Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 10/27/22: Fetterman vs Oz, Ukraine Warnings, Elon Buys Twitter, House Progressives, Kennedy Assassination, & More!

Episode Date: October 27, 2022

Krystal and Saagar bring the news about Fetterman's debate performance, Ukraine warnings, Elon's Twitter Buy, Fed lobbyists, Senator Menendez, rushed covid boosters, progressives Ukraine debacle, & the JFK assassination!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Rolf Mowatt-Larssen: https://www.belfercenter.org/person/rolf-mowatt-larssen  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. worthy mainstream by becoming a Breaking Points premium member today at BreakingPoints.com. Your hard-earned money is going to help us build for the midterms and the upcoming presidential election so we can provide unparalleled coverage of what is sure to be one of the most pivotal moments in American history. So what are you waiting for? Go to BreakingPoints.com to help us out. Good morning, everybody. Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? A lot of interesting things to get to today. So we are going to break down that Fetterman-Oz debate that, of course, has caught everyone's

attention. A lot of questions there. And also we have some new allegations against Herschel Walker down in Georgia. So we'll catch you up to speed on everything related to the midterms as we head down the stretch. New Biden comments with regards to Ukraine and Russia's potential nuclear use and also those dirty bomb allegations. So we'll break that down for you. Also, supposedly, the Elon Musk Twitter deal is going to close tomorrow.

Tomorrow. He showed up at headquarters carrying a sink for some reason. We don't really know. We'll take it. This also comes amid,

this part was actually the most interesting to me. Some new research that came out about how Twitter is kind of dying. Yes. Losing some of their

biggest users are like not really posting anymore, especially in like news and politics, which is the most profitable topic areas. So we'll break that down for you as well. Ken Klippenstein had a great scoop about the Fed and really exposed something that goes on there that almost no one knows about,

which is they are lobbied just like legislators here are lobbied by business and banking interests, but without any sort of democratic pushback or accountability on the other side. So he goes deep into how that all works. Also, Senator Menendez, once again, under criminal investigation. So we will tell you what we know about that. I'm also very excited about our guest today. He's a former longtime CIA agent. He was actually station chief in Moscow, which is crazy. And he has a pretty interesting theory sued for not releasing the JFK assassination related documents that they are congressionally mandated to. Now,

they were supposed to be released under the Trump administration. Trump administration kicked the ball to the Biden administration. Biden administration still stonewalling. What are they hiding, everybody? We're going to talk to Rolf Moet Larson about all of that. But we did want to start with that Fetterman-Oz debate. You guys know the backstory here. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee, current lieutenant governor of the state of Pennsylvania, suffered a stroke just before he won his primary. Now, he has only recently started doing any interviews whatsoever.

There was a huge kerfuffle after he gave one interview to NBC News, and the reporter indicated, you know, hey, he had trouble understanding what I was saying in small talk. So this was a much anticipated debate. It's the only debate that these two are having. And let's just say it was really rough. It was very rough to watch. We wanted to pull a clip for you that was not sort of like cherry picked or just like, you know, the worst moments or even the best moments. So we decided to pull for you both of their closing statements, both Oz and Fetterman, so you can just get a sense of how this all went. Let's take a look. All right.

At this time, we are ready for our closing statements. You each have 90 seconds to convince Pennsylvanians to vote for you on Election Day. Mr. Fetterman, you are first. 90 seconds. Once again, I would just like to say that my campaign is all about fighting for anyone in Pennsylvania that ever got knocked down, that had to get back up again. I'm also fighting for any forgotten community all across Pennsylvania that ever got knocked down down that had to get back up. And I've made my entire career dedicating to those kinds of pursuits. I started as a GED instructor back in Braddock over 20 years ago because I believe it's about serving Pennsylvania, not about using Pennsylvania for their own interests as well. To me, careers are refilled

by your real underlying values. And my values have always been about fighting for forgotten communities all across Pennsylvania. All right. Thank you, Mr. Fetterman. Mr. Oz, your final thoughts, 90 seconds. I love traveling to the four corners

of the beautiful Commonwealth, and I've heard your problems. I'm a surgeon doctor. I listen to what you say, and I'm trying to help address them today. I've talked to seniors worried their Social Security checks wouldn't go far enough with the raging inflation. I've talked to couples want to make their first down payment on a new house and they can't afford it anymore because of interest rates. I've talked to families. You want to cut Social Security. Mr. Fetterman, it's his turn for his closing. I've talked to families worried about fentanyl showing up in their mailbox and literally taking the lives of their children who they find blue in bed. I've talked to families who won't let their kids go outside because of

the crime wave that's been facilitated by left radical policies like the ones John Fetterman has been advocating for. But here's the deal, right? None of this has to happen. This is all very addressable. I'm a surgeon. I'm not a politician. We take big problems, we focus on them, and we fix them. We do it by uniting, by coming together, not dividing. And by doing that, we can get ahead. But I've got one question to challenge you with, just one question. If you take what I'm saying to heart, ask yourself this and others in your family, are you unhappy with where America's headed? I am. And if you are as well, then I'm the candidate for change. I'm a living embodiment of the American dream. I believe we're the land of opportunity, the land of plenty. I believe we can balance a budget without recklessly spending. I believe we can have an unleashed energy policy that helps us all. I

believe that we can have safe city streets and a secure border so legal immigrants can come across, but you shut the fentanyl out. I believe we can give parents choice in where their kids go to school. We can have affordable healthcare. But most of all, I believe in you. And if you can do this together, and we can,

I would ask for your vote on election day. So it gives you a sense of how the debate went. I mean, it was it was difficult to watch. And I honestly, I can't stop thinking about it because I just honestly feel so badly for John Fetterman. I mean, you think about it like here's a man who was, you know, larger than life and this political tour de force. We interviewed him before the stroke. We interviewed him actually before he sort of blew up on the national stage and were impressed with him. You know, he's always he's never been like Oz is very as a television personality is

obviously very nimble on his feet and very, you know, smooth talking and all those things like that was never Fetterman. Fetterman was always like very sort of plain spoken, very direct. So they would have stylistically even without the stroke come across very different. But I just can't stop thinking about there you are on the cusp of this primary the Democratic Party, really potential, you know, massive star power, and now struggling to just, you know, basically articulate his thoughts. And again, just so you know that we're not cherry picking here, this was the reaction to the people who watched the debate. 82% said that Oz won. 18% said Fetterman won. So, I mean, overwhelmingly, you know, people felt like Oz had the better night, no doubt about it. And, you know, we're going to talk a little bit more about the media reaction. I do think I listened to him in previous interviews where he's he definitely you could tell he had a stroke. We've seen him on the campaign trail. You could tell he was struggling for words at times, you know, mushing things together. Sometimes something wouldn't come out. Obviously, he had to have the closed captioning in order to process. This was the worst that I'd seen him, though,

and I feel like the stress and pressure of the situation really kind of got to him. You know, on the question of what it's going to mean politically, I have no idea. I continue to believe that probably the biggest issue for Fetterman is the same issue that every Democrat across the country is suffering, which is like, you know, Arizona is now a toss up, according to the latest analysis, because trends are moving in Republicans direction across the board. The head of the DCCC, you know, who's in a Biden plus 10 district is on the ropes. So things, the national wins are probably the biggest problem that he has. I think, you know, it's reasonable for the campaign to feel like, OK, this probably is going to knock us back a few points. And ultimately, in a race that's as close as this, that could be the difference. But, you know, I can't help but admire the guy for having the courage to actually do this, because you look in Arizona, Katie Hobbs in the governor's race, like she's just not debating.

She has no health issue or whatever. She's just afraid that Carrie Lake is going to get the better of her because she's a better debater. I mean, literally. You're right. Right. And I think that all candidates should have to debate. I think it's important for people to have transparency about, you know, where he is in his recovery. I don't think that should be off the table to discuss. For me personally, it wouldn't be a hard decision because the most important thing to me is how he would ultimately vote. You're up against a dude who doesn't even believe in the federal minimum wage. But ultimately, that's for voters to decide and we'll see what they think. Yeah, I mean, look, I don't want to be mean and because I see that many people are upset about this, but I thought

that was stunning in that it was much worse than I think that his campaign and him had ever let on before. And I do think it's an issue, which is that at the end of the day, the man has not actually released his medical records. All he's released is a signed letter from a doctor who is a campaign donor to him who claims he's going to be better. We were looking previously at a neurologist clip where they said that, look, you know, most recovery, the best recovery comes in three to six months. It's been six months. There's no indication that he's going to get better from here. I don't think we can believe in good faith that the man is telling us the truth, that he has zero cognitive damage. I mean, there's, listen, we are all armchair people.

I have no idea what's going on inside of his brain. That's for a neurologist to decide. And they have not released his doctor to questioning. It's on him after that display to prove to us that his brain is not permanently damaged. And unfortunately, like I come away from that. And that's the least amount of stress that you might face one day as a senator. And I just disagree wholeheartedly with this ongoing cope and meme I see on the left, which is like, well, what all senators do is just show up and vote. I'm like, okay, hold on a second. This is one of the most powerful people in Washington is an individual senator. They can hold up legislation. They can hold up nominees. They vote for judges. They vote for wars. They vote for treaties. They can hold up legislation. They can hold up nominees. They vote for judges.

They vote for wars. They vote for treaties. They decide immense things. Look at the power of Rand Paul when he wants to be useful. Look at the power of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema when they want to be useful. I am just not going to sit here and be told that it's okay for somebody whose brain is possibly fried to be a senator from the state of Pennsylvania. Conservatives who are most critical of Fetterman. Yeah, they're pro-Herschel Walker. They're full of shit. I agree with you. They don't really care about the health issues. They care about how he's going to vote.

He's not going to vote the way they want him to. Sure. So, you know, I personally, for me, again, it wouldn't be a difficult decision because there's nothing to me that indicates he doesn't know what his values are, that he wouldn't know how to, you know, take a vote on the issues that matter to me. You're up against a dude who literally doesn't support the federal minimum wage has actually been much cagier about what he views, thinks on a variety of issues, especially abortion. And so, you know, at the end of the day, like how they're going to vote on the issues and the bills that are in front of them. I think that is the most important thing.

Now, you know, would it be better if you had someone like for your normal run of the mill senator? It actually is just the taking the votes. That is the thing. You do have people like, you know, Elizabeth Warren, I have issues with her, but she brings something to the table and her questioning and whatever that obviously goes beyond just like taking a vote. But ultimately, with a lot of just your kind of standard issue, run-of-the-mill senators, basically the job is to vote on issues. So anyway, I mean, the other thing that cuts against this is, you know, Oz does continue to come off as kind of like a smarmy asshole. And I don't think that he handled this well because he didn't need to take shots at Fetterman. There were some sort of underhanded jabs at Fetterman's health condition currently.

And so he continues to be like not a very likable guy. And ultimately, if I had to bet, I would say this was, you know, damaging to Fetterman, probably cuts a couple of points off of him. But I also just really don't know because voters have responded in ways that I've been surprised about. Again, you know, I was actually talking to my mom about this, and she's my very, my, like, touchstone for the kind of, like, normie swing voter type. And her response was empathy and, like, God, I give the guy credit for having the courage to do this. I think you're right, which is that, look, I have found myself with the vehemence of old people. Every time I've gone after Joe Biden, they're like, oh, can't you give him, cut him some slack? I'm like, personally, I think we should hold our leaders to a higher thing. But

listen, the man won the presidency. So I'm like, what do I know? All right. He won the presidency and he continues to be outside of, you know, a few people, probably a Democrat's strongest chance for the next time around. That's what I'm saying. So I'm like, look, you know, people can make their own minds. As I alluded to, let's put this on the screen. I'll never forget reading this. I actually read this back in college. It's 2012. Big study from political scientists that reviewed reams of political polling data going back over decades, all the way from JFK on Now, as Ryan Grimm once said on our show, all of the studies that regard candidate quality never had to deal with candidates as poor quality as Oz, Herschel Walker, and Blake Masters. So I don't know, you know, but those people are all tied in the polls. If I were to bet on the fundamentals, I would bet on all three to actually win their race. So in this debate, will it matter? Look, I gave you my personal view. I'm also not going to sit here and tell you that my personal view has any sway or is even in the median mind of the Pennsylvania voter.

I was talking recently. The median Pennsylvania voter is a 53-year-old man, 53-year-old white man who did not go to college. I am not that person. I don't live in Pennsylvania. I've only been a couple of times. I have no idea what these people are going to vote on. So at the end of the day, I trust in the voters. They can decide what, you know, themselves. I do think the major takeaway

is that Oz, you know, for all the so-called backhand, I didn't read into it as much. You know, I watched the whole debate. I didn't see a lot of that. For what I saw, the major takeaway from the RNC was they were playing his loop. He had a terrible answer, to be honest, on fracking, where he was basically like, I support fracking. It was Fetterman. He was like, I support fracking. It was very stilted. It was garbled. It was also a flip-flop, right? Because he actually did not support fracking.

I remember we were talking about this back whenever we interviewed him. So they are playing clips back to back of him used to saying it and now and hammering him actually more on a policy matter, given the gas prices, plus the crime. I mean, that's one that just- I think, I honestly don't know that fracking is like the issue that it once was in that region. But I do think, listen, again, my analysis in general, and we're about to talk about Herschel Walker here in a few minutes, but is that as much as I would like candidate quality to. Yeah, but I just don't think it really does. I we see all of these races moving in the

same direction right now. You know, whether it's Fetterman, who's struggling in Pennsylvania, whether it's Mark Kelly, who, you know, is seen as a very strong candidate out in Arizona. He is strong. He's losing. Blake Masters is closing the gap there. That's now a toss-up race. Whether it's, you know, down in Georgia, like every single race seems to be moving and shifting towards the Republicans. I don't see that as having much to do with any of these candidates' individual, like, personality, charisma, platform, abilities, whatever. I think it has a lot more to do with the national mood. So do I think it might matter on the margins? Yeah. And if this comes down to

a few thousand votes in a few key districts, then you could be making the case that this debate was the difference maker. If it ends up not really being close in either direction, then obviously not. Just so we have a sense of where this is right now. And this kind of underscores our point right now in the 538 average. Fetterman is plus 2.3. There was a time when he was up 12 in the average. OK, now, again, that's before even before there were any interviews or really any very strong concerns about his recovery process. That tightening and closing of the gap really has everything to do with the national wins because we see that happening in race after race after race. You know, the other thing that I think is important to note here, not only that the

gap has closed, but there was a time when Fetterman's average was up over 50 percent and now it's down at 47.2 percent. And I think also a lot of what's happened in some of these races where the base didn't love the candidate they ended up with or there were candidate quality issues on the Republican side, the Republican base is also starting to come home. And you've seen that, you know, certainly here and you've seen it in Georgia as well. No, I think you're right, Crystal. And actually, I just checked the RCP average. Their average actually has Fetterman only up by 1.3%. I mean, given what we know. I think the 538 one

like takes into account. 538 is more weighted. So RCP is just like a true average. And if the true average is 1.3, we know the miss in Pennsylvania to be four points from 2020. No indication that the same miss isn't there. So I would probably rather be Oz right now, given the way that things are trending. But again, like you said, it's not just about Oz. You have to zoom out and just say all GOP races, national ballot, everything moving in that direction. Fundamentals, look, I'm just going to keep betting on them from the future. I mean, look, maybe we could be completely wrong. Maybe Fetterman pulls it off by two. Who knows? Maybe the miss is in the other direction

for some unknown reason, but based on recent history, I wouldn't bet in that direction. We can only go to war with the battle or the information that we have. Yeah. And with that,

like, look, I personally, I put my money on it. I was like, all right, fine. I think Oz is going to win. So there's another piece of this, the media piece,

which is, you know, we covered when he did that NBC News interview and there was this whole freakout about the reporter who interviewed him and they, you know, had closed captions for him. And the interview itself was a little bumpy, but not nearly like this debate. But the part that caused the controversy is that the reporter whose name I can't remember. Dasha Burns. Dasha Burns. I just want to say Dara for some reason. Anyway, she said in like preamble to the interview, like this was an unusual interview and it didn't appear to me that when we were making small talk beforehand, before the closed captions were on, that he was necessarily understanding what I was saying.

There was a huge backlash to those comments that was really over the top. Kara Swisher, who had just interviewed Fetterman previously, she sort of led the charge here. She said, sorry to say, but I talked to John Fetterman for over an hour without stop or any aids. And this is just nonsense. Maybe this reporter is just bad at small talk. That really kicked off some overwhelming criticism of this reporter. We've got an AP report that sort of, you know, summarized, go ahead and put this next piece up. NBC reporters comment about Fetterman draws criticism. There is a BuzzFeed article. Put that next piece up that says disability advocates say the response to John Fetterman using closed captioning interview as he recovers from a stroke was deeply upsetting and stigmatizing. You know, my view at the time was like, I always think it's

legitimate, whether it's Biden or Feinstein or Hershel Walker or John Fetterman to discuss health and whether the person is up to the job. I don't think that should be off the table whatsoever. I give him credit for like subjecting himself to this scrutiny. But I ultimately think, that these people who were trying to effectively cover for him, I don't think they did him any favors. No, they did huge damage. They should have been honest about it. Ultimately, you know, part of why Herschel Walker was perceived as doing well in his debate is because they had very effectively set the bar really low for him. Correct.

I mean, he came out and was like, I'm dumb. He literally said that. He's like, I'm a dumb country boy. And so I think if there had been actually more view into the nature of where he is in his recovery process, I don't think that this debate performance would have landed in quite the same way that it did. They would have been better if there was more transparency. There would have been better if there was more understanding of the continued struggles. So it wasn't a sort of shock to people when they saw him struggling on the debate stage. I always believe in them. That's why I actually really pissed me off. Gisele Fetterman, his wife, actually asked NBC to

apologize after the reporters made those comments. This is her husband. I can't blame her for that. Come on. I would protect my husband, too. I mean, look, we have eyes and ears like we can all see. That's ludicrous. I can't blame someone's husband or wife for, like, swooping in like that and having that kind of reaction. You're just lying, though. I mean, that's the problem with her, which is that she's lied from day one about his status. Listen, if you guys want to convalesce in privacy, don't run for public office. This is his wife. I don't care. I mean, him. Come on, Sager.

That's unreasonable not to expect the spouse to be protective of their guy here. You can do whatever you want in privacy, not in public, which is that if you want, and by the way, there are a lot of weird, sketchy things in their past in terms of her trying to use him for her own political benefit. So I don't know what exactly is going on. Me personally would never let a spouse go up in that kind of condition. Well, but this is, I don't like this. I don't think that that's fair because there's no indication whatsoever that he is not able to make his own decisions. We don't know that. Yeah, but you don't know it either. So, I mean, from what we see in public, he is making his own choices, wants to be in this race, is very engaged. There's no indication that he doesn't like know what's going on whatsoever. I mean, he's clearly able to respond to questions, understand the issues at stake here.

So I think it's absurd, this conservative narrative that has taken hold that she's like some sort of puppet master and they're just propping him up and he has no idea what's going on. There is no indication of that. So for me to see her as a human being, like reflexively being protective of him, I can't judge that. I can't like shame her for that. Okay, fine. I mean, let's just say let's not shame her for that. Did she do anybody? Did she do the Democrats and the Democratic Party a favor by effectively calling all criticism of his ability to speak ableism?

I'm like, on a political point, obviously the answer is no, which is that by leaning into this, they have effectively made it so the national press told everyone

to ignore their eyes and ears as to how the man is able to speak. I would pin that on the media, not on his family. But they're taking their cues from her. She's the one who's driving it.

Yeah, but they're supposed to be the independent press. Of course the family is going to defend him. Like, that's natural. That's human. That's exactly what I would do in a similar situation. Of course I'd be outraged. Like, there's no doubt about it. It's the press's job to be honest and be transparent. And ultimately, as you said, by trying to cover for him, they didn't do him any favors. But I don't think you can blame the close family members for having a human reaction. Sure. Okay. But if we can bring it back to the mainstream media and their coverage of it, their about face on it is humiliating for them because they took part in this. And actually, I subscribe to The New York Times notifications just to see like what the current thing is.

Last night, 8.30 p.m., they're like Democrats on a knife's edge over Betterment's health. I'm like, you guys should have done this months ago. The other thing to say, though, is, you know, I listened to the podcast with Kara Swisher. I listened to the NBC News interview and he was not this bad. Yeah, that's true. So I do think, you know, it would be fair to have extrapolated from that a different reality of where he is versus, you know, debates, an extremely stressful situation. You're dealing not only with questions from one interviewer, but you're having to deal with like this back and forth situation as well. You know, the is on, you know all the eyes are on you. So I do also think it's fair to point out like he was measurably

worse here than when Kara was interacting with him as well. So, you know, I think that's important to keep in mind here. Yeah, but she is, Seraph. She's humiliated herself because really what it is is that she also leaned into the ableism. Look, I get it. She survived a stroke and God bless her. I feel I'm happy that she survived a stroke and she's able to do herism. Look, I get it. She survived a stroke, and God bless her. I'm happy that she survived a stroke and she's able to do her job. I hope that for everybody. And from what I've seen, most of those people need long convalescence,

they need a lot of rest, and they need a lot less stress. So in many ways, I feel bad for him because he very, very well may have either shortened his life or hindered his own recovery. No, I don't think there's any... No, actually, the analysis I saw is that there's pushing yourself in terms of regaining your speech and auditory processing abilities

is actually good for your recovery. Now, the stress might be another question, but again, he's a big boy. He can make his own choices about his life here. And in the wake of that interview, there were some reactions that, again, I thought it was over the top, the attacks on Dasha Burns or whatever the girl's name was. But I did think it was gross, the suggestion that, like, because someone has to use closed captioning, they're incapable of serving in the Senate. That would mean that anyone who was deaf can't serve in the Senate. And I do think that that's outrageous. I don't think that that's fair. Well, but I mean, I think the point that I think a lot of us were making, or at least me, I can only speak for myself, was we don't know if it's only limited to this.

I don't know. And like I said, he needs to, it is on him to prove that his brain is not permanently damaged as a result of what's happened here. Not vice versa. We can only speculate based upon what we know. interviews and do the debate when there are other candidates who are just who have no physical issues or mental issues who are just like no i'm not going to debate this person because i don't want to if i was his campaign i would never let him step out on that stage i've personally you have to admit it was the it was the right thing in the eyes of democracy it was the moral ethical thing to do yeah it's true like you have to give him credit for that. I'll give him credit for it. I don't think it probably worked.

I don't think, I agree. Politically, if you're like a cynical political operative, you would just say, no, you should just hide until election day and let them find out later where you are in your recovery. He hasn't done that. And I do think he deserves a lot of credit for that. Is that going to mean that, you know, he's not going to end up as United States Senator for the state of Pennsylvania? Listen, I think that it was the right thing to do to let voters judge for themselves ultimately. And, you know, again, my view is probably the biggest thing he has going against him isn't the stroke. It's the national

winds that are blowing very hard against Democrats at this point and are moving the races, you know, in a decidedly Republican advantaged direction. But I can't help but give him credit for having the courage to, like, have this level of transparency. And frankly, he's been more candid and open with the press than Oz has at this point. Well, I'm not sure that's true. That's definitely true. On the stroke part, I'm not going to drop this. He has lied about his stroke from day one. I remember on remember exactly what happened with his heart. His doctors had to come out and leak and be like, listen, this is way more serious than he's letting on. Hides behind a cloak for two or three months. Doesn't start doing interviews.

But on what matters really matters, which is how are you going to vote on issues and what are your views? He's been far more upfront and subjected himself to far more questioning than Oz, sitting down with editorial boards that Oz won't meet with, like sitting down for mainstream press interviews that he knows are going to be challenging. So I think he deserves a lot of credit for that. Okay.

All right, let's move on to Herschel Walker. Herschel Walker. All right, we got another abortion allegation against Herschel Walker. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. New woman alleges Herschel Walker urged Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. A new woman alleges Herschel Walker urged her to have an abortion. Now, this woman decided to remain anonymous, but she alleges that he drove her to a clinic to terminate her pregnancy. She plans to remain anonymous and is

going to provide evidence of her romance with Walker, which she did. They went ahead and had this press conference with Gloria Allred, and they had some things, some love letters from Walker, and also a 1992 voicemail, which I'm impressed that anyone still retains their 1992 voicemails, but anyway. Yeah, wait, would that be on a cassette tape? It would, right?

Yeah, I think so. In 92, I mean, I don't even, I'm trying to think. I was literally born in 92, so I'm trying to think. I was literally born in 92. So I'm trying to remember my very earliest answering machine. I'm pretty sure that would have had to be on a cassette tape. Yeah. Because how else, I don't even think they had like digital files then. Or they maybe had like floppy disks or something.

It could have, yeah. No, I think it was probably a cassette tape. That takes dedication. That takes dedication. So she had the 1992 voicemail saved on the cassette tape to prove evidence of their relationship. I don't think she has quite the goods that the other one did in terms of like the receipt and the get well from your abortion card signed by Hershel Walker. nation to imagine that if there was one woman who actually said that Walker not only paid for the first abortion, but urged her to get a second abortion, that there might be another woman out there who had a similar experience. These, you know, going back to the canon quality issues,

all of the alligator, not just the abortion ones, but which expose a level of personal hypocrisy, not to mention lying. But all of the other issues that he's had, also issues explaining himself, also issues with potential brain damage. And, you know, there's not a lot of proof there either of how well he would be able to function. All of the lies that he's been caught about how many kids he has and all of those sorts of things hasn't really made much of a difference. There wasn't a big fallout after the first abortion scandal. You drop in the polls a little bit. He seems to have totally recovered.

I don't really see this one landing with as much of an impact as the last one. I think right now the race is basically a toss up in terms of where the sort of polling average is. So, you know, to me, this one is, it could actually end up going to a runoff if it continues to be as close as it is. It's certainly possible. So what are the runoff rules in Georgia? Is it within 0.5%? You have to get over 50 to avoid a runoff. Right. And so if they, if they're both under 50, then you go to a runoff. And if they do go to the runoff, then yeah, right. So going to the runoff would mean what? Another election in January. So an extra month of campaigning. I actually think that might be dangerous for Herschel Walker because you never know in terms of the national winds of way things

are going to blow. We saw that from November to January, the national political climate change significantly helped the Democrats win in both of those seats. So it would definitely be in Walker's interest to try and just win it outright, even if he beats him only by a percentage point under 50. I would say, especially given the whole national media environment, the zoom in on Walker, he would be the only story in the country. You know, right now, the abortion story drops in a sea of John Fetterman, all kinds of other stuff. When you're the only one in the national media environment, it becomes a national thing. Trump would get fully involved, much more so.

So I think it would be far more to his detriment if it does go to a runoff. I think that's right. So I just pulled up the RealClearPolitics average. It has worn up by half a percentage point. And he's at 47, and Walker is at 46.5. So everybody is a few points shy of 50. Right. Georgia is one of the states where the polls have been kind of accurate. Does that hold? I don't know. But leading into those two previous Senate runoffs, they actually were kind of right on the money. And the presidential too. The presidential was correct. The lead up to the runoffs, they were also correct. And I was skeptical of them too, because past history indicated that Republicans normally outperformed in those runoffs in the state of Georgia.

So we really kind of thought like, ah, the Democrats are kind of hosed here. But actually, they had a smart message on the $2,000 checks. Trump decided to write it and tell everybody basically not to vote. And they were able to prevail. So anyway, that one is as close as it could possibly be. And, you know, there was even just like a week or two ago, I was thinking that Senate control might come down to this. But I don't know, at this point, Republicans have enough of a head of steam that I don't know that they're going to need this seat in order to pick up the chamber. I think you're right. It seems like everything is just moving their way.

So they could even lose Georgia and still control the chamber. You know, actually, everyone is sleeping on Nevada. The Data for Progress poll came out yesterday showing laxalt up by one point, percentage point. And that's, you know, Data for Progress poll. So, look, we don't know where things are trending. You know, look, Dark Horse would be like New Hampshire. I don't think that that's going to happen. But in general, the polling environment seems relatively favorable to almost every single Republican candidate off the board. Extrapolate that to Georgia. I mean, in a 50-50 environment, we'll see, right? Now, that is another state where the polls have been fairly accurate.

Right now, they have the Republican laxalt up by half a percentage point. So that one is also like as close as it comes. But yeah, I mean, listen, they only need to net one seat in order to be able to take the chamber. So if Fetterman ends up losing, then they only, you know, that keeps them even because that's replacing a Republican who currently holds that seat. Then you just have to pick up a Nevada, an Arizona, you know, you just need one. And so I think we'll see. We'll see how it goes. But it seems very much like especially, you know, the thing I'm really responding to most is you're seeing some of these House polls come out in swing districts. Sean Patrick Maloney, Katie Porter, these places that are Biden plus 10.

And you've got members of Congress who are like holding on by their fingertips. That's an indication that these statewide races are going to go in a bad direction. I just saw a congressional debate yesterday from a Biden plus seven district in New York where the candidates said Biden should not run again in 2020. So like that just has to show you like where the winds are trending. I don't know. We'll see. This is why I love elections. Yeah.

Well, I'll find out. Who knows? Everybody could be totally wrong. You just don't know. It's always a lot of uncertainty this time around. Let's get to Ukraine. Some troubling front there in terms of President Biden making a comment while getting his fifth booster, which I will be elaborating on in my monologue,

asked a question about what Russia would do in the event of a tactical nuclear weapon, what the United States response will be. Here's what he had to say. The dirty bomb allegations from Russia as it relates to Ukraine. Do you believe that this is the beginning of a false flag operation? Is Russia preparing to deploy a dirty-bomb itself or a nuclear weapon? I spent a lot of time today talking about that. Let me just say, Russia would be making an incredibly serious mistake if we were to use a tactical nuclear weapon. I'm not guaranteeing you that it's a false flag operation yet. Don't know. But it would be a serious, serious mistake.

Not guaranteeing the false flag. I read some interesting analysis around the whole dirty bomb thing, which is that they threatened it before. Apparently, this is only the third time that they've said it happened so far in Ukraine, although it did not ever rise to the level of the secretaries of defense and chiefs of staff speaking. Still no current indication yet. On the U.S. side, no sign of backing down. Nancy Pelosi speaking at the international Crimea platform just two days ago actually reiterated not only U.S. support for Ukraine, but actually for Ukraine pushing out Russia from Crimea. Let's take a

listen to that. An unmistakable statement of the free world's unity that we stand with Ukraine. This platform was established to bring about the end of Russia's occupation of Crimea and to restore control of Ukraine over the territory in full accordance with international law. Well, it just shows you that the U.S. policy is very much frozen and past rhetoric. Obviously, that's been longstanding U.S. policy, but I think it takes a different tenor whenever you're actively supporting Ukraine in the war. Like I said, in terms of the military conduct, there has not been any significant change on the ground in the last couple of days. The only major indication is this dirty bomb rhetoric being thrown around at the highest levels of the Russian government, including President Putin yesterday in a speech in Moscow.

All eyes are going to be on Putin. He does his famous yearly dialogue with reporters. It's actually one of the only times he ever gets anything even close to real questions. Oh, interesting. And so he'll give a big speech about his views on foreign affairs. It's going to be long and tedious. But the more important and interesting stuff is going to come from dialogue. There also was an interesting interview yesterday with Christiane Amanpour and the Russian ambassador to the United Nations. He

said Russia will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, although a lot of the analysis said that he was talking about that in the context of a first strike. But if they come up with a pretext for a dirty bomb, then they could say, well, this is a second strike. You know, Russia is only responding to something in kind. So, right. Right. This is a diplomatic situation just because it disappears from the headlines for a couple of days doesn't mean that it isn't still a nightmare. Very, very well said. I think that's what you're saying. I also, you know, with Biden, like it's so hard to know how intentional his words are. Yeah. But I also was troubled by the fact that he's asked about a dirty bomb, which is not a nuclear weapon. It includes radioactivity, but it is not a nuclear weapon

or tactical nuclear weapon. And he, of his own volition, brings up they better not use a tactical nuclear weapon. I found that troubling because that indicated to me that, you know, they are very seriously concerned that that is a possibility right now. Otherwise, why do you bring it up? And then with regard to Pelosi's comments on Crimea and Ukraine, I mean, this is this is one. Listen, the U.S. policy has long been official policy. This is all Ukraine never officially accepted that Crimea was Russia's, but de facto on the ground, that was the reality. And Crimea has been treated as sort of a special case throughout this war. There's been a lot more reluctance to directly strike there. That's why

the blowing up of that bridge was such a big deal and so sort of provocative and potentially escalatory and kind of a scary situation for the time, even though, you know, obviously it was a huge win for the Ukrainian military. But Putin kind of screwed himself over by annexing those four regions or pretending to annex or legally annexing or however you want to put it, because then it created less of a distinction between Crimea. It was sort of trying to put these four regions in of a distinction between Crimea. He was sort of trying to put these four regions in the same bucket as Crimea. And it made it so that there was less of a special, like, special consideration of this one particular region. So I do think this is, in some ways, you know, a problem of his own making.

There's a sense that the Russian people also are sort of more attached to Crimea as like part of their land than the eastern parts of Ukraine. There's more of a like, you know, historical, like this is really our territory. These are our people. They're also, I mean, we shouldn't deny the fact that prior to all of these hostilities, even Western media outlets would acknowledge that a lot of people who lived, Russian speakers in Crimea, actually were favorable, more favorable to Russia and were, you know, more inclined to be part of Russia than part of Ukraine. So that's why Crimea, when we talk about that, it's sort of a special deal and why it's seen as more escalatory when the U.S. says, no, no, we really directly are also committed to providing Ukraine with the tools and weapons

and what they need to be able to push you all the way out of there as well. It's a maximalist statement. That's what I'm trying to say. Absolutely, especially from a military perspective. I mean, it was effectively de facto U.S. policy and Western policy across the board that, you know, don't approve of it, never going to recognize it, but there's not much you can do about it. So to say now that there is something you could do about it, look, we'll see. I mean, I tend to think it's much more of a red line than what the other Russian ones. But as you said,

it's Russia's fault for putting us in a position of ambiguity as to what's real and what's not. So don't be surprised whenever your red lines get tested and then you don't do anything that people don't take them seriously. It's a slow burning problem on both ends. Let's go to the next part here, which is also very important. Let's put this up there on the screen. Nuclear drills have resumed in Russia. These are longstanding, scheduled nuclear drills by Vladimir Putin. He actually sat in the Russian version of the Situation Room, which I've got to say, it looks a lot like the Dr. Strangelove roundtable.

It's a little scary. I thought it looked like an apartment building-like conference room. I don't know. With a weird roundtable. Our situation room looks comforting. It's like wood and pan. This one is all white and it's a roundtable, which always gets me scared. And look, I don't know.

We'll see. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, Putin had overseen annual exercises of the Strategic Nuclear Force. Now, this is the second time this has happened in the last year. Some of the last time that we saw some of these drills and all these things happening were around the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That being said, once again, the drill, it says that it's for the military command and control to practice carrying out a massive nuclear strike by the Strategic Nuclear Forces in retaliation for an enemy's nuclear strike, something that they do every year. They have ICBMs that they test and others from sea-launched ICBMs and others. In general, I mean, I think it's

a reminder, and that's why they do it every single year, which is that, like, hey, we're nuclear power. We are not to be trifled with. And of course, we have to take that seriously. Yeah, well, and you know, in the last nuclear drill that they did was, it was in February. Yeah, I know. Just before the invasion. Yeah. So, I mean, yeah, these are regularly scheduled. They informed the U.S. about the drill under the terms of the New START Arms Treaty. So you don't want to read too much into it, but still not a great thing. Absolutely. And at the same time, let's put this up there on the screen. Ukraine actually alleging that a Russian dirty bomb deception at the nuclear plant. The nuclear energy operator of Ukraine said that Russian forces were performing secret work at the

largest nuclear power plant with activity that could shed light on their potential provocation and the dirty bomb. So after Sergei Shogu made that allegation that Ukraine was preparing a dirty bomb, there have been some indications that Russians have been participating in some planning operations about potentially using the nuclear power plant to facilitate that. Again, this is from Ukraine. Who knows if it's true or not? That being said, the Russians have used that nuclear power plant for shielding. They've shelled around the area before. It's caused a lot of consternation, obviously, also in terms of the power supply and who controls it, you can see Ukraine struggling with all of that right now. So like we said in the very beginning, on the dirty bomb front, nobody knows. Could be bluster, could be BS, could be nothing, could be the pretext to something. We still have no indication. There's a lot of different areas where they could strike. They could use these drills as a pretext for actual escalation. They have troops in Belarus now. There's all kinds of things that are in their arsenal that they could pull out.

They're definitely sticking with the story here, though, because Shogun continues to go out and tell various people. He told his counterpart in China also that Ukraine was planning a dirty bomb. So they have some strategy here. What it is and where it leads, nobody knows, but important to keep an eye on. Okay, let's move on to Twitter. This is an interesting story in its own right. I mean, far less interesting, let's put this up there on the screen, which is that Elon Musk will officially take ownership of Twitter on Friday,

or at least that's expected. I guess something still could technically happen. But he's notified dealmakers and other equity holders in the company that he will finalize his takeover. He changed his Twitter bio to, quote, Chief Twit. He has, you know, the real story is, OK, now that Elon has effectively been forced to buy Twitter, what is he going to do with Twitter? There were he denied yesterday that he would be firing 75% of the workforce, but he still could fire 50 and not claim that. Twitter right now- 74.2%.

Yes, 74.2%. I mean, look, Twitter has tremendous problems. They are a business which is long failing. Even though they are put up there with the Facebooks and the Googles of the world, they don't have even close to the same market capitalization. They don't have nearly the same amount of operating revenue or even profit. It's not a particularly profitable company. Of all the social media giants, from a pure monetary perspective, it is by far the weakest, which is why he's able to buy it effectively with Tesla stock in the first place. Elon himself walked into the Twitter lobby yesterday. Let's go ahead and put the video. For those who are just watching, who are watching, Elon walked into the lobby

of Twitter carrying a sink saying, entering Twitter HQ, let that sink in. So a bit of a pun, I guess. Classic Elon pun. It's a real, real dad joke there. Just put it all to this, which is that he just spent $44 billion in cash on a failing business, which was probably worth $20 billion at best. And just to give you some insight, people at Twitter, who are obviously leaking in order to show you just how much of a mistake really, frankly, was to even buy Twitter, put this up there, which is that internal Twitter data leaked to Reuters shows that the most active users who are, let me get the exact numbers here, the heavy tweeters who account for less than 10% of monthly overall users, but generate 90% of all tweets and half of all Twitter global revenue have been, quote, in absolute decline since the pandemic began. A Twitter researcher has an internal document called Where Did the Tweeters Go? And what they define a heavy tweeter as is somebody who logs into Twitter six or seven times a week and tweets

about three to four times a week, which most news people would put them to absolute shame. Yeah, I was going to say, I don't consider myself a heavy tweeter. Yeah, by this definition, even I am. And I've carried mine back by 90%. I mean, it's a tweet like 100 times a day, which is obviously way too much. So anyway, the point being that the most active English speaking users, which make up most of the global revenue and most of the users on the Twitter platform, have been in absolute decline. Now, this is funny. What are the highest-growing topics of interest in the last two years? Cryptocurrency.

Porn. Crypto and porn, basically. Yeah, that's basically it. And given the crypto crash, not inspiring. They say even crypto now with the crypto crash has been plummeting in that one, too. So now it's just porn. And the core stuff, the core product of news, sports, and entertainment is apparently waning amongst those users. And the problem is that, you know, no problem with porn.

It's fine that it's on there. In fact, I think they actually do a pretty good job of allowing there to be porn on Twitter, but not taking over everybody's timelines. You know what I mean? I've never personally seen it on Twitter. Oh, you haven't? Not on Twitter. I mean, I occasionally have.

Well, there's one porn star who's a male porn star who's a massive fan. I won't even shout him out, but he's a massive fan of our show. And so one time I was like, oh, who is this guy? And I was like, oh, my God. All right, so shout out to you, I guess. Anyway, the issue from a business perspective is it's not as profitable because, you know, blue chip advertisers, they don't have their ad next to whatever Sagar happened to stumble upon on Twitter.

So so that's the real issue from a business perspective. I know there's a lot to say about this. I mean, first, with regard to Elon, like my position the whole time has just been, let's wait and see. Let's see if the deal really closes. Let's see what he actually does because he's thrown out all kinds of ideas and plans and, you know, PowerPoints and whatever. Let's see what direction he actually takes it in. Maybe it's better. Maybe it's worse. Maybe it's indifferent. I have no idea.

So I'm just going to wait and see. Do I think there are ways that you can improve Twitter? Absolutely. I mean, Twitter is like kind of a hellscape. Like, it's sort of great and it's sort of terrible. And it seems like even putting like the free speech and censorship piece aside, there are things that you could do that would make it less of a like hellscape where no matter what you say, everybody's incentive is to be like, you're stupid and terrible and intentionally misinterpret what you say. There are lots of

other platforms that don't have that vibe and ethos. I'm not smart enough to understand why Twitter has that and other places like Instagram don't. But anyway, there seems like there could be improvements in terms of the quality of the discourse on the platform. Put that aside. Yeah. You have a thought? Well, I was just going to say, I frankly think that that is probably what contributes to engagement, which is why people make money. That's why. Well, maybe. But then on the other hand, why are they losing these heavy tweeters? Maybe because Twitter is a miserable place to hang out. That's true. You know, so ultimately it could be like a Pennywise Pound foolish kind of a situation of this culture that you've created because, yeah, at any individual day, like the level of outrage and engagement and all of that is really ginned up.

But over time, people are like, what? Like you. Like, why do I have this in my brain? Why do I have this in my life? Why am I obsessing over this day to day when it's making me feel worse? So I don't know. I do think it's also there's a couple of things here. I mean, they point to specifically engagement around liberal politics has taken a heavy slide downward, which is just consistent with overall news media. General vibe. You know, general news media. I mean, yeah, they point to spikes around things like the U.S. attack, the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. But in general, huge declines on that. Also, they say they're losing a, quote, devastating percentage of heavy users who are interested in fashion or celebrities like the Kardashian family.

And they think that those particular users are just moving over to places like Instagram, TikTok, in particular, I think, TikTok. Probably. Yeah. It makes sense, which is, look, at the end of the day, it was a great invention for distribution, but I've always been the greatest critique is your individual power as a Twitter user, as a random small account, is just very low. You know, we see this, which is that disproportionately that's what they point to. 90% of all tweets come from only 10% of the user. But that's terrible from an engagement. Very unequal.

Exactly. That's why it's such a place for elite thought. Exactly. But, you know, that's not really a particularly good business. Look, he could try a lot of things. The Twitter subscription thing ultimately failed. They did a rollout. Now, if they could possibly force heaviest users to pay, that could work.

You know, once you reach, let's say, over 50,000 followers, you have to pay $3.99 a month in order to maintain access to your followership. Not a terrible idea, actually. But there's a lot of things that you can do. On its current trajectory. I just don't see any way without massive layoffs. Let's put this on the screen, which is that Twitter users or Twitter employees have put out an open letter basically saying, please don't fire 75% of us. But the irony is, is that internal Twitter documents actually show that the vast majority of the workforce was already kind of put at risk. They were already weighing massive layoffs at the company, maybe not in the 75th percentile range, but something like 20%

or so of the workforce. So no matter who took over this company, it was going to be a bloodbath from day one. And look, I like Jack Dorsey just from a purely ideological perspective. I think his heart was in the right place, but God bless him. He did not do a good job in creating a good business here. And maybe it's not possible. Maybe it was always impossible for it to be a great business. It was maybe it's one of those things, like it's a great service like Google, but it just doesn't have the monetary backend. You know, one of the insights that Elon does have that I have all kinds of issues with Elon, but that I think is correct is like, he's very skeptical of public companies and public markets because of the way it messes up incentives. Oh, he's correct.

And he's absolutely correct about that. I mean, we talked to Rana Foroohar earlier this week, who's a wonderful thinker and just wrote a great book called Homecoming and has also written books like Makers and Takers all about the financialization of our economy. And the reality is private businesses really are much more incentivized to focus on the quality of their product. The numbers bear out. They invest way more in research and development versus, you know, your public company, the whole game is like buying back your own stock and all this financial engineering crap. So, I mean, that's another issue here as well. But look, I'm curious to see what he does. If it improves the platform, that would be wonderful because it really is central to our elite discourse and political dialogue. I mean, in some ways, of course,

like what happens on Twitter isn't real, like Twitter's not real life, whatever. But it does really set the agenda in terms of elite opinion makers. And so it is a very critical part of our public square. It's personally why I don't think it should be up to the whims of profit incentives. I think it should either be like basically, you know, public utility is part of this sort of infrastructure of how we conduct democracy. But if there are any marginal improvements that are made here, it would be a positive thing. I would really like it. I mean, I think a return to the chronological feed, which you can do, you can do yourself. I've done that, but most people don't do that. I was away from the

algorithmic feed would be very beneficial for, there's a lot of things I could do for the service, but I just don't see a way that it makes a lot of money. That's why I just don't think there's any world in which you will make any of this money back. But I mean, look, maybe he did the world a favor, which is that you burn your cash and you do, you know, basically eat the cost for the rest of us to have a service, which I do think is vital. But from a business perspective, I really just don't see it. From an advertising related business, it's just not going to happen.

Now, he's never bet against him from a business perspective. I think all of us have learned that. It's very possible he could turn the ship around. He could turn it into a lean, mean machine and then just increase the operating revenue, and that alone would drive a profit. And then maybe he could even sell the company in the future. We'll see what he actually does. Yeah. I mean, I don't really care how the business does.

I care about how it is for society. We'll see. We'll see what he does. All right. Our friend Ken Klippenstein over at The Intercept has a really important scoop here about how exactly the Fed operates. And go ahead and put this up on the screen. He partnered with Daniel Bogoslaw for this report. The headline here is the Fed likes to tout its independence. So why are big banks lobbying it? Unlike Trump, Biden vowed to, quote, respect the Fed's independence, even as bank lobbyists continue to swarm it.

And I think they set it up really perfectly here because, you know, the theoretical image of the Fed is it's sort of an island unto itself. And you have these just brilliant mathematicians and economists who are analyzing the numbers of the economy and then really sort of like with no value judgment, just crunching the numbers and doing what's right for the economy. That's their platonic ideal of what the Fed actually is. Ken and Daniel here expose the reality, which is this is an institution that may not be accountable to you, but they are taking in a lot of input and they're taking it in mostly from Wall Street. So let me read this to you. They say paid lobbyists make their case on behalf of massive financial corporations in the same fashion as K Street lobbyists

hawking their wares to members of Congress. In 2022 alone, over 120 groups reported lobbying the Fed on issues ranging from credit card fees to crypto to sprawling monetary policy initiatives like mortgage finance. Postings on the Federal Reserve website in the past year record meetings with Discover Financial, Student Loan Servicing Alliance, National Bankers Association, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, all of whom saw their profits go up during that year, basically. Like their congressional counterparts, many of the lobbyists seeking to influence the Fed spent time in government before joining their respective firms. The agencies that served as training

grounds for Fed lobbyists include Departments of Defense, Energy, also Treasury Department, SEC, and the Federal Reserve itself. So it's even worse in a lot of ways than the congressional lobbying that goes on, because at least in theory, there's some democratic input mechanism on the other side. Here, it's all just one way. So the sense, which, you know, I mean, the Fed was created to be sort of like a representative of all these banks around the country. The sense that this is a Wall Street institution of buy and for Wall Street is only heightened by the fact that they are being subjected to this level of lobbying. And also a lot of, this is the other thing that they find out, a lot of off-the-record meetings, closed events, that it's very hard to even know these things are going on, where they have been accused in the past of giving out some inside information that could help these

banks in terms of how they position themselves. Well, the way they always bill it is like, look, you know, with the federal funds rate and the way that these access to the capital, like there has to be close collaboration between the Fed and these financial institutions. Like, yeah, I could see it. And then, of course— Well, shouldn't there be close collaboration with the American people then, too? Like, we've got to stick in this economy as well. This goes to the fundamental problem, which is that they actually don't— legally, they have no obligation to take in anything democratic at all. In fact, many times they use

anti-democratic language in order to make sure that they can pursue a course of action which they believe to be best, even if all of us don't have a say in that. That's the whole point of an independent central bank, which goes to a whole other more philosophical debate. Anyway, the point being that this is all – maybe I'm the only one, but do you remember when Tim Geithner and the other officials at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York were literally brokering sales of various banks to each other in the middle? I was like, am I insane for thinking it's inappropriate for a financial official to be brokering the sale of one bank to another or calling the CEO of, like, J.P. Morgan, I think, and be like, you need to buy Chase Bank. Like, you need to bail us out.

And I was like, this is totally insane, you know? Is he making money for any of those companies right now? I don't know the answer to that question. I read his book. It was an interesting one. And really what came out was the deep level of which him and all the global financial officials were integral in terms of coordinating specifically with the – remember that grand meeting with the nine banks? And, I mean, that really was like a mask-off moment of like, oh, like they really do control the whole economy. And collaboration with them does have tremendous effects on everybody in terms of who bails out who and who buys what and to what effect and guaranteed loans. And, you know, I don't remember any of

that for a lot of people who lost their houses. So that's actually my main takeaway, which is that this just exposes like further, further rot in all of this, further rot in the way that our financial system is fundamentally structured. That's right. And there is, okay, so during the coronavirus pandemic, when the crash happened and all of that was going on, I mean, it was really clear that there was this powerful institution there to backstop Wall Street that could turn on a dime and basically do what they wanted to fill the gaps. And then the rest of us are left with this basically like gridlocked, imperfect, messy process of operating through legislation with all the problems entailed given how divided everything is now. And yet, yeah, when Wall Street needs something, they're able to act on a dime with zero accountability, with zero sort of democratic input. And it,

you know, in a time where you have democratic institutions functioning, that might work better than it does now. But when you have it, the system's so lopsided, that's when it really becomes such an incredible problem. The other thing that was really interesting to me about this report here from Ken is they said that they talked to a bunch of experts who are deeply steeped in the workings of the Fed, financial markets, and all of that stuff, who had no idea that this was even legal. This is how sort of like closely kept this ultimately is. And there are all kinds of other loopholes. And we've covered here a number of Fed scandals, too, where these, you know, powerful people who are, you know, the head of a Fed, the Fed bank in Atlanta, I think it was, who were being caught violating their ethics rules, who were trading stocks when they're not supposed to, all sorts of stuff. So they've got a major

issue here. And it is astonishing that not only is this all going on, but there's so little discussion of it. This is the first report I have ever seen in the way that they're influenced by these actors. Yeah, I think that's, it's really just a crazy takeaway. Okay, let's move on to one of my personal favorite stories. Bob Menendez, who was famously let off and acquitted for what I thought was a clear as day corruption scandal. I think there was a mistrial, wasn't there? Yeah, whatever. I mean, he got a mistrial, which was shocking. The evidence was so clear on that scandal that it was insane that it even came to what it is.

But whatever. He was opened with well and open arms back in the Senate Democratic Caucus, retains his chairmanship, which I also think is amazing. So let's put this up there on the screen. He is under investigation again, actually around similar corruption and bribery charges from 2017, two years after the 2015 incident. Just to remind people about what it was, it was a doctor who provided flights on a private jet, this is all verified and vacations in exchange for Governor or Senator Menendez's help getting government contracts and other public favors. His defense was that they were simply good friends and he was doing it for that reason, not because of the quid pro quo with the government flights.

Well, and I'm like, OK, both is bad. Right. The interesting thing too is this, this dude, the eye doctor, he was actually pardoned by Trump. Yes. Yes. This was a dude who was, you know, he was an operator. He wasn't like a partisan actor. He was one of these that was playing both sides. He was a wheeler dealer. Yeah. Get what he wanted out of whatever, what he wanted out of the situation. So yeah, it was Trump that actually pardoned this guy that Menendez is entangled with. Right. So the exact situation here is not known. What we do know is that in 2017, there is a new inquiry into a very similar case about a quid pro quo between Menendez and another rich individual. This public corruption case is similarly being investigated by the

Southern District of New York. It was also verified after Semaphore broke the scoop open by ABC News and other outlets. Let's put this up there on the screen. The federal prosecutors in Manhattan are looking up into more corruption allegations from 2017 after having that mistrial in the 2015 allegation case. But I mean, look, as to whether this is going to work out, Crystal, I'm just not sure because so much trust in the public corruption unit was actually lost in this trial because Menendez, for everything that we can say about him, is still tremendously popular in the state of New Jersey. He effectively weaponized his status in the state. Classic Jersey vibe. This is serious Jersey stuff.

He was like, look how much I've done for you. Look how much I've done for the people of New Jersey. You guys like that train station and all this money flowing in here. I've got rank, which he does. He certainly is a powerful man. And Washington. And that is basically how he got off in this trial. So he's very likely to use the same playbook.

And the fact that he was already effectively beat them in court once shows you that you know he's got a tremendous legal strategy to try and do it again so i don't know how this is going to work out but yeah well he has always been indicted yet he's under investigation he has the presumption of innocence i'm just telling you like he does not dispute accepting those private flights yeah no you know what i mean i'm not even asserting necessarily i'm just saying like they haven't even gotten to the point of indicting him. Yeah, right. So it's not even clear

he's going to have to defend himself in a trial. We'll wait and see. But, yeah, I guess people in Jersey are like, well, he might be a crook, but he's our crook. But he's our crook.

I mean, there is some admiration for that style of politics. Like, I get it. Very Jersey. It goes back to Tammany Hall I think a lot of people also have a vibe of like,

well, they're all probably really crooks. Yeah, yes. This is a special level, which is, look of like, well, they're all probably really crooks. Yeah. Yes. This is a special level. Oh, no doubt about it. There's something gives me pleasure when I board a flight and I see a senator like in the back of the plane, even though he's worth like a couple million dollars. Because I'm like, you know, he should know.

Because they do it, by the way, because they know better. Because they're like, well, if you're flying first class, like all this, you get pictured in that. They should at least be expected to, you know, operate in the veneer of some respectability, like to be so brazen as to accept lavish vacations and private flights and then outright do favors on their behalf. And then have your defense just be he was a buddy of mine, not direct corruption. We should also like it's actually hard to get indicted for corruption. Yes. Yes. Because the the laws are so lax, as I hope we've covered here extensively, like the way these members of Congress are constantly meeting with donors doing their bid. Oh, it just so happens that I'm also really interested in this super specific issue that this person who gave me ten thousand off and to also be interested.

I mean, like, what's his face? Bob McDonald in Virginia who was convicted. Yeah, that's right. And then ultimately let off because you have to almost literally, based on the way the law and the interpretation of the law is, you have to almost literally, like, take a bag of cash and say, I am taking this cash because I'm going to do this favor for you directly. Like it has to be super, super direct. So to even get to that level where they're going to indict you for it is, you know, you did something extra special in terms of the Washington, the Washington swamp to get to that level. Totally agree.

All right, Sagar, what are you looking at? Well, I mostly have not cared about COVID for like a year now. Occasionally, I would be reminded of how dumb our policy was when blue cities refused to drop mask mandates and Uber rides. But by and large, I moved on.

Every once in a while, you see someone in a K95 in the grocery store and you think, wow, that's kind of wacky. But look, it's their life. They can do whatever they want. If you look at the data, I'm solidly where most people are. We just don't care anymore. We don't think about it. That's why what just happened at the White House was so bizarre. It was like a TV screen into a different universe. When President Biden got his fifth,

I repeat, fifth coronavirus shot in the last two years and encouraged literally everyone to do the same and issued this stark warning. Let's take a listen. So take precautions. Stay safe. You can spend Thanksgiving with family and friends with a peace of mind knowing that you've done your part for everyone's well-being. My administration is doing our part. We've made these updated vaccines easy to get and available for free at tens of thousands of convenient locations. What's your reaction to the Saudis on oil, urging the U.S. not to use reserves?

Sir, do you think it was a mistake for New York to withdraw a mandate for vaccines? Say again? Do you think it was a mistake for New York to withdraw vaccine mandate for five employees? No, I don't think. That's a local judgment. Thank you. Lots to unpack there. Fifth time President Biden received the COVID shot on camera with rhetoric reminiscent of the early days of 2021. That's actually what strikes me the most about this. Since 2021, we learned a lot about COVID About the efficacy of vaccination, of boosters, of Omicron, and more

And yet, the Biden administration continues to stick with the unscientific notion That getting the Omicron booster after already getting four other shots Somehow protects other people that you might be around at Thanksgiving Now look, I honestly ignored the news of the Omicron booster Like most of you A month after its so-called rollout Only 4% of the U.S. public had even gotten one. All of us basically moved on. But now that the White House is pushing it so hard, we've got to delve into just how crazy the approval process of this shot was, what it actually does, and why the push for the fifth shot will likely kill other public vaccination campaigns for a long time. Let's start with the latest booster itself. What exactly is the Omicron booster? The medical term is a bivalent vaccine, which means it contains a mix of mRNA from the original COVID strain and the

Omicron variant. The theory behind it is the updated shot will give people more protection against Omicron as it remains the dominant circulating form of the virus across the world. Except, there are big problems in how this shot was even approved in the first place. As doctor and MPH David McKeown writes in Dr. Vinay Prasad's excellent Sensible Medicine magazine, the bivalent booster shot was approved by the CDC and the FDA with no data from human trials. In fact, Pfizer presented its version of the bivalent booster to the board with data literally from eight mice. Worse, the study on the mice had finished on the very same day that they were even presenting the slide with not one shred of data to provide prevention of severe disease. Pfizer claimed the vaccine reliably raised antibodies,

but said even in mice, quote, there was no correlate of protection against COVID. Hmm. David McKeown continues, there was no safety data used to approve this vaccine, quote, literally none. He continues, quote, the committee was uneasy, but ultimately chose to learn about any new side effects after the rollout. So in conclusion, he notes, quote, in choosing an untested new vaccine combination, the FDA opted for speed over evidence in the hope of providing protection from current and future variants. They discussed an ongoing series of boosters with no clear metrics as to how and when this should end. He adds that all we really know about these shots is that a BA.5 bivalent vaccine raised antibody levels in eight mice who received it and lived long enough to have their blood drawn. Anything more is speculation.

This is a scandal of epic proportions. How does this get approved widely for the entire general population? David McCune continues that in August, he actually wrote that in August of 2022. And on the very same day that Joe Biden, the CDC and the FDA just asked us all to take these latest booster shots, researchers at Columbia University and the University of Michigan found that the bivalent booster failed to raise levels of protective antibodies against Omicron variant any more so than the previous four shots. The finding directly contradicts findings from both Moderna and Pfizer, which were published two weeks ago, which claimed that they had early positive data to show

protection against Omicron, and yet they claimed it on data that was based off of just seven days after vaccination. Columbia's study looked three to five weeks out. Furthermore, many might have noticed, as Dr. Prasad did, that the freaking CDC director Rochelle Walensky just got COVID this week, literally only one month after getting the so-called bivalent booster. As Dr. Prasad concludes from this episode, quote, before we launch massive vaccination campaigns, we need good evidence that they actually benefit the people we are tasked with protecting and caring. Rochelle Walensky's infection is a reminder to the American people she doesn't know what she's talking about because

she has not asked for good evidence. Consider all the information I just gave you in the context of the president's proclamation that we should all rush to get this booster, which has no data to show that it will do a damn thing in protecting people around you this Thanksgiving. And to be president's proclamation that we should all rush to get this booster, which has no data to show that it will do a damn thing in protecting people around you this Thanksgiving. And to be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't get this booster. If you're obese, if you're old, or if you're immunocompromised, maybe it makes sense. You should talk to your doctor. Or you can also do what I and many others did in the pandemic. You can lose some weight, you could go to the gym, you can reduce your alcohol consumption, and you won't just be better protected against COVID, you will reduce your likely all-cause

mortality and feel much better every day of your life. As the Washington Post so hilariously put it just two days ago, quote, regular exercise may improve the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccine. Can't help but laugh at that one. How about regular exercise may improve your health across the board? Regardless, the population-wide study in South Africa the piece was based on found that people who exercise were far less likely than those who were sedentary to be hospitalized for COVID, period. That data holds for almost everything from diabetes to heart disease, general aches and pains, depression. I can continue forever. If you really want to protect the people around you on Thanksgiving, here's my advice, which is actually backed up by science. Sign up for a turkey trot and don't be one of the millions of Americans who add weight during the holidays only to never lose it over the course of your life. Look, it may not be fun, but listen. And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagar's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, guys, where do I even begin? With the sad story that is now the retracted progressive caucus letter on Ukraine. This one incidence managed

to encapsulate the fecklessness of the elected left, the total crushing of all dissent on our policy towards Ukraine, and the extremely dangerous situation that we all find ourselves in with regard to a potential Armageddon. Let's review the whole humiliating affair, shall we? So on Monday, 30 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus released a carefully crafted letter including the mildest possible critique of the Biden approach to Russia's war in Ukraine. Letter went to great pains to explain Russia is the bad guy, that we should be deferential to Ukraine, and that any settlement must protect a free and independent Ukraine. They argued in that letter, quite reasonably in my opinion,

that, quote, given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of catastrophic escalation, we also believe it is in the interest of Ukraine, the U.S., and the world to avoid a prolonged conflict. For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and economic support the U.S. has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire. How can you even disagree with that? Yet in response to this very mild statement in favor of diplomacy, the liberal commentariat unleashed holy hell on every one of these members. They were pro-Putin stooges, they were ignorant, they had a colonialist mentality,

and the worst sin of all, they were accused of making common cause with Marjorie Taylor Greene and Kevin McCarthy. Well, almost immediately, Progressive Caucus co-chair Pramila Jayapal issued a sniveling correction, insisting that actually the letter really meant absolutely nothing at all. And within hours, she had fully retracted the letter. As if that wasn't bad enough, she decided to throw her staff under the bus in an absolutely cowardly attempt to deflect any sort of blame for the blowback. In her statement retracting the letter, Jayapal claimed that the letter had been, quote, drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting.

Give me a break. This is an obvious, bold-faced lie. It is ridiculous to imagine a bunch of staffers went rogue and were out freelancing on this, forging signatures in secret or something. I really don't even know what that would mean. It is so ridiculous. Not to mention, Jayapal herself gave a quote to the Washington Post upon the letter's release, indicating that there was a clearly choreographed and intentional effort to release this letter at this particular moment. Politico reports what was already blatantly obvious. Quote, a source familiar with the situation told Politico that Jayapal personally approved the letter's release on Monday. No shit. You see, Jayapal is rumored to be angling for a

leadership role. And even the hint that she was crosswise with Democratic Party elite orthodoxy was apparently enough for her to immediately supplicate herself to the party bosses and shamefully blame her workers. Imagine being unwilling to hold your position on something as truly existential as nuclear war because you want to preserve your ability to climb up in the swamp and took some heat from a bunch of idiots on Twitter. It is so pathetic, I have no words for it. For this reason and plenty of others, Jayapal has got to go as progressive caucus chair. But it's not like there was much courage to be found elsewhere. Bernie Sanders also chimed in to trash the letter, which he had never been a signatory on. As of this writing, there is precisely one Democrat who was willing to defend the staff and stand by the contents of the letter, that would be Congressman Ro Khanna. Well, Congresswoman Jayapal seemed to suggest that

this letter was a mistake. It was drafted, signed several months ago, and she's rescinded it. Do you not support that move? I don't. I think the letter was common sense. I support making sure we arm Ukraine and provide arms to Ukraine and continue to fund it. But I also believe that the president, as he said, we're at a risk of nuclear war. Don't you think our counterparts should be talking to Russia? Of course they should to make sure that it doesn't escalate. And, you know, my position is similar to what former Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen has said, what other senior military leaders have said. Yes, let's stand with Ukraine, but let's also support diplomacy. Now, there's an argument that Congressman

Khanna's position actually doesn't go far enough, that at this point, for their aid to Ukraine, should be conditioned directly on talks and a genuine effort to end this war. But the really stunning thing to me is that Khanna's view, which is apparently considered totally out of bounds by party electeds and by the liberal commentariat, that is the majority mainstream view of the American public. It's very clear, according to a Quincy Institute Data for Progress poll, 57% of Americans support diplomatic negotiations as soon as possible to end the war in Ukraine, even if it requires Ukraine making compromises with Russia. That position actually arguably goes further than the position of that now-retracted letter,

which didn't actually specify that we should be willing to compromise with Russia. And almost half of respondents, 47%, went much further than the letter, explicitly saying we should only send further aid if we are engaged in diplomacy to try to end the war. Actually, today, the fringe view is the one you see commonly espoused on Twitter and on cable news, which is that the U.S. needs to send even more aid to Ukraine. Back in March, 42% of the public said we were not providing enough support. That number has fallen precipitously and today stands at just 18%. I cannot tell you how incredibly disturbing and dangerous it is that as we face down the possibility of continued escalation up to and including the possibility of

a nuclear war, there is literally zero room for dissent in the party that is now in power. Even as the president openly admits that we face potential nuclear Armageddon, you are not allowed to disagree with their current posture of endless war to weaken Russia by even one millimeter. This is madness, and it all stems from a legacy of Russiagate derangement and fear of appearing like, oh my God, you might agree with a Republican on something. That was maybe to me the most disturbing part of Jayapal's retraction statement. She wrote, quote, proximity of these statements created the unfortunate appearance that Democrats are somehow aligned with Republicans who seek to pull the plug on American support for President

Zelensky and the Ukrainian forces. It is so incredibly grim that we have become such an unserious country that our leaders base their views on matters as important as war and peace, life and death, on whatever happens to be the opposite of what Marjorie Taylor Greene just said? Why would you hand a person like Marjorie Taylor Greene so much power over your own thoughts and your own actions? Why would you succumb to this extreme partisan derangement? Branko Marchetic points out on Twitter that this is a stark contrast from the last similar nuclear brinkmanship

that was the Cuban Missile Crisis. I've spent the past couple of weeks, he writes, reading U.S. press coverage of the Cuban Missile Crisis at the time, and it's hard to really articulate how extreme and unhinged today's media discourse is by comparison, even as we similarly inch toward nuclear catastrophe.

As one example, four days into the crisis, there were widespread reports that JFK was open to meeting, talking with Khrushchev when he was visiting the U.S. for a U.N. summit. That was thought pretty normal. Today, a Biden-Putin meeting is a political non-starter. That's what he wrote. I suspect that as winter sets in and the grim reality of energy crises and endless war also sets in, Ro Khanna and others who are urging diplomacy are going to appear prescient, that the American public will be even more undeniably behind them. Let's just all hope that we make it until then. And Sagar, there is so much I am disgusted with about this whole thing.

And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Biden administration being sued because of their refusal to release in a timely fashion records related to the assassination of JFK. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. This is from NBC News. The headline is, What are they hiding? Group sues Biden and National Archives Over JFK Assassination Records. As a reminder, the JFK Records Act, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton, required the documents be made available by October of 2017. President Trump sort of kicked the ball down the road to Biden. Biden has continued to push forward the date when those records will be released, raising a lot of questions about what it is that they are so worried about revealing. Joining us now, we have a guest who was actually quoted in that article who caught my attention. He's a former CIA agent and actually former Moscow

station chief, Rolf Mowat-Larsen. He's also a senior fellow at the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School. Great to have you, sir. Welcome. Good to see you, sir. It's good to be here. Thank you. So you had a quote in that article and you lay down, you know, based on your long history and experience with the agency, what you think is the most plausible explanation of who was behind the plot to kill Kennedy. I'll read your quote here and then you can sort of elaborate. You say, what I think happened in a nutshell is that Oswald was recruited into a rogue CIA plot. This group of three, four or five rogues decided their motive was to get rid of Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs Cuban missile crisis,

because they thought it was their patriotic duty given the threat the country was under at the time and their views, which would be more hardline or more radically anti-communist and very extreme politically. So, um, is that some of what you think might be revealed in this document, this document release, if they ever ultimately come out? What do you think could be in those documents that would be interesting to the public? Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that after 60 years, the document should be released with the exception of a few things that might just frankly compromise something that the people in the U.S. government should keep secret. So it's not an unconditional release everything position I have. It's after 60 years, the truth belongs to the American people and the American people should know the full truth. I think it's worth pointing out before I offer any comment on my own theories, is that

our own government in 1979 put out a report from the House Assassination Committee hearings that had crucial findings that started with the idea that there probably was an assassination, a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy, which means it's not really a pure conspiracy theory. It's something our own government believes. That same report included the findings that the U.S. government in all probability was not involved, whether that would be CIA, the president, FBI, or any other arm of the U.S. government.

And I think after 60 years, if the U.S. government itself was involved in the assassination of Kennedy, we would all know about it because we couldn't keep that secret for 60 years if it was a government plot. At the same time, the findings included the judgment that it wasn't the Russians, the Soviets, or the Cubans or organized crime that set out to kill the president. So that leaves the theory that if there was any sort of conspiracy, it included Lee Harvey Oswald,

but also probably a small number, less than a handful of people from the government who had the motivation, the means, and the opportunity to potentially kill the president. So that's what I think the documents will help shed light on for the serious researchers and historians who still want to know the full truth to look at those documents to see whether we can still piece together the information that would end the mystery of who really killed JFK. Right. And what leads you, though, to that conclusion? And why do you have confidence that it would even be in the documents? I mean, my understanding of the revelations of MKUltra, COINTELPRO, the only reason we even know about it is because documents were basically stolen by a bunch of activists,

which allowed FOIA people to know exactly what to FOIA. Otherwise, it was such a tightly controlled program, the documents themselves would have been effectively lost to history and to the church committee. So why should we expect that 60-odd years later that a similar kind of cover-up hasn't happened in that way? Well, I don't think there will be documents where once the documents are released, we're going to collectively say, oh, wow, that's what happened. I think, again, it's going to provide the basis to continue research to finally – I'm not in the school of believers who think that this mystery will never be solved because it's been so long. I think we have to keep at it.

And the reason we have to keep at it is the truth is more important than anything else. is even before the Kennedy assassination, there were things that CIA itself failed to disclose that covered up. In fact, there was a very fascinating Studies of Intelligence article in 2013 that essentially said John McCone, who was the director of CIA after Helms had been fired by Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs, deliberately withheld information and deceived the committee and the Warren Commission when they asked him to testify. So what that proves is, regardless of the reason, and I don't think it was to cover up any sort of knowledge of the Kennedy assassination, the agency was worried at the time about lots of things that could have had tangential connections to the Kennedy assassination. I would call that the covert action culture of the time, the assassination, the attempts to kill Castro, the dealings with organized crime to do that, overthrow governments in Latin America. There were a number of activities the CIA was conducting at the time that the CIA was

clearly trying to cover up and not disclose in the aftermath of the president's assassination. So I think the reason probably, unfortunately, this would be a very bad reason in my judgment to withhold documents that the agency or the U.S. government are embarrassed about what the disclosures of these documents might reveal about other things. That would, to me, be an unacceptable reason to keep this secret. We should know at this point more about those activities. I might point out that at the time Kennedy was killed, the CIA wasn't even under any form of effective congressional oversight. That didn't happen until 1979 with the Church Commission hearing. So again, it's the idea of disclosure and transparency is a duty.

And if there's a strong extenuating reason why these documents should not be revealed, I think it would be wise, forget about the legality and the law, it would be wise for the U.S. president to indicate exactly what that would mean, what that would be that would cause him to decide not to release these documents that belong to the American people, frankly, not to the CIA. Well, in the current stance, it's hardly been convincing to the American public, a majority of whom still believe, that there is more to the story than the official government narrative here. And part of what makes you so interesting is that you have so many years of experience with the agency. Could you speak to what you learned about how the agency operates, how that informs your theory of what you think the most plausible scenario is here? Yeah, that's the question that got me interested in this. I, like so many Americans,

I'm very interested in what really happened. I think it's a piece of our history we need to know. I didn't become even suspicious that there might be an explanation where three to five people might have conspired to work with Oswald to kill Kennedy until I examined that as a possibility. And I realized, wait a minute, if there was a small conspiracy of a very few number of people who could keep the secret for 60 years and take the secret to their grave, be fully witting collaborators with Oswald in the plot, then I thought the most likely explanation would be some CIA officers at the time. This really pains me to even suggest this. And I'm not saying I certainly can't prove it.

I think it's something that needs to be fully explored is the idea that it looks kind of like a CIA operation in terms of the motive. That would be the president betrayed, for example, all the people the CIA worked with at the time to overthrow Castro at the Bay of Pigs when he called out the Bay of Pigs. People would say, well, that's no motive to kill the president. But you have to add to that, perhaps, some of these maybe same people who thought,

again, a very small number of people who thought that the president had gotten over his head with the Russians in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and there were civil rights problems at the time, and the country was highly polarized. I know now we're living in a time when the country's almost as polarized as it was in the 1960s. But it was a time when there were extreme views on all sides about the politics, about what was happening in the country. And it's not unimaginable that a very small number of people thought they were being patriots

if they were to do something this monstrous. Again, this is not something I accuse the agency of or think the agency had any direct knowledge of. But when you look at the key officials then and afterwards, even presidents later like Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson and others, they all suspected there was a conspiracy. I think the most disappointing thing to me as an American, because I served the people first and then I think of myself as a CIA officer, I'm a citizen first. The most disappointing thing about this is our leaders, we couldn't trust our leaders to tell us the full truth. We couldn't trust our leaders to ensure that we knew the full truth. They wanted to spare us from the truth.

And I have never in my lifetime been comfortable with the idea that our leaders should know something that in some way, at some point, the American people also don't know. What impact do you think that has had on the public? Because even if, like, regardless of what really happened, you have a majority of Americans who think the government is lying to them. I mean, what do you think is the fallout from that? I'm so happy you asked me that question. And we didn't do any sort of rehearsal on all this. So I was wondering where you were going to come at it from. And this, me is one of the crucial questions and the reason I agreed to do the interview. I'm not here to prove I think there's a conspiracy of CIA officers. That is my fear. That is my concern. And that, like other conspiracies of that kind, small group of people work together

to kill the president, we should still examine thoroughly. But the reason why we should release the documents is that we're at historic levels of mistrust of our government in general, usually because the government withheld things from us that we have a right to know, that we need to sanction. And it hasn't just been in the 60s and 70s things like if you remember Watergate it took the deputy director of the FBI Mark Felt to be as we now know deep throat Woodward and uh key source for Watergate to topple Nixon in other words an acting serving deputy director the FBI was a pivotal source of the truth so that we could take down a corrupt has been passed, release it. At least explain, justify why you would continue to take that position instead of just release the information.

I would accept it if someone got up and said, there's some very specific things, a few documents we're not going to release, but here's all the rest of it. That would be a much more understandable position because the government is in a historic period where I think the U.S. government writ large, but particularly the national security part of the government, Defense Department, CIA, FBI, etc., and the White House need to reinstill faith with the American people that we're being transparent and we don't use secrecy to hide the truth. Yeah, this would be a small step in that direction. Raul, thank you so much

for taking some time with us. We're really grateful. Great to speak with you, sir. We should have you back on soon. Appreciate it. Thank you, guys. Absolutely. Thank you guys so much for watching.

We really appreciate it. Thank you for supporting our work. CounterPoints is up tomorrow. We're excited to see what they do. I love the fact that we've got four shows a week now. So you guys are really helping us out. I mean, we have some hiring that we're doing right now, which is literally only possible because of all the premium support that you guys have shown us. We can't thank you enough. Link is down in the description. Otherwise, we're going to see you all next week. Love y'all. Enjoy CounterPoints tomorrow, and we'll see you on Monday.