Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 10/2/23: Gaetz Promises End To McCarthy Speakership, UK Sending Troops To Ukraine, RFK Jr. To Run As Independent, 2nd Debate Ratings Bomb, Jamaal Bowman Fire Alarm Scandal, New Orleans Poison Pipes, What's "Real" Ukraine Victory

Episode Date: October 2, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss Gavin Newsom replacing the Dianne Feinstein Senate seat with a corporate Kamala stooge, Matt Gaetz promises to end the McCarthy speakership, Establishment freaks over fitting Ukraine aid into new bill, UK plans to send British troops to Ukraine, an Anti-Ukraine populist wins in NATO country, RFK Jr. to announce an independent run for president, the 2nd Republican debate bombs in the ratings, Is Jamaal Bowman a liar on the "Fire Alarm" Scandal?, Krystal looks into the New Orleans nightmare water crisis that could poison the city's pipes, and Saagar looks into the history of the Winter War and what real victory looks like for Ukraine.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers, but we also have to learn

to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you got to pray for the providers, but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else, but never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad. That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. What up, y'all? This your main man, Memphis Bleak, right here. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. Whatever I went through while I was down in prison for two years, through that process, learn, learn from it.

Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. Hey, guys. Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody.

Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed we do. A whole lot going on here in this town this week. So we've got the fallout from the shutdown deal that came together over the weekend. Kevin McCarthy's job is on the line. Matt Gaetz's job on the line. Big old GOP civil war. So I'll break that down for you. We also have some updates with regard to Ukraine. An anti-Ukraine politician elected in a NATO country. What does that mean for the future of that war moving forward. RFK Jr. announcing that he's going to make a big announcement, and it looks

like that big announcement is going to be that he is exiting the Democratic primary and running as an independent. What will the fallout from that be? That will be an interesting one as well. And we've got numbers from the last debate, the last Republican debate. They're historic, but perhaps not in a good Fox business. One of them to be historically low ratings. Also, Jamal Bowman caught on camera pulling a fire alarm for certain reasons. We'll get into all of that. But before we get to any of that, I want to thank all of you guys for the support that you've been showing to us, premium subscribers, and we have a big announcement. Sagar, do the big reveal.

We're going to make, officially make the announcement. Our next focus group is going to be in the city of Atlanta with Democratic voters. We're going to ask them about Biden. We're going to ask them about primary challengers, about his age. We're going to have a multiracial demographic, people who have voted before, not all kinds of stuff that's very representative of that critical battleground state for the president. And I think it's going to be really interesting, Crystal, to see. We keep seeing poll after poll. Everyone says he thinks he's too old. He thinks he's too old. But I want to hear it from them in their own words, what they think about the president. And these are people, again, who are Democratic voters and how they think about the

primary process and also about how somebody is going to face Trump. Yes. And Georgia's state that obviously the Democratic Party is really elevated, very focused on. Joe Biden won it last time around. So that's really important. How are they feeling about the promises he made versus how he has been in office? How do they feel like their lives are going under the Biden administration? And, you know, I don't think it'll be any surprise if you have a number of people who want to go in a different direction. But do they have any names in mind? Because that's the thing. You see a lot of polling that's like, OK, people want other alternatives to Joe Biden.

But when they're pushed on who do you actually want, they struggle to come up with answers. So that's right. There's no substitute from just hearing from voters in their own words. So really, really excited about that. And again, thank you so much to premium subscribers for making all of that. Yes, you guys are making it possible. So if you can sign up at breakingpoints.com, we're actually going to elevate the production level. So it's going to cost even more money than last time around. But that's what we do here. It got a lot of attention last time around, not only for us, for the show, but really, I think it helped inform a lot of you about how people think. So once again, you can become a premium subscriber. You can go ahead and support that. BPbreakingpoints.com, not BP. And we're really

excited to bring all of it to you. It's next week, literally. So you'll be seeing it very soon. Yep, absolutely. Okay, so we also have big breaking news this morning before we get into the Republican chaos, civil war situation. Gavin Newsom, California governor has made his announcement about who he is appointing to that seat that was made open by Dianne Feinstein's death. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. He announced on Twitter, I am proud to announce California's new United States Senator LaFonza Butler. As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedom she fought for, reproductive freedom, equal protection, safety from gun violence, have never been under greater assault.

LaFonza has spent her entire career fighting for women and girls and has been a fierce advocate for working people. She will make history becoming the first black lesbian to openly serve in the United States Senate. From her time as president of EMILY's List to leading the state's largest labor union, she has always stood up for what is right and has led with her heart and her values. I have no doubt she will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings and fight for all Californians in Washington. OK, so I'm going to tell you a little bit more about LaFonce Butler that has left down of that in just a moment, but just to remind you of the backstory here. So there was already an ongoing Democratic primary to fill Dianne Feinstein's seat because she was planning on retiring at the end of

that term. There are three major Democratic contenders there, Adam Schiff, who is the choice of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic establishment, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee. Barbara Lee being, you know, a solid progressive. Katie Porter also being a progressive, but Barbara Lee being a sort of historic black woman. Gavin Newsom had previously indicated that if the seat became available, he would appoint a black woman. So Barbara Lee has the backing. This is actually very unusual, the backing of the Congressional Black Caucus and the backing of all the progressives. Very unusual. You see those two groups united. But instead of going in that direction, which is not what Nancy Pelosi wants and not what the donors want, he instead picks LaFonza Butler. So he is correct. She was the head of a labor union,

SEIU, one of the large locals in California. Put this up on the screen. A few things that are left out. After she left that position as head of that labor union, she basically sold out to a bunch of big California corporate interests. She became a lobbyist for Airbnb and was advising Uber on their fight to basically screw over their drivers. So that's the side that she picked in those battles. She was a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2016. She is a close Kamala Harris advisor, advised her on her 2020 campaign. So very solidly in the establishment camp. And there is one other complicating factor here, which is

she doesn't actually live in California at the moment. Really? She as head of EMILY's List, which is a sort of like very establishment friendly pro woman Democratic Party organization here in D.C. She moved to the D.C. area. Put this up on the screen. Newsom had to respond to this because a lot of people were like, hey, maybe you should pick someone who lives in California. She lives in Maryland right now. Newsom says she moved to D.C. area for EMILY's List, but is a longtime California resident and homeowner, and she will re-register in California before being sworn in. So bottom line of all of this is this is a Newsom-Pelosi-Schiff play to screw over Barbaralee is basically the bottom line. Oh, 100%, except for Adam Schiff, who's livid, of course. He actually sent out an email this

morning saying, hey, just so you guys remember, I have $32 million cash on hand for a Democrat. He's still hoping to end up in this. Right. And they also adjusted the rules, Crystal, just yesterday. There was some talk of anybody who was appointed and would not be able to run for said seat in 2024. So they were wondering whether Barbara Lee would even want it. But Gavin Newsom adjusted the rules at the last minute. He's like, no, they'll be allowed to run for that 2024 seat. So look, I mean, it's very difficult whenever you're already the sitting senator to not win said primary, especially in a state like California, where it's like the top two and all that. Maybe Adam Schiff will be able to, but at the same time, he's going to face a tremendous amount of pressure from the Democratic establishment not to challenge a black woman,

a Kamala Harris ally. She does have something in common in terms of her Uber advisement. Don't forget that Kamala Harris's brother-in-law took in $12 million in 2020 from Uber. He was actually their top legal counsel. I do remember covering some of that. Isn't that lovely? So, you know, it's all about fulfilling the people who came before them. And that's certainly what it is. I mean, Newsom, you know, he kind of boxed himself to a corner because California was, or California Democratic Party people were livid. He didn't appoint a black woman to replace Kamala Harris. So this is, I guess, why he made that pledge, should Feinstein step down. Biggest loser out of this is definitely Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee. But Barbara Lee, I mean, really, I mean, I'm not going to say she had a quote, quote, lock,

but like she was one of the leading candidates. This woman's name was never even mentioned in some of the top five lists and all that. I think it's just a clear indication of Newsom sucking up to the National Democratic Party, Harris in particular, and all that, setting himself up for a potential national run in 2028. It's that and it's making the play for the donors. Yeah. And that's always because sometimes Gavin Newsom, you're looking at these moves he's making in California. You're like, this seems contradictory. Like, oh, you just signed this law that will give fast food workers $20 an hour. That's awesome.

Oh, you just vetoed this other law that would like protect teamsters jobs. And you vetoed this other law that would have given striking workers overtime pay. The bottom line for Gavin Newsom is what do the tech donors and what are the Hollywood donors want from him? And obviously, LaFontaine Butler was a friend to Uber, was a literal lobbyist for Airbnb. So she is very good to go with that critical donor class. He wants to run for president. He's going to need to raise a boatload of money. And so his top priority is to service their interests and i think lafonza butler you know it's it's also just like a classic democratic

party shameless identity play of course first black lesbian woman okay like okay but tell me about what she stands for on policy how many of these firsts are we gonna invent too what's that how many of these firsts are we gonna invent it's always like oh the first black woman the first black gay woman. It's like, I'm just like, look, I don't care, all right? I want to know what this lady's going to do. Right. What is she going to do for other black lesbian women?

You know, like, what are her policies? Who has she sold out? I mean, that is really kind of disgusting. Using your labor leader credentials to, like, sell out your own movement is, in my opinion, an extra level of grotesque. But anyway, congratulations, newly appointed Senator LaFonza Butler. Here's the one improvement. She can breathe and she thinks.

So, you know, it's like an improvement. She will probably know that she is a United States Senator, which is unlike Dianne Feinstein. General improvement for the state of California. So congratulations. You guys just got your constituent services back. All right, let's go on to the shutdown. And we're going to talk about,

man, this was a dizzying turn of events. I brought some of you guys the news of that yesterday. If you want to go and watch the deals, just in general about what exactly happened. The TLDR is basically that a clean CR was passed with zero Ukraine aid. That has now sparked a massive drama here in Washington because Kevin McCarthy had to rely on Democratic votes to get this continuing resolution. He had 90-something Republicans actually vote against that continuing resolution before it was went ahead and sent to the Senate. This has led now Congressman Matt Gaetz, who is a leader against Kevin McCarthy and against the continuing resolution, to officially call for a motion to vacate against him. It will come sometime this week. He elaborated it a bit over the weekend. Let's take a listen.

Speaker McCarthy made an agreement with House conservatives in January. And since then, he has been in brazen, repeated material breach of that agreement. This agreement that he made with Democrats to really blow past a lot of the spending guardrails we'd set up is a last straw. And then overnight, I learned that Kevin McCarthy had a secret deal with Democrats on Ukraine. So as he was baiting Republicans to vote for a continuing resolution without Ukraine money, saying that we were going to jam the Senate on Ukraine, he then turns around and makes a secret deal. Now, I know you and I probably have different views on US involvement in Ukraine. But however you think about that question, it should be subject to open review analysis and not some backroom deal. So motion to vacate tomorrow?

I do intend to file a motion to vacate against Speaker McCarthy this week. I think we need to rip off the Band-Aid. I think we need to move on with new leadership that can be trustworthy. So there it is. Says he will call for the motion to vacate. We're going to get to the Ukraine comment in a bit because that's not exactly the truth coming from Matt Gaetz. Kevin McCarthy then quickly responded. He was on CBS's Face the Nation.

Here's what he had to say. I want to start, though, on the news this morning from Congressman Matt Gaetz, who says he's going to seek a motion to vacate. He's going to try to oust you, Speaker of the House. That's nothing new. He's tried to do that from the moment I ran for office. Look. Well, this time he says he's going to keep going.

May not get there before the 15th ballot, but it took 15 for Kevin McCarthy. He says he's coming for you. Can you survive? Yes, I'll survive. You know, this is personal with Matt. Matt voted against the most conservative ability to protect our border, secure our border.

He's more interested in securing TV interviews than doing something. He wanted to push us into a shutdown, even threatening his own district with all the military people there who would not be paid only because he wants to take this motion. So be it, bring it on, let's get over with it and let's start governing. If he's upset because he tried to push us in a shutdown and I made sure government didn't shut down, then let's have that fight. Let's have that fight. So a fight in words there. Let's go ahead and put this up

there on the screen. Just a bit flashback in terms of the Republicans who voted against Kevin McCarthy last time around. There were about 21 different members, including, you can see them in front of you for those who are watching, Dan Bishop, Andy Biggs, Lohan Berber, Ken Buck, Tim Burchett, Burleson, really ranges, mostly Freedom Caucus members. Many of them actually did vote against the continuing resolution. However, not all of these people are on record saying that they would support any motion to vacate. So it's a big question right now, Crystal, as to whether this is even going to come to pass. And really, the question and all of that is, is that how much of this is personal for Gates? How much of this is actually on policy, at least for some of the

people who might join Gates? And then how much of this is just chaos is a ladder and trying to get to the top. And then, I mean, let's be honest, though, the vast majority of the House Republicans overwhelmingly not only support Kevin McCarthy, they are very angry at Gates for bringing us to the brink of a government shutdown. And McCarthy does have a point, which is if you do like social spending cuts and all that stuff, they had a bill on the floor, which they defeated, which had 30 percent cuts to the Social Security Administration food stamp program. It would have dramatically reduced discretionary spending, and it had no money for Ukraine. And they still voted against it. And what ended up passing was actually just, frankly, a 47-day extension of current government funding levels without any additional border

funding. And the only quote-unquote win they had was on Ukraine money to even get through. No, it's just like a clean resolution, which is what Democrats wanted from the beginning. And like you said, the one piece they didn't get is Ukraine aid, which they'll fight another day on, and we'll get to that in a moment. But just to rewind of how we got here, you remember there was that whole big fight over whether or not Kevin McCarthy was gonna be Speaker and Matt Gaetz was one of the leaders of that charge against McCarthy. They make some final backroom deal,

the details of which have never been made totally clear. But one of the pieces was that it would be very easy that it would only take one member to bring this quote unquote motion to vacate to the floor, which could remove Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. A couple problems. Number one, they've never had an alternative. I mean, this was the problem when they were initially trying to go up against Kevin McCarthy. They did not have an actual alternative like, this is our guy or this is our gal and this is who we're rallying behind. They put up someone

different practically for every vote. So that continues to be an issue. On the other side, you know, Republicans have a very narrow margin here, three vote margin. So are Democrats going to vote for Kevin McCarthy to keep him in the speakership? If you have, you know, you only need a few people to defect with Matt Gaetz to deny McCarthy the majority that he would need in order to remain Speaker of the House. So are Democrats going to fill that gap? And it could be the case that some do and some don't. You had AOC. She was asked, you know, about whether she would vote to save Kevin McCarthy.

And she was like, absolutely not. Why would I do that? Take a listen. Do you think that there will be any Democrats that might vote to save McCarthy? And she was like, absolutely not. Why would I do that? Take a listen. Do you think that there will be any Democrats that might vote to save McCarthy? I mean, I certainly don't think that we would expect to see that unless there's a real conversation between the Republican and Democratic caucuses and Republican and Democratic leadership about what that would mean. But I don't think we give up votes for free. And do you, but would you vote to vacate?

Would you vote to get rid of McCarthy as speaker? Would I cast that vote? Absolutely. Absolutely. I think Kevin McCarthy is a very weak speaker. He clearly has lost control of his caucus. He has brought the United States and millions of Americans to the brink, waiting until the final hour to keep the government open, and even then, only issuing a 45-day extension.

So we're going to be right back in this place in November. And I think that our main priority has to be the American people and what's going to keep our governance in a cohesive and strong place. But unless Kevin McCarthy asks for a vote, again, I don't think we give something away for free. So interesting there, Crystal, because she didn't say she would vote. Well, she's like, I would vote to vacate him. But, you know, we can also make a deal. You know, we'll see what sort of deal there is to be made. I don't know. I'm curious to see how it goes, especially because right now it's just Gates. He's the only one who said he would vote directly in order to oust him from speakership. Other people like Byron Donalds, Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor Greene is very much a Kevin McCarthy ally.

And look, if we actually think about it in terms of effectiveness, Gates, as I said, torpedoed a bill which allegedly did all the things that he wanted. Marjorie has been playing ball. She is single-handedly responsible for making sure that that Ukraine aid is not in the bill. She was the one who fought for it all the way from day one. And you don't have to listen to me. Matt Gaetz is the one who said that, not me. So my point is, is that there is a, you know, at least some like merit to Marjorie Taylor Greene's alliance right now with Kevin McCarthy, because she's actually getting like real policy concessions. She's, you know, on very powerful committees and very influential, obviously, right now in terms of the House. So we'll see if they have to eventually make a deal. I think he's only got a three-vote margin. Whenever it does come to the Republicans,

he's going to rely on George Santos to try and save him. Santos didn't play in ball, though, apparently. So interesting. Under federal indictment, by the way, ongoing. Of course, still every vote counts. I'm curious. There's also some different procedural things that they can do to stop the actual motion. For example, Gates, right after the House had passed the continuing resolution, I think he was trying to make a different motion. I think he was trying to do a motion to vacate right there, then on the floor. Oh, boy. And they refused to recognize him. And even though they made eye contact, whoever was chairing the House gaveled him out.

It's like a tradition that you can pretend not to notice and gavel an officially adjourned. So there's a lot of different things people forget that you can machinations behind the scenes to make sure that he doesn't get recognized. You can burn floor time. They're only, I think, in session for a couple of days this week. And then I know the Senate is going out. So there's still a lot left here in Washington to do. So a few other things to add to the mix. I mean, number one, when we're thinking about a motion to vacate, which he says is imminent and Democratic leaders are sending out memos to their caucus saying, hey, this could happen anytime. It could literally

happen today. So they're sort of on notice for how this might all go down. But it's not like he can't do this more than once. So even if the first time around doesn't get much traction or fails or whatever, he can just keep doing this over and over and over again. And Matt Gaetz can be kind of relentless on this stuff. So that's one thing to keep in mind. I think another thing to keep in mind is how will the grassroots of the Republican base react to all of this? Are they going to be more on Gaetz's side? Are they going to be more on McCarthy's side? I actually think it's kind of undetermined right now because they see the way that Gates' strategy and tactics with regards to this potential government shutdown completely backfired and absolutely failed and left McCarthy with

effectively no other option than to partner with Democrats and pass a clean CR. That was after Gates and co voted down this very conservative spending bill. Yes. I think that McCarthy was like, what am I supposed to do here? Like, I have no other option. So we're either going to do this two weeks from now after an ugly, painful government shutdown that we get blamed for. We're just going to go ahead and rip the Band-Aid off and do it now. And it seems like a lot of, you know, Republican influencers online or whatever, that's how they see it. And they are not happy with Gates. Another thing to throw into the mix

here is that there is talk of voting to expel Matt Gates altogether because he's under ethics investigation. And apparently that report is close to coming out. And so the, you know, the word is, and the reporting suggests that if that has some significant findings, then they may vote to expel him altogether. But that's complicated too, because on the other hand, you got, we've just mentioned George Santos. So you're going to vote to expel Matt Gaetz, but you're going to let George Santos, who's literally under federal indictment, has lied about like every aspect of his life to the American people and to voters, et cetera, to secure his place in office. You're going to let him go. How much sense does that make? And what do they, they have a three vote margin. So you can't be, you know,

tossing your members out or you're going to lose control of the house altogether. So a lot of different factors here at play. Yeah. Newt Gingrich actually said the effort to expel Matt Gates is destructive, irresponsible, and anti-Republican. However, expelling him from the Republican caucus and eliminating his committee assignments, that could be, that's something that he should be entitled to for, quote, his suicidal efforts to cripple the House GOP. So for even a guy like Newt to come out and say something like that, very interesting. Knives are out. Well, Newt is saying Matt Gaetz is like a Democratic plant. Yeah. Because he's like, no one has done more to destroy conservative priorities than Matt Gaetz. And like I said, I saw other, you know, Newt Gingrich is very sort of of the old school,

but I saw modern right wing influencers online saying very similar things. So Matt Gaetz with this whole play did not exactly win the hearts and minds of the Republican base, which gives him a much weaker hand going into this motion to vacate. That's right. All right, let's get to the Ukraine part as we tease. Just to give everybody an update, I know everyone's very interested. There's a lot, as we said, behind the scenes about what might be happening here in Washington. A lot of it is a guessing game. Matt Gaetz had intimated previously that there was some sort of secret deal made with the House Democrats. That is actually not the case. However, there is significant pressure from Democratic leaders and Speaker, Leader McConnell on McCarthy to bring some

Ukraine aid to the floor this week. So let's go and put this up there on the screen. This was done immediately after the vote. House Democratic leadership said, quote, when the House returns, we expect Speaker McCarthy to advance a bill to the House floor for an up or down vote that supports Ukraine, consistent with his commitment to making sure Vladimir Putin, yada, yada, yada. Let's move on to the next one that we're talking about here and says, moving forward, that there's still work to be done. When the House returns, we will advance that bill to the House floor for an up or down vote. However, when Speaker McCarthy and others were asked about this, they did not commit to bringing any sort of vote to the floor. There is still a big

question about whether that's even possible. For those who were following all of this fight, there was also some high stakes drama where Senator Michael Bennett placed a hold on the actual continuing resolution before the Senate floor and said that he would not vote for it unless leaders in the Senate came out in a bipartisan statement to demand a vote for Ukraine. This is what Senator Schumer said as a result of that hold. Let's take a listen. But this is a bridge CR and leader McConnell and I have agreed to continue fighting for more economic and security aid for Ukraine. We support Ukraine's efforts to defend its sovereignty against Putin's aggression. So thank you. Thank you to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their excellent work.

So as you can see, major pressure there from Democratic leaders, including Leader McConnell, so it's a lot of bipartisanship. But in the House of Representatives, it is no guarantee that this is going to come to pass. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. House Republicans in last week signaled major opposition to the Ukraine aid. So they got only a slim majority of the House Republicans in the caucus to actually vote for it. Ninety-three Republicans voted against Ukraine aid in the House. And Crystal, what was noteworthy to me is that these 93 Republicans increased dramatically up from 70 in July, but this was only over 300 million. This is not about 6 billion. This is not about 24 billion or 100 billion, which is what the administration wants. This was only 300 mil. I believe that if they put a 25 billion figure

or a 100 billion figure, I think we would get a majority of the House Republicans to vote against it, just on a dollar figure amount regardless. And I think that that is very significant in terms of the fight dynamics. There's a secondary element to Ukraine fight right now, something called transfer authority, where what they wanted to include in the bill was the ability for, if we can't have any more money, what we can do is we can legally unlock some funds that we have sitting around in the government and we can transfer it over to Ukraine. Just very run-of-the-mill stuff, of course, that you always do for the government. It's an amazing system that we have.

Anyway, the government can't even do that right now. So Ukraine actually right now has basically zero leeway from the U.S. government from a legal authority perspective. I expect to see the transfer authority and the aid, one of those two things is going to hit the floor. If I had to guess, I think the transfer authority will pass because there's no new money. It's just already existing money. It's an accounting gimmick. It's a trick. But of course, net effect, it actually doesn't matter. It is basically a vote for more money to Ukraine, but it's easier to justify. But in my opinion, it is not nearly as given as much as people are

thinking. Yes, I believe that it definitely will pass the Senate. Will the House actually be able to bring this to a vote? And this is where the speakership dynamics come into play. Well, if Kevin McCarthy is going to vote, work with Democrats to get Ukraine funding through, it would be a massive betrayal for a lot of MAGA Republicans, not just talking about Matt Gates. I'm talking about people like Donald Trump Jr., about Donald Trump himself, who have been lobbying against it. So the political dynamics for Ukraine right now are not good for a future aid, despite

whatever these Democrats are saying, or even Matt Gates is saying about some secret deal. I don't believe there is a secret deal at all, based on everything that I've been able to see. So the difference between the House and the Senate is really important to keep in mind here. In the Senate, with McConnell and Schumer, and you have more Republican sentiment in favor of Ukraine aid, I think it's pretty smooth sailing there. The House is where all the question marks lie. And it's very unclear as of

today exactly how many Republicans would be willing to support additional Ukraine aid. But as Sagar was just pointing out, the number who are opposed to it continues to go up and up and up. So this really all once again comes down to Kevin McCarthy and questions of how far he is willing to push things and how much danger it puts his speakership in. There's this, they call this the Hastert rule. It's sort of like tradition. The idea is that I don't know why we're copying Hastert with anything. But anyway, the idea is that if you're Speaker of the House, you don't bring things to the floor if you don't have a majority of your own caucus in support. Again, there's no like law or regulation or whatever. This is just like a tradition that speakers have tended to follow. And so there's a real question

mark right now over whether or not you have a majority of the Republican caucus in favor of Ukraine aid. Up till now, you did. But it seems very likely possible somewhere in that zone that at this point you actually don't, and especially depending on the dollar amount. So this again complicates things. And this is another lever that Matt Gaetz could use if McCarthy does try to push Ukraine aid through the House, where to be clear, there is a very clear overall majority when you add Democrats and Republicans together in the House. There's a very clear overall majority in favor of Ukraine aid. But does he bring it to the floor? Does he violate the quote unquote Hastert rule, which isn't really a rule, but whatever, they tend to follow this tradition. Is there a workaround via some, you know, legislative parliamentary maneuver like the discharge petition that, you know,

if you have a majority who sign on, it can be brought to the floor without going through the speaker. So they do have some things that they can do. And I think it is very likely that it will take some time, but Ukraine will get the aid that the Biden administration wants. But in the meantime, this is going to be quite a fight and quite revealing on the Republican side of who stands where. And like I said, Matt Gaetz is a little bit down and out right now because this all didn't go that well for him. But this could be a direction that is very fruitful for him where he definitely has a Republican base behind him and where he has significant part of the caucus on his side as well. Exactly. Remember, a vast majority of Republicans do not support any more aid to Ukraine. And even the majority of the country

now does not support any more aid to Ukraine. So all these lawmakers are very out of step with the public, but that's nothing new here. The real question, though, is politically, I do think it would be a disaster for McCarthy to actually force this as a fight. It would definitely play into the speaker dynamics. And then even if he did survive, let's say he made a deal where they voted to keep him, and the deal was that they had to bring a Ukraine vote to the floor. I mean, what does that look like, you know, to, again, to the vast majority of Republicans and his political viability in the future? So there's a lot of question marks that remain there.

Keeping on the Ukraine subject, there were some major developments across the Atlantic. We're going to start with the most important one from our allies over at the UK, making a very, very big announcement. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Originally reported in an interview with The Telegraph, they say that British troops could be sent to Ukraine as the country ramps up on, quote, on-the-ground training efforts. So this was made by the U.S. Secretary of State for Defense, or sorry, the U.K. Secretary of Defense, Grant Shapps, in an interview with The Telegraph. He said he aims to get his military, quote, closer and actually into the country. This is the first and would be the first major great power to actually send

troops directly on the ground inside of Ukraine. They allege it's for training. Okay. I've heard that one before in Syria. The point though, is that this would be a big demarcation point, I think, for NATO, especially for the second largest military in the alliance to actually send troops there on the ground. It also comes at a time of a new report from Germany, who really can't make up its mind with the Ukraine conflict. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Just so everyone's wondering, this is not Russian Pravda. This is from Ukrainian Pravda.

However, they do report it accurately. German official says that Ukraine has the right to launch missiles on Russian territory. This is the chair of the defense committee in the German Bundestag and is urging the German government to continue giving these long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine that she believes that Ukraine has the right to attack targets on the territory of the Russian Federation. All of this being met with some fury inside of Moscow and some frankly terrifying rhetoric, regardless of whether it hasn't come true in the past, you never know when it will. Let's put this up there from Dmitry Medvedev, of course,

the former president of Russia. He says, quote, that the number of idiots in power in NATO countries is growing. One nearly minted blah, blah, blah. I'm going to skip his propaganda. To turn the British military instructors into our armed forces' legal targets while being fully aware they will be ruthlessly eliminated, this time not as mercenaries but as British NATO specialists. He again name checks this Bundestag chairwoman, and he said she is clamoring to provide these with TARAS missiles to enable the Kiev regime to hit deep into Russian territory. This will be in accordance with international law. In the case, the strikes against the German plants which produce these missiles will also fully correspond

to international law. Quote, these halfwits are actively pushing us to World War III. Now listen, he said a lot of different things in the past and many of them haven't come true. He's been one of the chief nuclear saber rattlers. So I want to be very clear that a lot of his rhetoric has been empty in the past. However, it only has to not be empty once, and everything has gone off the cliff, Crystal. And so this is a real fight with the Atlantic. And what's really happening is that as U.S. support for Ukraine diminishes, the euros have to make a choice. They're like, okay, are we going to ramp up or are we going to just say let's go for diplomacy, let's try and move this in a different direction. I think this is probably the last ditch effort on the pass of the great Atlantic powers to try and at least ramp up the conflict or show that they're able to. But from a sheer dollar perspective, and even put dollars

aside, equipment, they have no chance of backfilling even 25% of what the United States has been able to provide Ukraine because we are the largest and greatest military power on Earth, even with all of our problems of capacity, of which we have highlighted here, which do harm us in terms of sending to Ukraine, even with all of that, it is still many orders of magnitude larger than what these militaries are. So I saw this as a pretty major development in the conflict, and especially because it's the nightmare scenario,

just like what we used to deal with in Syria, And I used to think about all the time. I'm like, we've got 2,000 guys on the ground in Syria. All it takes is one Russian plane to kill one of these guys, and we're in a whole other situation. You just, you don't know. And there were all these moments in Syria where our deconfliction line wasn't working with the Russians. We got very lucky that nobody was actually, or as far as we know, was not killed by a Russian strike or vice versa. But things got real close. Don't forget whenever Turkey shot down a Russian jet with a NATO aircraft firing on a Russian jet, I mean, things got very hairy there for a 24, 48-hour period before things were allowed to de-escalate. And you're only one bad move away from a very,

very significant event that something like this happens. Absolutely. Which is why the one line that the U.S. has consistently said, OK, no boots on the ground. Well, for what we know. Right. Right. Exactly. But that's been the one piece where they're like, all right, that's going to be a bridge too far. But now we've got British NATO folks on the ground in Ukraine. I mean, now even that line is getting pushed and really actively crossed with potentially really catastrophic consequences. I mean, this is a very, very dangerous escalation that clearly the Russians see it as such as well. And it's not just that. Schaaf's also said that British defense companies like BAE Systems, they're going to move manufacturing into the country, and they're floating the idea of the British Navy helping Ukraine in the Black Sea. Yeah, that would be madness.

So continuing to push further and further up the chain of escalation. And listen, I mean, Medvedev has been full of shit and this, you know, oh, they might push us into World War III. All right. Russia has total agency in this situation as well. So don't give me this nonsense. But there is no doubt about the fact that every step we go up this ladder becomes more and more dangerous. And now we're also, you know, Germany floating these long range missiles as well and actively being fine with them striking Russian soil. If we had jumped to this place early on in the conflict, I think that Americans and a lot of the global community would be like, whoa, this is way too far. But because they did it so slowly, step by step by step by step, there isn't nearly the coverage, nearly the freak out around these

sorts of actions that there should be. I know. And you know, this look, everybody, we took a lot of heat here, Crystal, in the early days, we're learning about this. And I didn't care when 90% of the public was like, I support this because I've seen this story so many times, you know, you only have to be, I'm 31 and I've seen multiple conflicts where this starts. First, we're in Afghanistan for what? Oh, we're going to get bin Laden. Then we're like, oh, well, we lost bin Laden. So now what? Well, now we got to defeat the Taliban. It's like, wait, why? For what reason? Well, so he can't come back. Okay. But then that turns into democracy promotion. And then that turns into, we got to defend the new democracy from the Taliban.

And the next thing you know, they're for 20 years and you're building wells and you're building girls' schools. And that's the entire mission that you're there for. And you're like, well, why were we there in the first place? The original thing that we said is like, no boots on the ground, no escalation. We're going to help Ukraine defend its sovereign territory. Then it was like, well, which sovereign territory? Preexisting, February 22nd borders, past borders. And then really what I believe the most irresponsible move that we made from day one is we mortgaged the whole conflict and gave it to Zelensky. And we said, no, no, no, you're in charge. When here's the truth, this man, he would be dead if it was not for the US and for NATO. And I don't say this with disrespect. It's just a matter, you go ask them, ask people in Kiev,

would you be alive right now and under Ukrainian sovereignty if it weren't for the United States and NATO? Obviously not. So if that's true, then you're not the one who's in the driver's seat. Sure, it's great. Yes, it's brave and it's valiant that you are the ones who are doing the fighting and the dying, but we are the ones who are doing all of the bankrolling. And I think we're all probably about to find out real soon how much they really are reliant on USAID if the rug gets pulled. We'll see very quickly their ability to actually have any semblance of command and control without us. And I think that that is probably somewhere near zero, which points again to our driver's seat, our choices. And I think that that is probably somewhere near zero, which points again to our driver's seat, our choices. And I think what you said was very smart about how if you keep it two

years on and drag it and, you know, timeline and headlines to where he's like considering it, it's like he's not considering it. He's going to do it. This is a trial. If they're floating it, it's happening. It probably is already happening. Exactly. It probably happened for the last year. They're just now acknowledging it. We don't know. Yes, that's so true. And I think this all comes in the context to, frankly, some desperation from the NATO alliance because they can read the writing on the wall of the way the politics are shifting here, most critically, but also, you know, throughout Europe. And we're about to, you know, cover a story that I think underscores that. I don't know what the sentiment is with the British public. They've always been verycores that. I don't know what the sentiment is with the British public.

They've always been very hawkish. I don't know if there's any slippage there as well. But there's clearly a sense of, OK, I'm not sure how long our populations are going to continue to support this direction. So I guess we got to pull on all the stops range missiles because we're getting a little desperate to make some progress here so that we can continue to prove to our populations that Ukraine has any sort of a shot in this war. That's well said. And, you know, look, data speaks for itself. Russia took more territory in August, which was the flagship month of the offensive than Ukraine did. OK, go look at a map. We can go over it again if you really want to. Let's go to the next part here. As you said, major election in Slovakia. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. The former

prime minister, how do we say it again, Crystal? Fico. Fico. All right, Slovakians, we're trying our best here. I'm assuming it's also not Robert. It's probably like Robert or something like that. But anyway, Robert Fico has won the Slovakian election with an anti-Ukraine stance. Critically, he is the former actual prime minister of the country. Now he has to set and try and form a coalition. But he absolutely blew out the pro-EU, pro-Ukraine party. He won 23% of the vote, actually surpassing what the last exit polls in Slovakia were. The liberal party, the pro-EU party was only able to gain 18%. But when you look at the coalitional results, it's very much on the side

of what he has been saying. Now, Mr. Fico is far more of an anti-Ukraine politician than anybody who currently exists in Europe. So just to give people a taste of some of the things that he has said and has asked for in the past, he says no NATO membership for Ukraine. Remember, Slovakia is a member of NATO. And remember also that NATO ascension requires the unanimous consent of every single member inside of the alliance. Also, he is in the European Union. The European Union right now is trying to put Ukraine on fast track for actual entrance into the bloc. This would easily allow him in order to join with Hungary and to block that with two members. This is also what he has said in the past, Crystal, is he's like, not only do I not want

to send aid to Ukraine, I don't want to even allow Slovakian territory to be allowed to transship aid to Ukraine. Of course, he's being blamed as a pro-Russian and all of that. But it's complicated because I was looking back at some exit polling from just a couple of months ago in Slovakia. Like half of the Slovakians are like, no, it's Ukraine's fault. They're full of Nazis. And you're like, wait, hold on, what? And it's like, well, this is a former country with deep ties to Russia. They consume a lot of Russian media. You know, it's like one of those where culturally it's actually really very split. It's like one of those where culturally, it's actually really very split. It's probably difficult for us in the West to really comprehend.

But the point is that the populist party, who is explicitly run on an anti-Ukraine stance, also focusing on the economic cost, and it harkens back to some of the protests, which we covered here on the show maybe more than a year ago now. At this point, the Slovakian public is very fed up. And don't forget this, there are elections happening right now in Poland. One of the reasons why Polish politicians changed their tune and started calling Zelensky out for basically calling him anti-Russian for protecting their own grain markets was because the right-wing party in Poland, which is against Ukraine aid, is surging in the polls there. And

the pro-EU, pro-Ukraine consensus is very much under attack. So remember, this is the Eastern Bloc countries. It's not necessarily the former Baltic states. And a big split in NATO will come if this man becomes the next prime minister. I mean, if he straight up is able to block unanimous decisions, I question whether Sweden and Finland would have even been allowed in the NATO alliance if this man had been the prime minister. So this could significantly change what a lot of the future looks like with respect to Ukraine. I think the one thing we can say really clearly here is that this is just a pretty clear warning sign. You know, there's a lot of question marks. As you mentioned, he is a two-time former prime minister. And when he was prime minister, even though his rhetoric was very blustery, he ended

up governing as more of a pragmatist than a firebrand, even though the rhetoric was very firebrandish. But, you know, from based on what I was reading, this guy, he's a very interesting character. He's become sort of more radical in the time that he spent outside of office. And by the way, the reason he got ousted from office was over a lot of questions about corruption. So he's now made his comeback. In terms of his politics, I mean, he started as a communist under the old Soviet regime. And then he has been on the left until he's made this sort of like transformation into a very Orban-like figure. So he's anti-immigrant. He is, you know, I guess I think it's I think it's accurate to say he's pro-Russia. But he also on economics is very

much in favor of like social safety net welfare type programs. So there's not really an American politician who kind of exactly fits the mold of what he does. The other thing that's really interesting to keep in mind here is that sort of like the way that our industrial Midwest has been decimated under neoliberalism, and you've seen this shift to the right over cultural issues and also over dissatisfaction with the direction of the Democratic Party in the industrial Midwest. You have a lot of people in places like Slovakia that did better under communism and have not done well under this new market-based neoliberal whatever. And so there's a lot of nostalgia in a certain sense for that era. And there's a lot of, like you said, cultural ties and affinity for the way things were. And so it's a complicated cultural portrait is all I'm trying

to say here. And he's a very different politician portrait is all I'm trying to say here. And he's a very, you know, a very different politician than exactly what we have a mold for here. I think internationally, Orban is probably the closest comparison. There's also real questions over whether or not he's going to be able to form a coalition. One of the parties that was a likely candidate to be in the coalition, this sort of like far-right, ultra-nationalist party. They failed to garner enough of the vote in order to get a single seat. So he can't rely on them as part of a coalition. That complicates his path to be able to form this government. So like I said, there's still a lot of question marks here in terms of whether he will actually be prime minister

and how he would govern if he is prime minister, if he will be as hardline as his rhetoric has been. But I think the one thing that is pretty clear is this is a warning sign. And this plays into the picture of why there are some desperate moves happening among other NATO allies. Yeah, absolutely. Well said, Crystal. All right. So let's turn to our own domestic politics here. Very interesting developments. RFK Jr., who as of now is running in the Democratic primary against Joe Biden, is teasing a big announcement. Let's take a listen to what he has to say. Hi, everybody. I'm going to be in Philadelphia on October 9th to make a major announcement at the very birthplace of our nation.

I'm not going to tell you right now exactly what that announcement will be. I can say, though, that if you've been waiting to come to one of my public events, this will be the one to come to. There I'll share with you our path to the White House and how we can all participate in healing our nation. So big announcement coming shortly, and we have some idea of what that is going to be. Mediaite got the scoop here. Apparently, he plans to announce that he will run now as an independent. That announcement, as he said, coming on October 9th in Pennsylvania. They are planning attack ads against the Democratic National Committee in order to pave the way for this announcement in Philly about running as an independent, according to a text reviewed by Mediaite, quote, Bobby feels that the DNC is changing the rules to exclude his candidacy, so an independent run is the only way to go. So looks like that's happening. That was from a

Kennedy campaign insider, according to Mediaite. So there's been a lot of takes on questions. If he does run as an independent, which I think looks fairly likely, and he's been sort of, you know, moving in that direction for a little while now. Who is he likely to take more votes from? Is it going to be Joe Biden and the Democrats? He is, after all, running in the Democratic primary right now and has this famous Kennedy last name that is closely associated with the Democratic Party. Or is it going to be from Trump, given that the vast majority of his sort of like online support and energy around his campaign has come from the right? And he's had supporters like, you know, people like Steve Bannon who have been speaking favorably of him, etc. So one piece of data that we can throw into the mix here is his favorability ratings among Democrats versus among Republicans.

Go ahead and put this up on the screen so we can see. As his campaign has gone on, his net image rating has grown more favorable among Republicans. It now stands at a positive 30% among Republicans. And as his campaign has gone on and people have heard more about his anti-vax views and his anti-Ukraine views and the sort of like, you know, I guess affiliations that he makes with people like Elon Musk, et cetera, his negative approval rating has fallen down to minus 43% among Democrats. So it certainly seems at this point, it is Republicans who have a more favorable view of RFK Jr. And so I think the logical assumption would be that he's more likely to take votes from Trump. But I have to say,

it's not 100% clear to me at this point. I think it depends a little bit on how he positions himself, Zach. Exactly right. And here's my other big question. Which ticket? Are we doing a write in? Write in is a failure. It never works. And it's one of those where it would be marginal at best. And I wouldn't even think he would take a lot of votes. But there was a report some weeks ago, which we took a look at, but I was dubious of some of the reporting. It makes a little bit more sense now. They had had a meeting with the chairman of the Libertarian Party. So if he does run for the Libertarian Party, then I actually don't think there's any question

that he would withdraw more votes from Trump. One of the reasons I say that is they've done a decent analysis of the past in 2016 of Gary Johnson voters and of past Libertarian Party voters and their crossover. Their number two choice was never the Democratic Party. It's almost always the Republican Party. So that means that they're more Republican aligned. Many of these people voted for Johnson as a protest vote against Trump in 2016. The same actually tracks for Joe Jorgensen, who ran, she's a bit different now. She's probably more like liberal, libertarian aligned. However, at the time in 2020, there were still a decent amount of voters who were libertarian aligned,

even not even necessarily with Jorgensen, but with the brand of the party that did come out and to support her. I actually checked the margins. I didn't realize, you know, you could make a case. I will not make this case. But if you were like one of those vote red, no matter what people you would, what is the pejorative at the end? It doesn't matter. My point is, is that she took about 1.2, 1.5% in Georgia and in the state of Arizona. That's basically the margin of victory for Biden. Actually more so you could easily make the case then that a lot of the people who would have voted Libertarian, who will vote a Republican, almost certainly cost Trump those two states. Now, I won't say that because I believe in, you know, people can run whatever they want. It's your job in order to earn votes. But on

a practical level, that's likely how it would manifest. I do think that given the favorability, also in terms of if he's announcing this campaign anti-DNC, well, it's unfortunate, but it is true that the vast majority of Democrats, they're institutional voters. They like the DNC. They like the media. They have high approval ratings for the Democratic Party, capital D. People who don't and who are Democrats are much more in the independent line camp and some people who are on the Trump side. Now, it's not just me who is saying this. I've done a survey. Every MAGA influencer, people like Jack Posobiec, people like Mike Cernovich, many others who had their immediate take, because I didn't want it to be from me. I wanted to see it from the eyes of

people who are all in for Trump and for the Republicans. Unanimous from them, they believe that he would take more votes away from Trump. And I also believe that if he's going to run anti-DNC, and specifically, if he's going to talk about more with Ukraine, you can read a poll far more aligned with the Republican Party. The vaccine skepticism, I mean, there's no question that is far more prevalent right now amongst Republicans. Right. Reams of polling data to tell us that. And so if those are the three things which, you know, he gets coverage for, fairly or not, depending on what he's running, but, you know, if that's what he chooses to lean into, quote unquote, then I do think absolutely. I guess the case, if he were to draw votes from Biden, I'm curious, like, what do you think he

would have to do? It would obviously, and he said this before, he's like, look, I don't lead with the vaccine. You know, he's, he leads with Ukraine. So then it would be, I guess he would have to attack him on the environment. And, but even that. No, here, I'll tell, I'll make the case. So I think it's most likely that he takes more from Trump given his current positioning as you lay down as much more coded right wing. And I mean, that's evident by his support. The more that Democratic voters learned about him when he went on his like podcast tour, the less they liked him and his polling fell off in the Democratic primary and whatever. So it's very clear that, you know, when they were hearing what issues he was leading with, it was not it was not landing.

I actually think probably the best case for him taking more votes for Biden is he just doesn't get a lot of attention. And Democratic voters see a Kennedy on the ballot who are not happy with Joe Biden, and they just vote for a Kennedy. And I think that accounts for a significant bit of his support within the Democratic primary. Because you have to remember, I mean, people are busy in their lives, right? They're not paying attention. It's all the ins and outs of this. And, you know, you hear like even the way he framed his announcement there, it's just like, hey, these parties aren't serving us. Let's do some, let's come together, et cetera, et cetera. That's a very broadly appealing message that resonates with a lot of people, including a lot of Democrats. So you put that together with the Kennedy name. If he doesn't get a lot of attention

or scrutiny for his other positions, then I think you could theoretically end up with a situation where he takes more from Biden or where it's roughly 50-50. That would be my case. I think it's possible. I just think that given the electoral college, given the margins that I laid out about the libertarian, again, I only see an avenue for him in the libertarian party because he needs ballot access very late in the game at this point. If you're going to go in all 50, I mean, it's basically impossible to go with any other party. So if he's going to go libertarian, that's already generally aligned ish with the Republican party or has been in the past. And then you have the issue set at the same time. Funnily enough, one of our producers found this. He actually addressed this on the Theo Vaughn podcast about who he thinks he would take more votes away from. Take a listen.

Some people say that you are, that the Republican Party like set you up to take, do you ever hear, did you hear about this? Yeah, I hear that. Then I'm like a stalking horse for Trump. And all I can say is, you know. I don't believe that, Bobby. I'm just asking you. I don't believe that.

Well, you should ask me. I mean, you shouldn't do it publicly like you just did. Really? No, no, I'm just kidding. No, you should ask me. Yeah, yeah. But here's the thing. Here's the problem with that.

First of all, if the Democrats make rules that say I cannot win, you know, and then they complain about me running somewhere else, it's like the, you know, it's like a guy who murders his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan. Yeah. You know, they're trying to get public sympathy for a problem that they created. I hate when I see bananas foster on the menu. I take more votes from President Trump than I do from President Biden.

Right. So why would that help? It's not helping him. Yeah. Yeah. I thought about that. Okay, so from the man himself, I take more votes from President Trump than I do from President Biden.

So I actually think that that's, I think that declaratively, he's seen the polling. Yeah. And he says that's what he thinks. Well, so it's funny because I've seen a lot of MAGA influencers in the past who have promoted him

or at the very least have like, you know, promoted some of his clips. Yeah. Things like that, who are now like, they're like, this is a problem. They're like, this is really bad for Trump. I mean, as I laid out already, you know, one, 2%, and that was somebody like Joe Jorgensen, given the Kennedy name, let's say he gets 3%. That is a complete chaos factor in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Georgia, in Arizona, maybe even in Florida. I mean, remember, Trump only, I think it won Florida by three point something percent. So if we're talking about, you know, up there with the most amount of independent votes since Ross Perot, it could significantly change the dynamics of the whole election. I do think it would hurt Trump though.

I think that is most likely. The other thing that could happen though is like, RFK Jr. is not a fan of Trump. I mean, he said he said very clearly to us he did not want to run as, you know, as his vice president, et cetera. So if he was out vociferously attacking Trump, then I think it could change the dynamics about, you know, who's supporting him, because Biden's very dependent on their theory of how they win is by pulling together this anti-Trump coalition and sort of put all the ideology aside. If you don't like Trump, you're on our team. And so if you're pulling even a chunk of that away by, you know, attacking Trump as RFK Jr., running as an

independent, then I could theoretically imagine, again, I think it is more likely, given his approval rating with Republicans versus Democrats, that he takes more from the Republican side of the ticket. But again, I don't think it's like locked in stone. It could be kind of 50-50. It could be a little bit muddled. It depends, in my opinion, somewhat on how he positions himself moving forward. So anyway, very interesting development. Oh, yeah. It'll be fun to cover. I'll tell you that. I always enjoy these things. A hundred percent. Okay. So we have some numbers for you about exactly how many people watched that glorious second Republican debate. I'd also like some numbers about how many people watched it and then regretted watching

it. Please call me next time. All right. So put this up on the screen. Apparently it had the lowest TV viewership since 2015. Wednesday's debate had the lowest viewership of any Republican presidential debate since Donald Trump became a candidate. You know Trump is absolutely loving these numbers. Put the next piece up on the screen so we can show you specifically.

According to Nielsen's rating service, about 9.3 million people tuned into the debate. They say that's a steep drop from the first debate, which also was held without Trump and attracted about 12.8 million viewers. Go ahead and put the next piece up on the screen. Also represents by a significant margin the lowest TV audience for the Republican presidential debate since the start of the 2016 cycle when Trump first became a candidate. This is kind of interesting too. So, okay, not a lot of people watched, but for the people that watched, did it change their minds? Was it impactful? Did it shift the primary race whatsoever? You're not going to be surprised to learn the answer to that is absolutely

not. Put this up on the screen from the Washington Post, how Republican preferences changed after watching the debate. So you can see pre-debate how many people were considering voting for these various candidates. And then after they watched the debate, and this was only among people who did watch the debate, how did things shift? And the reality is they didn't shift all that much. I mean, there's just not a lot of change here. Chris Christie got a five-point bump from 14% were considering him to 19%. Doug Burgum, I guess the other big winner here, a six-point bump from 9% were considering him to 19%. Doug Burgum, I guess the other big winner here, a six-point bump from 9% were considering him to now 15% are considering him. No one else saw really a

significant shift, maybe four points, three points, et cetera, of people not that are going to vote for them, but are even considering voting for them. So not a lot of change here. And this part is different. We covered after the first Republican debate, there were some big shifts here. Nikki Haley got a big bump in the number of Republican voters who were considering voting for her. I think Vivek Ramaswamy, my recollection is that he had a bump as well. So that's different. We also had some interesting numbers from the same Washington Post piece about what people were doing other than watching the debate. And notably, not many of them were watching Trump's speech. You have only 4% who said that instead of watching the debate, they were watching Trump's speech in

Michigan at that non-union plant. But you had, you know, watching someone else, something else on TV, 35% good choice friends,. Spent time with a family member, another good choice. 22% slept. 21% worked. 10% cleaned, et cetera, et cetera. I wish I was in the slept category. Yeah, oh, same.

That's where both our hearts were at that moment. Definitely, about halfway through the debate, I was just like, oh, what are we doing here? I said, I cannot believe I up past my bedtime for this bullshit. Outrageous. It ended up being the most popular tweet of my entire life. Really?

I was live tweeting all the substance, and I made one joke, and then that was the only thing that got any coverage. Which, by the way, it kind of tracks with what happened. So, I mean, I don't know. I think, rightfully, there was anticipation from you and I, from everybody, after the first one. We're like, hey, who knows? It's interesting, right? It's a new thing. We have this debate and Trump's not there. Millions of people watch and they're like, yeah, I'm good. And that's basically what happened for a lot of Republican voters. Republican voters are like, yeah, I like Trump. Those who like Trump, they didn't even watch the debate or they did watch the first one. They're like, I'm good. I

don't really need any of these people. There's a very few number of undecideds. In terms of the people who are undecided, I don't think they're making their choice based on the debate. I will say, I mean, I think it's sad because if Trump did attend, it would be a ratings bonanza. That's why it's the lowest since Trump came on the scene. Politics is boring without him. That's why he won in the first place. But it would have gotten people to watch and we could have actually had some real Democratic choice. So I won't move past that, even though on a substantive level, he definitely did the right thing from a politics point of view. He's like, I'm the king. There's no reason for

me to put myself in the line of fire or even the 10% risk that I wouldn't come out of this looking good. So I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing, and I'm just going to keep winning, and all these people can keep running for second chance. I think it's sad that it has devolved into this, but it is also just a sign of his strength. The reason the ratings are lower since before he came on the stage is because people like, he's funny, he's interesting, he's unpredictable. And that second debate, it was the most cookie cutter debate that we've seen in a long time. Just nonsense. I wish it was cookie cutter. It was just cross talk. Yeah, exactly. It was just like, it was awful. And I think that, I mean, in a lot of ways, some debates were like that in the past. Maybe it's a little bit nastier now,

but it wasn't, it had, it didn't have the fun factor of Trump. And without that, people don't want to tune in. It had the whiff of desperation because before the first debate, you could imagine like, hey, maybe this will change things. Like maybe this will really shake up the race. Maybe someone is going to emerge that's like, oh, they could really, you know, challenge Trump or maybe they're going to actually like put on their big boy pants and really, you know, go after him in some significant way outside of Chris Christie. And then, you know, you had the first debate. There were Nikki Haley had her moments. Vague had his moments. People felt like Ron DeSantis did

fine enough. And you look at the polls and Nikki got a few point bump, but nothing that was going to change the state of play. So Trump still number one by this huge margin, Ron DeSantis still number two, you know, even though he came down a little bit, Nikki Haley coming up a little bit, nothing changed. So then the drama and the anticipation of like, hey, maybe you never know. Could something crazy could happen. Could really shake up the race. That was all gone. And then it's just like, why am I going to watch this tier of also rants who, you know, the best that they could hope for? I don't even think any of them is really in the running to be the vice presidential pick at this point, you know, which I think Trump himself said no one was able to take advantage of that moment

in the spotlight to really assert for Republican voters what a Republican party post-Trump would look like, why they should want to choose a Republican party post-Trump, why they should move on from this man that they've been enamored with for some time now. No one was able to grab the spotlight and do that. And so even though, you know, with the first debate, it's not like people were really, like Trump's Tucker interview got a whole lot of play in spite of whatever the Twitter alleged numbers were. It's certainly that his speech in Michigan also didn't get a lot of play, didn't get a lot of clips circulated. Fox was certainly not covering it because they didn't want to undercut their own debates that they were hosting. So even though it's not like people are going over to watch Trump instead of these debates, it just, it didn't really shift things. And now there's no drama left in terms of what's going

to happen moving forward. And you're right. It is sad. I said this before, you know, this is the first presidential election cycle I can remember where these debates are just like on the Democratic side, there aren't debates. So there's no drama or anticipation there, even though you have an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters who are like, we want choices, we want a democratic process, but that's not happening. And on the Republican side, you know, they're effectively meaningless. They don't mean anything. There's no consequences. There's no consequences. There's no anticipation.

There's no stakes here whatsoever. And it is a sad sign of the current decrepit state of our pseudo-democracy that we're living in now. Absolutely. It's a major sign of institutional Democratic decline. And unfortunately, it's a real, like, jump-the-shark moment, too, because it means in the future other candidates will not feel as if they need to comply. Yeah, that's right. The only pro side I will give is that this will destroy, hopefully, RNC control of the debates and we will return to a type of system that we had in the past in the 1970s before the Commission on Presidential Debates where the League of Women Voters and campaigns themselves sometimes organized like forums like Reagan did with George H.W. Bush, the famous like, I'm paying for this microphone, sir. There was a lot of cool stuff

that actually used to happen in the 70s and 80s that we could go back to. So if we destroy the current institution and bring back like a new freewheeling system, it's possible that we could get to a better one, but it still would require an obligation on behalf of those candidates. So they all had at that time that we do have to do some sort of debate, which I will always support because it's good for democracy. Yeah. They just don't even pretend anymore. Like they have to answer to us and it's kind of sad and pathetic. Okay.

So. All right. And a photo emerged of a man, put this up on the screen, who was pulling the fire alarm in Cannon office building, which is one of those for people who haven't been in D.C. That around the Capitol, there's all these House and Senate office buildings. Cannon is one of the House office buildings that like connect are adjacent to and by underground tunnels are connected to the Capitol. OK, so this is one of those office buildings. And people immediately noticed, this man looks a lot like Congressman Jamal Bowman. Sure enough, it was Congressman Jamal Bowman pulling the fire alarm at a moment when I believe it was McCarthy had just brought this deal to the floor, and Democrats were trying to scramble to delay the vote on this

because they wanted to read what was in it. Hakeem Jeffries, I think, gave some long floor speech to try to delay so that people had a chance to go through what was in this thing and figure out whether they wanted to vote for it. So Jamal Bowman puts out a statement copying to the fact that this is in fact him. Go ahead and put this up on the screen and he gives this explanation He says I want to personally clear up confusion surrounding today's events today as I was rushing to make a vote I came to a door that is usually open for votes, but today would not open I'm embarrassed to admit that I activated the fire alarm mistakenly thinking it would open the door I regret to this I regret this and sincerely apologize for any confusion this

caused. I want to be very clear, this was not me in any way trying to delay any vote. It was the exact opposite. I was trying urgently to get to a vote, which I ultimately did, and joined my colleagues in bipartisan effort to keep our government open. I also met after the vote with the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police at their request, explained what had happened. My hope is that no one will make more of this than it was. I'm working hard every day, including today, to do my job, to do it well, and deliver for my constituents. Needless to say, you know, Trump is now demanding he be thrown in jail for triggering the fire alarm. There's a whole freak out, and he's being compared. Go ahead and put the Trump thing up on

the screen, and we'll get started. No one is above the law, Crystal. Trump puts out on True Social, will Congressman Jamal Bowman be prosecuted and imprisoned for very dangerously pulling and setting off the main fire alarm system in order to stop a congressional vote that was going on in D.C.? His egregious act is covered on tape. Horrible display of nerve and criminality. Very dangerous obstruction of an official proceeding. The same is used against

our J6 prisoners. Ashley's act may have been worse. He must suffer their same fate. When will his trial begin? Of course, all of this is ridiculous nonsense because even in the worst interpretation of events, it's not like he was like trying to steal an election. Well, that's not what the J6 people were doing. That's not what they were charged with. Of course they were trying to do that. Well, they were charged with obstructing official proceeding, which is what technically could be construed for a fire alarm. Actually, Glenn Greenwald's done a great piece on this in terms of the legal precedents set about January 6th.

I recommend people go and watch this because it's a very extraordinary interpretation of case law, of which, of course, people are not objecting to. Let's put that aside. I do not believe him for a second. There has been now, can we put the picture please back up on the screen? So let's take a look at this very clearly and please keep it up. So in front of you, you have the doors that are closed. There's a sign,

I've seen this sign before, anybody on Capitol Hill has, which basically says this entrance is closed. You can't read it there. Where very clearly, and what people have pointed to, is that there is another sign elsewhere on Capitol Hill which talks about if you press the door handle, it's an emergency exit and the alarm will sound after three seconds. So Bowman revisionism is that he had seen that sign and had then decided to pull the fire alarm because he thought that it would then trigger the door. Now, that is stupid on its face, but as you can see very clearly in this photo, there is no, I repeat, no sign, anything about alarms, alarm sounding after three seconds, that is at another door in the Capitol. There is simply no conceivable world in which pulling a fire alarm could be construed as being allowed to open the door. Now, do I believe he was doing it in order to delay the vote? I actually have

a contrary view. I think that he was terrified of missing the vote. And so instead of delaying the vote for democratic processes, I think he pulled the fire alarm so that he could delay the vote so that he could get to the floor so that he could then participate in the vote. So it wasn't some grand evil plan in terms of like stopping the vote so that he could vote against it or hold it up. It was simply so that he did not miss said vote. But that doesn't make sense. For his own personal. Here's the part of the, okay, so unpopular opinion. I believe Jamal Bowman.

Well, then you just believe he's an idiot. There's no way. Okay, that could be, right? That could be. Okay. But listen, it doesn't make, if you're trying to delay a vote that's happening in the U.S. Capitol, why are you pulling a fire alarm in a different freaking building? That doesn't make any sense. Let's explain it. That makes no sense. In terms of geography. So we got

the Capitol behind us. This is what the Capitol looks like. So I got to orient myself. The house side would be over here. It would be on this side. Now, for those who don't know, this happened in the Cannon office building, which is the closest office building to the U.S. Capitol. You can basically see it through the door of where his office is. Right here, like I said, on this side for people who are watching, it would basically be like right over. It's the closest one. That would be like if I was trying to avoid doing the show and I pulled the fire alarm in the next door apartment building.

Right. Like that would be stupid. That wouldn't make any sense. What if they were owned by the same people? What if they were owned by the same people and there was something? It's not like they're discrete buildings. They are discrete buildings. They're connected by an underground tunnel.

Lots of buildings are connected by underground tunnels. Like go to Minnesota and you'll see this all the time. They are separate buildings. So if I'm trying to delay a vote over here, I would pull the fire alarm over here if I'm trying to obstruct an official government proceeding or whatever. So that explanation doesn't make any sense to me. And in general, I always feel like the most likely explanation is human failure and incompetence. That is usually what's going on versus a nefarious plot. My personal favorite contribution to this discourse is, let's put E4, sorry, E5, please, up on the screen.

For those that don't know, Bowman is actually a former high school principal. And at his former school, the Cornerstone Academy for Social Action, here is how they punish kids. School-initiated consequence will include a suspension for 10 days with a contract, level five, and then level six, long-term suspension and or expulsion. So Crystal, you have children who are currently in school, so I don't know. When I was a kid, it was a very big deal to pull the fire alarm. Yeah, you can't. You can't be pulling that fire. And that was like a cardinal sin. I don't know if that's still the case inside of schools in terms of pulling the fire alarm. Somebody did actually do it, I think, whenever I was in high school and they got into very big trouble. So I'm assuming that

they still have these procedures which are in place. And that's what to me makes it so unbelievable. How many dumb ass state mandated drills that the man have to do about fire drills and fire alarm? Like you don't know that the fire, it says fire on it and it's big and it's red. It doesn't open the door. In no scenario does it open the door. Okay. But I know signs do not appear on the door, but that sign is very confusing. But that's not on that door. It's in a different door. Maybe it's like on the wall or something.

No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. I'm going to have to go down. I'm going to drag my ass down there and film this entire thing. We're going to do some investigative reporting into the situation. I honestly might have a friend go through with the camera. But you have to find these specific doors. And also, they said that normally these doors are open.

That's true. That is true. And so they said that normally these doors are open. That's true. That is true. And so they maybe sometimes have the signs up and sometimes they don't. Anyway, I guess for me, none of the various explanations make a lot of sense. And so I just default on the side of like somebody just doing something stupid because sometimes human beings just do stuff that's kind of stupid. I think we need a thorough investigation, personally. No one is above the law. No one is above the law.

Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, a poor majority black city struggling with unsafe water that could poison residents for years to come. Stop me if you've heard this one. As New Yorkers saw subways, roadways, and homes flooded from an extraordinary rain event that dropped more than eight inches of rain at JFK Airport, down in Louisiana, the state is dealing with the exact opposite problem. Extreme drought has taken hold in and around the whole region, dropping the water level and speed of the Mississippi River with potentially dire implications. This drought may make for less dramatic video, but it is imminently threatening

the city of New Orleans and surrounding areas with a mass poisoning, compromised drinking water, and desiccated crops. So here exactly is what's going on. President Biden has declared a state of emergency for four Louisiana parishes near New Orleans as a wedge of saltwater travels from the Gulf of Mexico up the Mississippi River, threatening the drinking water supplies for that historic city and for the surrounding areas. Southeastern Louisiana depends on the Mississippi River for its drinking water and does not have expensive reverse osmosis plants in place to remove salt from that supply. Now, typically, the flow of the Mississippi River is strong enough to keep that salt water from the Gulf at bay, but drought throughout the region has left the river several feet below normal and running with a lot less power than it usually does.

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the river needs to flow at roughly 300,000 cubic feet per second in order to overcome the weight of the saltwater, which is actually heavier than freshwater. And the most recent reading had the speed at around 156,000 CFS, or roughly half of what is actually required. What's more, there's really no end in sight. Rainfall projections are low for the next several months, and what rain does fall is being sucked up by parched soil before it can run off into the Mississippi River. Experts are preparing for that saltwater wedge to continue its way upstream all the way through January. The New Orleans Times' P.K. Yoon has been providing extensive coverage of this threat. Here is their map of where the saltwater wedge is now and where it is projected to be based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers analysis. So far, the wedge has traveled roughly

70 miles upstream from the Gulf, an underwater levee signified by the yellow triangle you can see there on the map. That was overtopped on September 20th. The saltwater extent is expected to reach New Orleans in mere weeks. Plaquemines Parish has been distributing bottled water to their residents for months and is working feverishly to install reverse osmosis systems at their water plants. Federal government is barging in fresh water to mix into the water supplies to decrease the overall salinity, but they're already warning that these efforts are likely to be insufficient to deal with this threat to the drinking water. And that threat is really quite severe. Obviously, humans cannot drink salt water, but even if that immediate threat to life is mitigated by bottled water, the broader impacts here could be devastating. Farmers depend on water

for irrigation, threatening crops and livelihoods. And New Orleans is chock full of lead pipes. They'll be corroded by saltwater, potentially leaching lead into drinking water for years to come. This is partly what happened in Flint, Michigan. When they switched water supplies from the Great Lakes to the Flint River, the river had a high degree of salt due to runoff from road treatments. That Flint River water then corroded the lead pipes and poisoned an entire American city as the government engaged in a massive cover-up. And like Flint, New Orleans is struggling with an epidemic of poverty that leaves residents with few resources and no margin for error. Reports several years back reveal that a full half of

New Orleans residents are struggling to get by, living either in outright poverty or severely cash-strapped thanks to an economy dominated by low-paying service sector jobs. Put it all together and it is a perfect storm for calamity and human misery, something the residents of New Orleans are sadly already all too familiar with. This is but the latest disaster, triggered by the climate crisis, and what now seems to be a near-weekly refrain. Wildfires in Maui, flooding in New York City, extreme drought all along the Mississippi River, each of these events causing untold suffering, trauma, and expense, each exposing the cracks and the neglect within our society. Disaster capitalism, greedy

neglectful utilities, centuries-old infrastructure, government incompetence, or sheer indifference. Already, we're being trained to grow numb to all of these crises. This year alone, we've had 23 different billion-dollar weather events. That's already more than the previous record, and we've still got three more months left to go in this year. Kyle and I spent part of our honeymoon, actually, in New Orleans, and it has got to be one of the most unique cities in all of America. The history, the character is extraordinary. And like nowhere else in the country or even the world, the culture and people of New Orleans have also been central to the story of America. Its large population of educated blacks were pivotal in the Civil War,

Reconstruction, and in the fight against Jim Crow. Half of the city is also below sea level. And so Crescent City is now locked in an existential struggle for its very existence. The battle against the saltwater is really just the beginning of the problems in this era of climate chaos. And as usual, it will be the poor with no other options who suffer the most. And Sagar, this is one that's kind of gone underneath. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. All right, Sagar, what are you looking at?

Well, before the Ukraine war began, I did a monologue on the tendency of the establishment mind here in Washington to think that Putin is Hitler. If Putin is Hitler, the policy implications are obvious. That policy is to basically treat Ukraine as the UK in World War II, back it to the hilt no matter what. There's another option, though, that I'm going to lay out in this monologue. What if Putin is not Hitler? What if he's still bad, but more akin to Soviet Stalin? Or you're the run-of-the-mill Russian czar? If that's the case, the policy implications and the historical analogies

become a lot more interesting. I would posit Ukraine is not England, and that actually a better World War II example could be Finland. Let me explain. Most Americans don't really know all that much about World War II. That doesn't have anything to do with us or with the West. We vaguely understand that the war was bad in the East between Germany and Russia, but we do not have the same encyclopedic knowledge or cultural knowledge about like D-Day. A lot of people, including many Russian historians, tend to brush over that period of World War II where Hitler and Stalin were not only allies, but fellow belligerent powers. Following the shock signing of the non-aggression treaty between

Stalin and Hitler in August of 1939, the Soviet Union went on a shopping spree. No longer having to worry about Nazi colossus, they decided to take advantage of the chaos of Hitler's invasion of Poland and annex some territory of their own. Stalin and Premier Molotov approached the Baltic nations like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia with ultimatums. They would either basically had to consent to annexation and occupation by the Soviet Union or they would face invasion. And much like the ultimatums that Putin delivered before his invasion of Ukraine. The three Baltic nations quickly conceded to Soviet demands, emboldening Stalin and Molotov to their next scheme, Finland. With all the chaos, again, and the successful Baltic negotiations, they were flying high. So they invited the Finns

to Moscow, and they gave them a similar ultimatum. Finland had to agree to immediately cede a large portion of their territory and destroy their defensive fortifications, or they would face war. The Finns stood tall and said to the Soviets, kick rocks, that immediately emboldened their populace to fight with everything they had and a struggle for their national identity, very much like what's happening in Ukraine. And just like Ukraine, nobody on Earth expected the Finns to actually be able to do a damn thing. This was the Red Army that we were talking about, one of the largest militaries on Earth. All of us sound familiar? And just as familiar, Russian incompetence and overconfidence led to a disaster for the USSR. Nobody to this day knows how many Soviet soldiers were killed. It is somewhere between 50,000 to 1 million,

with frostbite and humiliating military setbacks being a key part of the story. Quickly, the Soviets found themselves the butt of the joke in all of Europe, and non-allied nations like France and England even considered coming in on the Finnish side to stand up against Stalin, who they would later ally with. Hitler, too, saw the disastrous invasion of Finland as evidence that he could then invade the Soviet Union and prevail, considering how badly they had fought. To this day, the Winter War, as it is known, is considered up there with Afghanistan as one of the most humiliating incidents in Russian military history. And that is how they usually tell the story. But they never focus on how the actual conflict came to an end. After a series of embarrassing Soviet defeats on the battlefield,

Stalin had enough. He previewed Red Army tactics in the forthcoming war with Hitler, and he was willing to take massive casualties as long as they were gaining territory. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers were sent to the front, and slowly but surely, they were stopping the Finnish advances and even had some breakthroughs of their own. The war was settling into a stalemate with the frozen front line and forthcoming Russian offensive. The Finnish government then did what appears unthinkable today, with respect to the Ukraine. Throughout all of the hostilities, even when they were winning, they kept appealing to Moscow for peace. Moscow refused to respond because they

thought they could win on the battlefield. Only after the Finns humiliated them and the Soviet Union began to see the costs of the war Did they come back to the table and when they did they came to a deal? Finland agreed to give up 9% of its territory occupied at that time by Moscow now It's time to ask was that a victory or was it a defeat? Let's consider something the initial Soviet demand to finish territorial loss was a smokescreen They had no intention of stopping there They wanted to take over all of Finland just as they had the Baltic states eventually,

and played ball with them. Finland was a long-looked-at prize for Russia. Instead, what happened is the Winter War invigorated Finnish national identity and showed the Soviets that they had bitten off far more than they could chew. Yes, they had to give up 9% of their territory. And they did it after affirming, though, their will to fight and to live as an independent people, just like Ukraine has already done today. Most importantly, their fight is what guaranteed their sovereignty in the long run. They remained neutral throughout the entire Cold War, and today they owe their independence and survival to those who fought the Russians on the battlefield in 1939.

I've been to Helsinki myself. I've seen some of these monuments. They are genuinely touching. So we bring it full circle. What can we learn from this? Ukraine is very much like Finland structurally. It faces the Russian colossus bravely and at a massive structural disadvantage in the long run. It cannot sustain a horrific war of attrition because it doesn't have the manpower or the materiel to do so. Furthermore, it's an insane ask for the West to simply supply them with hundreds of billions of dollars per year to keep up their operations, especially considering how little territory they have been able to win back in their latest counteroffensive.

Their victory could be just like Finland's, a bitter deal to swallow. Yes, where they have to give up some territory in the immediate term. But with a major win in the long run, they get to keep their independence. They get to keep their sovereignty. They get to live and survive as an independent state with the vast majority of their territory intact. That's the victory, just like Finnish victory in 1939. But instead, Ukraine and the West have poisoned the rhetoric such that only absolute maximal

victory is politically acceptable. In this, there is no way that this will happen, because absolute victory for Ukraine would likely mean a full-blown World War III. This is obviously not worth it for us. It is why I am against all further aid to Ukraine. It is misshaping their strategic calculus, stopping them from getting to where we are going to end up anyways. They can face reality now or years from now with hundreds of thousands more dead on both sides. So consider the Finnish example. I'm curious what you think, Crystal. And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Okay, guys, we're going to have a great show for everybody tomorrow. Fun. We're going to have Congressman Ro Khanna on. That's going to be interesting.

A little bit of a tease. Yeah, he's got some things to say about Gavin Newsom. Things to say. A little bit of California drama there. It'll be interesting. It'll be fun. It'll be fun. Don't forget, if you can't help us out by signing up and helping support the Focus Group,

BreakingPoints.com. Otherwise, we've got a great week of content for everyone. We'll see you tomorrow. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder in their community.

I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers, but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else, but never forget yourself.

Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad. That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. What up, y'all? This your main man Memphis Bleak right here, host of Rock Solid Podcast. June is Black Music Month, so what better way to celebrate than listening to my exclusive conversation with my bro, Ja Rule. The one thing that can't stop you or take away from you is knowledge. So whatever I went through while I was down in prison for two years, through that process, learn.

Learn from me. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. This is an iHeart Podcast.