intel around al Qaeda, like this, this doesn't
Speaker 2: add up.
Speaker 3: It seems fishy.
Speaker 2: And you know, a lot of people had questions secretly
Speaker 2: at the time, they just didn't voice them.
Speaker 4: Well, also a lot of people have said, you know what,
Speaker 4: even if.
Speaker 3: It's even if it's true, not worth not worth it.
Speaker 1: You know, I also think it's worth reflecting this for
Speaker 1: a minute on the decision was made after Bush is
Speaker 1: you know, out of office and Democrats are in charge,
Speaker 1: and there was an opportunity of like, maybe we should
Speaker 1: investigate what happened here, maybe there should be charges against
Speaker 1: the you know, most pre eminent work criminals who brought
Speaker 1: us to this catastrophe, and Bush in particular, And the
Speaker 1: decision was made that for the good of the country
Speaker 1: and the healing and bringing together of the country, that
Speaker 1: there should be no elite accountability for those things. And
Speaker 1: it was the easier path at the time. It definitely
Speaker 1: you know, probably smoothed the transition into democratic power, etc.
Speaker 1: But I think it left a real lasting damage on
Speaker 1: the body politic because it just showed that even the
Speaker 1: most brazen of lies and criminality, if you had the
Speaker 1: right amount of power and you had the right friends
Speaker 1: or enough powerful people were sort of complicit with you,
Speaker 1: which was the real problem for them, You're going to
Speaker 1: get away with it. And so even as we you know,
Speaker 1: look at like the Trump indictments now and the charges
Speaker 1: that he's facing for actual real criminality that I think
Speaker 1: he more than deserves, we may have been in a
Speaker 1: better position to convince more than half the country that
Speaker 1: holding elites accountable for their crimes. Is the thing to
Speaker 1: do if we had you gone after the Bush Erab people,
Speaker 1: gone after other American presidents who arguably created committed worse crime,
Speaker 1: certainly than you know, holding onto classified documentary.
Speaker 7: I that's very well sided, Crystal, Fox and Friends is
Speaker 7: reacting to some of what continues to come out, including
Speaker 7: that tape CNN got of Donald Trump and the classified
Speaker 7: documents who was allegedly waiving around that factors into some
Speaker 7: of the prosecution on those charges of Special Council prosecution
Speaker 7: on those charges. Let's actually, Crystal, I can't even describe it.
Speaker 7: You can never capture these things with words.
Speaker 6: Let's just play the clip.
Speaker 8: You know, regarding the leaking of this particular tape, when
Speaker 8: you look at what Gillian just said where she said
Speaker 8: Trump posted on true Social the deranged Special prosecutor Jack Smith,
Speaker 8: working in conjunction with the DOJ and FBI, illegally leaked
Speaker 8: and spun a tape and transcript of me, which is
Speaker 8: actually an exoneration. So you know what, if Trump thinks
Speaker 8: it's an exoneration of him, perhaps somebody on his side
Speaker 8: actually did the leaking. To CNN and Maggie.
Speaker 4: Haberman that's amazing, Cokee.
Speaker 1: This is actually it's an exoneration, so actually it was
Speaker 1: probably good for Trump there Pal linked it.
Speaker 7: The metals part of that is actually quite interesting though,
Speaker 7: where he's saying this is Steve Doocey is saying, he's
Speaker 7: admitting he's got classified documents and quote, clearly Mark Meadows
Speaker 7: has oh this is from Brian kill Meat. He says,
Speaker 7: clearly Mark Medos has flipped, he has disappeared as chief
Speaker 7: of staff. He knows everything, and he seems to be
Speaker 7: in control of these tapes. He would think, or his
Speaker 7: biographer does in a book that nobody read, Kill Me
Speaker 7: to Ads.
Speaker 6: And that's what's interesting.
Speaker 7: To me from their theory is that Mark Meadow's biographer
Speaker 7: is allegedly the person who is you know, we've heard
Speaker 7: from the indictment that the other person on the tape
Speaker 7: is a writer, and nobody's really been able to figure
Speaker 7: out who that writer is. You know, he's a journalist.
Speaker 7: I heard someone throwing around like different names. I won't
Speaker 7: even name them because it's not substantiated, but journalists. And
Speaker 7: in fact, it actually could just be that this was
Speaker 7: a Meadows ghostwriter, and that's actually been reported out that
Speaker 7: this was apparently somebody who was helping a Mark Meadows memoir.
Speaker 7: So then it raises this question of has Mark Meadows
Speaker 7: flipped in all of these because apparently Trump is also
Speaker 7: being investigated for well we know that he is for
Speaker 7: January sixth stuff, but the Special Council is apparently looking
Speaker 7: into January sixth stuff too. Mark Meadows is obviously a
Speaker 7: huge part of all of that, is chief of staff
Speaker 7: at the time. We've seen some of the text messages,
Speaker 7: and so for this to then make it not just
Speaker 7: to see an end but into the Special Council, into
Speaker 7: their indictment.
Speaker 6: That's kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if I was a medowside flip, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, for real, he's I'm sure in legal jeopardy,
Speaker 1: you know, and no guarantees that Trump would win and
Speaker 1: be in a position to pardon him, no guarantees that
Speaker 1: he would pardon him if he did get, you know,
Speaker 1: back into the White House, so you know, if he
Speaker 1: was offered a deal to cooberate. First of all, I mean,
Speaker 1: it is a big problem for Trump because we've been
Speaker 1: right understandably talking about the classified document stuff recently because
Speaker 1: that's what the latest charges came down. But they're moving
Speaker 1: forward with you know, investigations into January sixth and fake
Speaker 1: electors and whatever. Mark Badows was there for all of
Speaker 1: this stuff, so he no doubt knows the you know,
Speaker 1: inner mindset and potentially has some you know, other information
Speaker 1: that he could provide her other recordings or whatever. So
Speaker 1: the theory is basically that it was Mark Badow's ghostwriter
Speaker 1: that was the one and the other person in the room.
Speaker 6: That's the writer that's in the room.
Speaker 4: Because you hear a Trump.
Speaker 1: Aid who is embarrassingly sickophantic. You hear Trump being classic
Speaker 1: quintessential Trump doctor amount Anthony Wiener and like asking for
Speaker 1: the diet coke?
Speaker 7: Can we get some cokes in here? I mean it
Speaker 7: said before. I've heard it too. Crystal will sometimes just.
Speaker 4: Be like just demand it on.
Speaker 6: Yeah, like we need some cokes in here.
Speaker 4: When you need a diet coke, you need a die
Speaker 4: of coke.
Speaker 7: There's there's a button under the.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that would be if I know truly did
Speaker 1: flip that. I have to think is an issue for Trump,
Speaker 1: but he has struggled to explain away this tape.
Speaker 4: He's claiming.
Speaker 1: Trump is claiming that the papers you hear.
Speaker 4: Rustling like it was just bravado. He didn't really have
Speaker 4: these classified documents. Didn't he say they were like building
Speaker 4: plans or something like that.
Speaker 6: That's what I was just going to pivot to.
Speaker 7: Here is Donald Trump himself, speaking of copes, gives an
Speaker 7: interview on his plane to Semaphore and ABC News I
Speaker 7: believe on I believe this was on Tuesday night. He says, quote,
Speaker 7: I would say it was bravado, if you want to
Speaker 7: know the truth, it was bravado. I was just talking
Speaker 7: and just holding up papers and talking about them. But
Speaker 7: I had no documents. I didn't have any documents, he said.
Speaker 7: I just held up a whole pile of my desk
Speaker 7: is loaded up with papers. I have papers from twenty
Speaker 7: five different things. And yeah, this is yeah, he's selling.
Speaker 1: A locker room talk defense, right, isn't it sophisticated locker room.
Speaker 4: It's the same though. It's like, yeah, it was just
Speaker 4: you know, it's just bullshit.
Speaker 7: Well, so he had told Fox On this was all
Speaker 7: so Tuesday quote that he had plans building plans, did
Speaker 7: I And then he goes to seem Before and ABC
Speaker 7: News and says, did I use the word plans? What
Speaker 7: I'm referring to his magazines, newspapers, plans of buildings, plans
Speaker 7: of buildings, you know, building plans.
Speaker 6: I had plans of a golf course. So it's just
Speaker 6: a what to make of it? Who knows?
Speaker 1: At this point, Yeah, right, it's I mean, if this
Speaker 1: was the only piece of evidence that they had against
Speaker 1: some of the classified documents, then you might be like,
Speaker 1: maybe you can try to create some reasonable doubt and
Speaker 1: maybe he's got a shot at But given that they
Speaker 1: appear to have a lot more than that, including you know,
Speaker 1: surveillance tapes of movement boxes around and getting his lawyers
Speaker 1: to lie and all this sort of stuff, or at
Speaker 1: least lying to his lawyers and then getting them to
Speaker 1: repeat the lie, you know, just wiggling out of this
Speaker 1: one potentially, I think it's not going to be enough.
Speaker 1: But this one is also pretty damning. I mean, you
Speaker 1: got the papers rustling in the background. You have him
Speaker 1: actually saying, yeah, these I could have declassified these documents
Speaker 1: when I was president, but I didn't, and they are
Speaker 1: still secret and confidential because I did not declassify them.
Speaker 1: Like right, that's devastating for the defense they were planning
Speaker 1: to mout.
Speaker 4: But at this point I mean.
Speaker 1: I think all he really cares about is like the
Speaker 1: political defense because in terms of a case, you never know,
Speaker 1: maybe you get a juror who's just like super pro
Speaker 1: Trump and they're not going to convict him no matter what.
Speaker 1: But if you take him out of it, the details
Speaker 1: of the case a pretty.
Speaker 4: Open and shit, right.
Speaker 7: And I think that's why there's so much focus on
Speaker 7: this audio. Like, first of all, media is always going
Speaker 7: to gravitate towards something when there's audio of it actually happening,
Speaker 7: like that's fun.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 7: But secondly it's because he says the thing about these
Speaker 7: documents not being declassified, right, I could have declassified them.
Speaker 7: And what people are trying to ascertain now is the severity, like,
Speaker 7: because there's such an overclassification problem, is what he's waving
Speaker 7: around with this writer about I mean about.
Speaker 6: Iran and what he's talking about with Mark Millie.
Speaker 7: Is it about golf courses or is it what we've
Speaker 7: heard from the Special Council was in those stacks of
Speaker 7: papers that were being shuffled around mar al Lago and
Speaker 7: actually pertaining to.
Speaker 6: A nuclear secrets.
Speaker 7: That's a pretty legitimate question because it gets to how
Speaker 7: Donald Trump was actually using the classified information he had
Speaker 7: at mar A Lago, a den of spies, an obvious
Speaker 7: den of spy activity. Yes, so there's a pretty legitimate question.
Speaker 7: And people have floated these theories that he was using
Speaker 7: it to give to foreign leaders and he was selling
Speaker 7: it for Trump organization business ideas, or is he just
Speaker 7: keeping it as trophies or is it a little bit
Speaker 7: of both I don't know, or is he keeping it
Speaker 7: Like the most legitimate defense he has is that he's
Speaker 7: keeping it for his own records, because the intelligence community
Speaker 7: has tried to screw him over so many times. He
Speaker 7: wants to know what everything said, what was said, and
Speaker 7: what they may be using against him.
Speaker 6: Now, see, if I were Donald Trump.
Speaker 7: That is the most legitimate argument that I would have,
Speaker 7: and I would focus on it.
Speaker 6: I don't think that's the case.
Speaker 4: Well, here's the thing.
Speaker 1: The remember, early on when there was a discussion about
Speaker 1: these classified documents, there was a theory that all the
Speaker 1: classified documents had to do with Russia Gate, and so
Speaker 1: he was keeping them because a proof of whatever deep
Speaker 1: state plot, et cetera, et cetera. But now that we
Speaker 1: know what was in the documents, I mean that the documents,
Speaker 1: some of them may have had to do with Russia, Gabe,
Speaker 1: but there was a lot else that was in there,
Speaker 1: including you know, very highly sensitive information that isn't the
Speaker 1: type of stuff that's just like, oh it's overclassified that
Speaker 1: if anything should be a government secret, the stuff about
Speaker 1: our nuclear weapons program should probably be a government secret.
Speaker 1: Like that's a pretty legit one that I think everyone
Speaker 1: would pretty.
Speaker 4: Much agree on.
Speaker 1: So I give less credence to that argument about Trump's mentality.
Speaker 1: There's no evidence that he was actively like selling this information.
Speaker 1: Not that I put it past him, but just you know,
Speaker 1: you gotta like get there was nothing offered in this
Speaker 1: indictment that would lend credence to that view. But in
Speaker 1: some cases, the risk that you have all this so
Speaker 1: easily accessible in a wildly insecure place where you have
Speaker 1: all these people, some of them already documented as being
Speaker 1: FOREGN spies coming and going, I mean, it could be
Speaker 1: just as damaging and ultimately to national security.
Speaker 4: So uh yeah, not a good, not a good set of effact.
Speaker 7: I was gonna say, Yeah, it's not good either way.
Speaker 7: There's there's no uh, there's no real cope here that's good.
Speaker 4: It's not going to work out for it just.
Speaker 7: Yeah, this particular case, it's just it's too hard for
Speaker 7: him to wriggle out of Yeah on that point. Wow,
Speaker 7: the question of whether metals flipped is interesting, but we'll
Speaker 7: keep an eye on that for sure.
Speaker 9: Imagine a future where every transaction you make, every set
Speaker 9: you spend, is monitored, trapped, and controlled by a single entity.
Speaker 9: There will be no fear mongering in this segment. But
Speaker 9: this dystopian reality could be a lot closer than you
Speaker 9: think with the introduction of bed now, a new digital
Speaker 9: payment system that could give the federal government a direct
Speaker 9: line into your financial transactions, which could fundamentally impact all
Speaker 9: of our privacy and freedom. So what exactly is fed
Speaker 9: now while launching July first, twenty twenty three, pretty much
Speaker 9: as we speak. Fed Now is a new instant payment
Speaker 9: system run by the Federal Reserve. It's designed to enable banks,
Speaker 9: credit unions, and other financial institutions to deliver end to
Speaker 9: end payment services to their customers twenty four to seven,
Speaker 9: three hundred and sixty five days a year. They say
Speaker 9: the service will roll out in stages. The initial launch
Speaker 9: will include core clearing and settlement functionality, requests for payment capability,
Speaker 9: and tools to support reconciliation, basically the processes that take
Speaker 9: place behind the scenes that you probably don't even think
Speaker 9: about at all, with making sure that the money that
Speaker 9: is zipping around the country is being accounted for properly
Speaker 9: and no fraud is happening. Future phases will introduce additional
Speaker 9: capabilities that are more consumer facing, such as instantaneous peer
Speaker 9: to peer account transfers and online bill pay. All good stuff, right,
Speaker 9: a much needed advancement in technology. Some are saying.
Speaker 5: Today, when you, for instance, to posit a check, it
Speaker 5: takes three to ten days for the check to clear
Speaker 5: the other bank, and that system is operating like the
Speaker 5: nineteen thirties right now, and they're trying to move it
Speaker 5: into the digital world. In a digital world that should
Speaker 5: take three to ten seconds. Overall, this is good. Overall,
Speaker 5: this is good.
Speaker 9: So you might be thinking, instant payments, don't we already
Speaker 9: have something like that? The answer is yes, we do.
Speaker 9: Back in November of twenty seventeen, the Clearinghouse introduced the
Speaker 9: first real time payment service in the United States, called
Speaker 9: the RTP network, and since it's launched, the network has
Speaker 9: steadily grown. In Q three of twenty twenty two, forty
Speaker 9: five million transactions for a total of close to twenty
Speaker 9: billion dollars were processed through the RTP network. If you
Speaker 9: are a free market proponent, the introduction of FED noow
Speaker 9: to compete with RTP could be seen as a good thing,
Speaker 9: spurring innovation and price competition. That being said, while the
Speaker 9: clearinghouse is RTP and FED now are very similar in
Speaker 9: its capabilities and fee structure, there is one major difference
Speaker 9: governance clearing houses. RTP is operated by a consortium of
Speaker 9: banks and fednow is essentially controlled by one bank, the
Speaker 9: Federal Reserve Bank. This has raised some eyebrows among folks
Speaker 9: who are distrustful of centralized financial planning, one of them
Speaker 9: being Professor Richard Werner and economists well known for his
Speaker 9: research on monetary policy, banking systems, and economic development.
Speaker 10: You know, the central bankers want to compete against banks,
Speaker 10: so we can't really trust them anymore to really take
Speaker 10: the benevolent you know, policies that are good for society
Speaker 10: and create stability. And maybe there's a different agenda.
Speaker 9: Interesting what agenda might that be? Because on one hand, real
Speaker 9: time transactions can be a boon for fraud prevention. Like
Speaker 9: I previously mentioned, if something suspicious does occur, it can
Speaker 9: be identified and dealt with immediately. But on the flip side,
Speaker 9: this real time logging of transactions means that a detailed
Speaker 9: record of your financial activity is being created and stored.
Speaker 9: Every purchase, every bill paid, every penny sent to a
Speaker 9: friend for that pizza last night. It's all logged in
Speaker 9: real time by a government backed entity. To reiterate, fed
Speaker 9: now is run by the Federal Reserve Bank, which in
Speaker 9: theory operates independently from the federal government, but it does
Speaker 9: maintain a close relationship with them, so it's not inconceivable
Speaker 9: that transaction data could be shared under certain circumstances. The
Speaker 9: question then becomes under which circumstances might this data be shared?
Speaker 9: For criminal investigations, for tax purposes, economic analysis. These are
Speaker 9: all questions that we don't yet have answers to the
Speaker 9: past few years, the Chinese government has trialed similar technologies
Speaker 9: in an attempt to expand its surveillance.
Speaker 11: State cosmetics, groceries, a new phone, a year's worth of
Speaker 11: launching deterchents. Citizens of the Chinese city of Sucho entered
Speaker 11: an official lottery to win up to two one hundred
Speaker 11: yen or roughly thirty dollars from the government in order
Speaker 11: to spend it in any way they like. But the
Speaker 11: money that the people won was not physical cash, it
Speaker 11: was digital un China's actually already pretty advanced in this regard,
Speaker 11: and that many people hardly use cash at all in
Speaker 11: their daily lives. They mostly pay for things through alley Pay,
Speaker 11: which is owned by ant Group, or under beechat Pay,
Speaker 11: which is owned by ten Cent. Our understanding is that
Speaker 11: what the People's Bank of China wants to do is
Speaker 11: quite similar, except that it wouldn't happen necessarily through alley
Speaker 11: Pay or through WeChat Pay. It would happen through a
Speaker 11: separate app that the PBOC has created that would allow
Speaker 11: people to pay that way on a micro scale. And
Speaker 11: this is something that many in the West would probably
Speaker 11: not be comfortable with and many in China frankly would
Speaker 11: not be comfortable with.
Speaker 9: Is that it would allow.
Speaker 11: Authorities to be able to track precisely how you or
Speaker 11: my neighbor, or the personnel the street they're spending the money,
Speaker 11: or they're spending their money on buying things they shouldn't
Speaker 11: be buying, whatever however you define that are they are
Speaker 11: they gambling with their money? Are they doing this or
Speaker 11: that with their money?
Speaker 9: Sound is still be in well, well, this can become
Speaker 9: a reality with a centrally run system like fednow. For
Speaker 9: the record, FED officials and banking experts say the new
Speaker 9: fed now service does not give the agency additional surveillance
Speaker 9: and enforcement authorities. Quote. While there are many sound concerns
Speaker 9: around fednow being a necessary expansion of the Federal Reserve footprint,
Speaker 9: I do not share that same concern that fednow will
Speaker 9: expand surveillance. I don't know would you expect them to
Speaker 9: say anything different? Let me know what you think. But
Speaker 9: a closer look at fednow's published privacy policy reveals that
Speaker 9: the terms that have been laid out are very vague,
Speaker 9: perhaps by design, similar to private networks. Fednow is quote
Speaker 9: authorized to collect and use your personal information for a
Speaker 9: variety of purposes, one of them being to comply with
Speaker 9: legal requirements. But if the FED is buddy buddy with
Speaker 9: the folks who make the law, you can see why
Speaker 9: some people are getting concerned.
Speaker 12: So the Central Bank, which is the bank regulator, used
Speaker 12: to be an an umpire, is suddenly stepping into the arena,
Speaker 12: into the game, is participating, is competing against the banks.
Speaker 10: That's an extraordinary development.
Speaker 9: You see, as with many cases relating to centralized expansion
Speaker 9: of power, they claim to not have such an authority
Speaker 9: until all of a sudden they do. Another important point. Typically,
Speaker 9: when it comes to private digital payment systems, you have
Speaker 9: the power to choose which platform you want to use
Speaker 9: or not use any of them at all. But with
Speaker 9: FED now, the choice isn't entirely in your hands in
Speaker 9: the first phase. It's up to the banking institutions whether
Speaker 9: or not they decide to implement FED now. If your
Speaker 9: bank decides to use FED now, your transactions will be
Speaker 9: processed through this system, whether you're comfortable with it or not.
Speaker 9: So yes, While the FED continues to assure and reassure
Speaker 9: us that there is quote unquote nothing nefarious about VED now,
Speaker 9: it would also behoove us to pay attention to what
Speaker 9: else they've been cooking in the oven. Could FED now
Speaker 9: be just a precursor to something even bigger? As presidential
Speaker 9: candidate Robert Kennedy Junior astutely observed, could FED now be
Speaker 9: just a stepping stone, a first step towards the implementation
Speaker 9: of a US central bank digital currency? What is a
Speaker 9: central bank digital currency? And how would an introduction of
Speaker 9: such a digital currency impact our financial privacy and our
Speaker 9: ability to control our own money. Well you can find
Speaker 9: out in part two of this deep dive into fed
Speaker 9: now hosted on my channel fifty one to forty nine
Speaker 9: with James lee Or. We're going to tackle these questions
Speaker 9: head on, so join me by clicking on the link below.
Speaker 9: But before you do so, don't forget like this video
Speaker 9: so more people see it and also subscribe to Breaking
Speaker 9: Points if you haven't done so yet. Thank you for
Speaker 9: your time today and I hope to see you in
Speaker 9: the next video.