Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 11/2/21: Progressives Cave, VA Gov Race, 2024 Polls, Epstein Connections, Jon Stewart, Returning to Normalcy, Katie Couric, NRA Downfall, and More!

Episode Date: November 2, 2021

Krystal and Saagar discuss the battle between Manchin & progressives on reconciliation, final messages of the VA Gov race, polling for the 2024 election, more dirty little secrets surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, Jon Stewart confronting Jamie Dimon on corporate greed, returning to normalcy after covid, Katie Couric's memoir, how the NRA collapsed, and more!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/Tim Mak’s Book: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/623771/misfire-by-tim-mak/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator,

and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process.

Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast,

so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, guys. Thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar. We're going to be totally upfront with you. We took a big risk going independent. To make this work, we need your support to beat the corporate media. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, they are ripping this country apart. They are making millions of dollars doing it.

To help support our mission of making all of us hate each other less, hate the corrupt ruling class more, support the show. Become a Breaking Points premium member today where you get to watch and listen to the entire show, ad-free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get

to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to breakingpoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the show, guys. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. It is election day in the state of Virginia. That is what we are focused on. There are other elections going on around the country as well. We've got the closing messages from the candidates, the very last polls. This thing certainly seems to be coming down to the wire.

We've got some new polling out of the Democratic Party in particular about how they may not be sold on another term of Biden. We'll tell you about that. Big Epstein update. The latest financial elite to be caught up in a scandal there. Jon Stewart, his new show, I got to tell you guys, I've been watching it. It's phenomenal. But he did an interview with banker Jamie Dimon.

It's extraordinary. We're going to bring you some of the highlights of that, of Stewart basically calling out Dimon to his face about what his actual priorities are. We've got a great guest on today, Tim Mack. He's written a book. He's an investigative journalist. He's been focused on the way that the NRA has turned into an utter and complete grift, wildly divorced from the actual interest of their members. So whether whatever side of that issue you're ultimately on, it's a phenomenal look at the way that these D.C. institutions just become totally corrupt and self-dealing. But we wanted to start with the reconciliation negotiations. As I just mentioned yesterday, Senator Joe Manchin, who, you know, Joe Biden had assured us was on board with this deal, that everybody was aligned, all of these things.

He decided to come out and give a press conference and basically pour cold water all over this entire deal. Let's take a listen. With the factors in mind and all of these factors that we've spoken about, I've worked in good faith for months with all of my colleagues to find a middle ground on a fiscally, and I repeat that, a fiscally responsible piece of legislation that fixes the flaws of the 2017 Trump tax bill that I thought was weighted far, far too far for the high-end earners and the needs of American families and children. However, as more of the real details outline the basic framework or release, what I see are shell games, budget gimmicks that make the real cost of the so-called $1.75 trillion bill estimated to be almost twice that amount if the full time is run out. If you extended it permanently, and that we haven't even spoken about. This is a recipe for economic crisis. None of us should ever misrepresent to

the American people what the real cost of legislation is. While I've worked hard to find a path to compromise, it's obvious compromise is not good enough for a lot of my colleagues in Congress. It's all or nothing. And their position doesn't seem to change unless we agree to everything. Enough is enough. So he says, I'm open to supporting a final bill that helps move our country forward, but I'm equally open to voting against a bill that hurts our country. You know, a lot of what he said there, I just find so disingenuous about the scoring of it and how much it costs.

Of course, these same concerns never, ever raised about the size of our national security state, military spending, Pentagon budgeting. None of that is ever a concern. But suddenly in the moment you want people to have, like, paid leave or childcare or universal pre-K, then it's, oh my God, I don't know if we can spend all this money. So you'll recall that Progressive's position has always been,

the one thing they've been consistent about is that the bipartisan infrastructure deal that people like Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and others want has to be tied together with the reconciliation bill. Well, yesterday, effectively out of nowhere, they completely abandoned that position, folding. Let's take a look at this tweet that has the details here from Pramila Jayapal. She is, of course, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She signals that Manchin's comments will not impact progressives, that they still plan to vote for the infrastructure bill and the $1.75 trillion plan. She says the president says he can get 51 votes for the bill.

We are going to trust him. We're tired of continuing to wait for one or two people. Just so you know how perplexing it is that they suddenly folded and changed position because their position had always been, we got to actually get a vote from the Senate on the reconciliation bill before we move on the infrastructure package. Jake Sherman, who's a congressional watcher, he talks about how bizarre it is that the progressives just folded here. So now Jayapal

is going to send the infrastructure bill to Biden's desk without assurances on the Build Back Better plan. Progressives are in a much worse spot than they were last week. Manchin is saying he'd be fine voting against Build Back Better. What a bizarre turn. So that's kind of where we are this morning, Zagre. It's pretty amazing because whenever I saw that, I almost couldn't believe it. I mean, for months and months, and even last week, the House essentially did not have a vote on the infrastructure bill because the progressives said that they wouldn't vote for it. And then he came out to give a speech specifically where he says, well, hold on a second.

And actually, the New York Times did a pretty decent job of writing this up. Let's put that tear sheet up there on the screen. Headline is, Manchin raises doubts on safety net bill, complicating path to a quick vote. And now what's really important in that Manchin tear sheet here is that he has gone out and said that he wants a CBO score. He wants like an independent evaluation of the actual effects of the bill, all kinds of different tactics and things which are designed in order to significantly delay one eventual passage. And also people should remember, we still have to deal with reconciliation itself. And I want to make sure people can understand, Reconciliation,

the way that it has to move through the United States Senate, means that there's all this arcane Senate procedure that comes with the passage of such a bill. You have to have something called a votorama, where people are allowed to add amendments to something, which means that can take 24 hours or so. You have to have different committees move each individual piece of the legislation, part of the legislation, out of their committee, all of which a Republican can object to and make it take even longer. So we could be looking at a two to three to even possibly a month or more timeline on the bill itself, given Manchin's objections. But at the same time, he's demanding the vote right now on infrastructure. And of course, the progressives knew this and they said, well, we're going to make them wait until they pass both bills. But effectively, they have given up all leverage. What stops Joe Manchin from saying, actually, yeah, I'm not going to vote for this thing now that we've gone ahead and passed my priority?

But Crystal, it's not just them. Remember, we have Gottheimer and many other, you know, quote unquote moderates within the House. They have never wanted to vote for the Build Back Better bill. They have been pretty consistent and open that they only wanted one of the bills, which is why they wanted that one to move forward. So I think it very much looks like a situation where, you know, that infrastructure bill could pass. Oh, and then all of a sudden, you know, CBO scores something this way, which, by the way, has happened so many times here in Washington. Back with the tax cuts bill where they had to,

they're like, actually, the CBO was fake during the Trump years, the Bush tax cuts. I mean, this has happened over and over again. I know it can sound a bit arcane, but really what it means is that, in effect, Manchin is demanding things which are going to, even if he does vote for it, it's going to take a long time. The progressives said, okay, fine, though, because of reasons, we will go ahead and vote for the infrastructure bill, which leaves the future of the Build Back Better agenda, which is, you know, all the social spending, very much in doubt, while the infrastructure bill is very possible. Yes, I mean, look, it could still pass. I have no idea.

Well, so, okay, one more piece of the story, and then we'll talk about what progressives may be thinking here. Things are going so badly with the Biden administration that even Democratic donors are basically abandoning ship. We have some reporting here from Brian Schwartz over at CNBC that we can throw up on the screen. Democratic donors are pulling their dollars for the midterm because they're so disgusted with the total lack of ability to pass anything and get any sort of significant agenda moving through Congress. So everyone effectively dissatisfied with where things are. And what hangs over all of this is Democratic donors threaten to hold back midterm donations over infighting in Congress and also the Virginia race. And that's what I was about to say hangs

over all of this. So it doesn't look particularly great for Terry McAuliffe in Virginia today. He may pull it off. As I said yesterday, this is already a disaster for Democrats. And if he loses, it's got Scott Brown in 2008 vibes all over it. So this is already a really bad situation. And progressives, being the scaredy cats that they are and hating anytime the media is like mean to them or has anything critical to say about them, they're worried that they're going to get blamed for a loss if Terry McAuliffe does lose in Virginia. That they're going to be, the blame's going to be pinned on them. Why did you guys hold up the agenda? Why

did you insist on having these bills tied together? Why didn't you vote on the infrastructure package last week? And so they've sort of preemptively folded so that they can avoid any sort of, oh my God, we can't have the media mad at us. Ryan Grim made this point in a tweet that we can take a look at basically saying that this has all of the hallmarks of progressives being fearful of being blamed for that loss, seeing the CPC changing course and now pushing for a vote on both the bipartisan bill and reconciliation before Manchin is on board. Feels like a caucus cracking under the threat of being absurdly blamed if McAuliffe loses. Now, here's the other calculation here, Sagar, which is apparently Biden and Pelosi have really assured progressives that, look, Manchin is saying whatever Manchin is

saying. He's posturing for the West Virginia, you know, more red leading state for the home audience. But in the end, if this comes to a vote, he is going to vote for it, and so is Sinema. That seems to be what the message is behind closed doors. What gives them that confidence? I have no idea. That might be true. I mean, we have seen Manchin before sort of posture in this way so he can assert his independence from the Democratic Party, play to the home state, and then ultimately fall in line with what they want him to do.

But, you know, I don't have any confidence. I don't know why progressives have any confidence that that will ultimately be the case when it's been very clear that business interests are looking for any way they possibly can to kill the larger agenda. And then you've still got Kyrsten Sinema hanging out there, and Lord knows what that lady will do when she's just looking for her next payday, seemingly. Yeah, no, correct. And this is the issue, which is that how can you possibly take the assurance unless it actually comes from the mouth of the two of them themselves? I actually tend to believe Joe Manchin whenever he speaks publicly, almost every single time. Anytime he's raised an objection, that objection has been legitimate in what he has been saying. So I don't know why

they would say that, oh, I have an assurance he's eventually going to do it. He literally said I still may not vote for it. So I'm going to be inclined to believe him whenever he says that publicly because not the one who is making the vote. So very tenuous ground on which to bet on. We are seeing a massive fold in real time in the public sphere. And, you know, this whole thing about posturing, I don't believe it because 75% of the American people don't even know what's in this bill or they know, quote, some of it, which essentially means that it's just like floating in the ether and nobody really has any idea. I mean, all of the politics of this have been completely ridiculous in the way that I think really everybody is handling themselves. And you are just seeing, once again, like a total collapse in fortitude ahead of the holiday season and more. I think a lot of it just has to do with they need to check on the scoreboard. They don't really care whether it's a good goal or not necessarily.

And guess what? That is really going to come back to bite them in the future. Let me talk about a couple of substantive things to your point there. Number one, if the infrastructure bill passes and the Build Back Better plan does not pass, that is a net negative. That actually makes climate change worse. So if that's your issue, and as progressives, they've always said, no climate, no deal. If that's something you really care about, which,

frankly, I think we should all be very concerned about, just passing the infrastructure bill actively makes things worse. So the scenario that progressives, the possible scenario progressives have set up here by caving potentially makes the climate situation even worse than it was before if just infrastructure passes. That's number one. Number two, we talked about Matt Brunig has been all over analyzing the child care proposal. That is one of the few things that actually remains in the Build Back Better agenda. And he's found a major additional glaring issue with it outside of the fact that it's very likely to raise costs significantly by thousands and

thousands of dollars for middle class families who, because of the way it's so complicated and it's means tested, et cetera. Another way that they made it complicated is by kicking the administration of it to the states. Well, we have been to this play before. We know that when Democrats pass social programs at the federal government, they say, hey, now states, you've got the chance to go and implement it. A lot of red states say, no, thank you. We're not going forward with this, even if it would dramatically benefit their citizens. Obviously, we saw this with the Affordable Care Act. So you have any number of red states who may just not take up this program altogether. And it happens that, you know, disproportionately black and brown children are in Southern states that were led by Republicans where it, so he did the math and

said effectively more, a majority of black children may not be impacted by this program, may not have the benefit of this program at all. So even the provisions that got left here, and I never want to leave the substance out. What is left in this bill? You've got a one-year extension of the child tax credit. You've got universal pre-K for six years. You've got this child care proposal. You've got not Medicare, dental, and hearing, and vision. You've just got hearing that got left. And you have a variety of tax cuts, none of which get to the extreme wealth concentrations that we've talked about here. Medicare prescription drug pricing ultimately left out. Free community

college ultimately left out. Climate provisions dramatically, dramatically slashed. So the whole thing is incredibly uninspiring. And it looks like the progressive collapse here is being driven by the fear that they will be blamed for McAuliffe's loss if that does in fact happen today, which also I think gives you a sense of the total lack of confidence that Democrats have going into Election Day about Terry McAuliffe and Glenn Youngkin. Well, that's a good segue. Why don't we get to it? Very good segue. Okay. So as I mentioned before, today is election day in my home state of Virginia. I need to get my act together and go vote at some point today. And this is big news. Our friend Kyle Kondik over at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, they did their final analysis of this race. Let's go ahead and throw

that tear sheet up on the screen. And in it, they have long had this race as lean Democrat. They have moved on election eve the race to lean Republican. They think that the metrics they're seeing slightly favor Glenn Youngkin. Let me read a little bit of what they say here. Let's assume the bulk of the polls are correct and that the race ends up being very close either way. Both of those possible results, a narrow win by either candidate, would suggest a significant fall off for Democrats from their strong Virginia performances in the Trump era and represent at the very least a bright red check engine light at the midpoint of the Democrats journey from last year's presidential race to next year's midterm. I think another really important thing that Kyle goes through here, listen, if you're not in Virginia, why should you care about Virginia?

Well, if you look at recent history in particular, Virginia actually has been quite a good bellwether for which direction the national winds are blowing. It hasn't always been that way because politics used to be a little bit more localized. Now what happens at the state level is pretty reflective of the mood of the country, who's energized, who's depressed, and the sort of state of, you know, the national politics writ large. He writes, in summary, three of the last four Virginia elections did end up being bellwethers for the future. Perhaps the surprising closeness of McCall's 2013 victory also ended up being something of a harbinger for 2014 as well. The Virginia results from the recent more distant

past are more mixed. But what we've seen is after Obama, Bob McDonnell, Republican, gets elected pretty strongly too. And that portends the Tea Party wave. And you've seen in every election since then the way that the Virginia results effectively foreshadow what's coming for you at the national level. So what they're saying here is, number one, they think ever so slightly the polls and the metrics favor Youngkin. He seems to really have the momentum going into election day. This is the polar opposite of what happened in California, whereas things got more real. That's exactly it. Voters said, oh my God, I got to go out and vote for Gavin Newsom. Here, Youngkin seems to be on the march and the polls have continued to tighten and tighten and actually show him up.

Here's the very last 538 average of polls. And it has the race very close. One point. But with Youngkin up by one point. We can throw that graphic up on the screen. You can see McAuliffe led almost the entire time up to the very end. And now you have seen Youngkin surge. Of course, we had that Fox News poll that was definitely an outlier that had Youngkin up by eight.

That would certainly be affecting those averages. But you can see just how close this thing ultimately is. It really is amazing in the closing days of what's happening here with the one point increase on Youngkin. And, you know, there's been look, we obviously everybody got burned by polls back in 2020. But one of the important things that we would try to emphasize is that whenever it shows tight races for Democrats or leading Republicans, I tend to believe it a little bit more. And that's not wishful thinking. It's the given the fact that throughout the last five years, we have seen a consistent undercounting of Republican support in the Trump era. Now, this is going to be the very first test. Without Trump on the ballot and in national politics, is the Trump effect on polls going to hold?

I'm going to say probably yes, given the way that so much of the coalitions have shifted. To that Bob McDonald point, you know, he won Fairfax County last time, whenever he became the governor of the state of Virginia. This time, per Dave Wasserman over the Cook Political Report, Youngkin could lose that by 35 points and still win the governor's race because the coalition of the voters has completely shifted in who exactly is going to be voting for the Republican Party. And that shift, which happened so dramatically in the last 10 years, has just not yet accounted in a lot of these polls. So when you see Youngkin up by one, if you consider Trump logic, he could be up by five. I mean, it's actually not outside the

realm of possibility that he wins by eight points. Now, it would be pretty crazy if that happened. At the same time, he could also lose by two or three. And that would tell us that we've actually seen almost like an Obama reversion to the mean of 2012. So this is a big test for polling and the state of that as well. But finally, it all just comes down to what is this all about? Believe the candidates when they say what they're actually putting their money towards what they want voters to hear. For Terry McAuliffe, it's one thing. Glenn Youngkin is tied to Donald Trump. And Virginia, we hate Trump. Remember, here's his closing ad. Let's take a listen. How did we end up here? The lies, the division. It starts when we give room for hate to grow. You also had very fine people on both sides. And for some, they embrace it. I was honored to receive President Trump's endorsement.

But leadership requires taking a stand. I have a message to all the white supremacists and the Nazis who came into Charlottesville today. Go home. You are not wanted in this great commonwealth. And not giving oxygen to the lies. The single biggest issue. The most important issue. Is talking about the election fraud.

So let's just audit the voting machines. This election is about lifting up all Virginians and protecting our democracy. What we stand for and what kind of commonwealth our kids will inherit. Let's choose a better way. I'm Terry McAuliffe, candidate for governor, and I sponsored this ad. Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Charlottesville, January 6th. Charlottesville was five years ago, just so you know. Yeah, well, and also, I mean, it's just what was, what's depressing, there's a lot depressing,

but what was depressing about his message, and I'm about to show you Youngkin's message as well, neither one of them mentions a single policy issue. Not one. In the state, even. Like a state issue. Nothing. Nothing about what they would do for voters. It's just, this guy's bad and I'm good. Youngkin, in an attempt, I think, to sort of refute the ties to Trump and the insinuation that he's racist and xenophobic and all of this. His is, you know, showcasing the diversity of Virginia, lots of people from all different backgrounds

sort of featured in this ad of Youngkin looking like the nice, you know, suburban dad that he's portrayed himself as in this campaign. Let's take a look at that. We have been traveling all over this Commonwealth of Virginia, and I'll tell you, it has been amazing. What's happening everywhere we go is crowds are like this everywhere we go. So we're in this bus, and we're asking everybody to sign the bus.

So when we're done tonight, please go outside, get a pen, we got these cool pens, and sign the bus. What that allows us to do is allows us to have thousands of Virginians with us everywhere we go. Everywhere we go. Sign the bus. Now friends, the reason why that's important is because everywhere we go, we're standing up for Virginians. This is no longer a campaign. This is a movement. Very different messages. Neither of them really having to do with the state of Virginia. But that's politics now. It is all national, completely nationalized. I'm going to be talking about some of that in my radar as well, about what exactly people are discussing, whether COVID even impacts the elections anymore

and to what extent. But it is just fascinating watching this happen because, look, if Youngkin wins by a couple of points, let's say a relatively decisive margin for a blue state, like a three or four points, the Dems are so screwed in the upcoming midterms elections. It's like difficult to even describe. They're already so screwed. I mean, and this is the point Kyle Kondik keeps making, which is like, let's say Terry McAuliffe pulls it off in a squeaker. Like a half point or something. It's still a disaster. Total disaster. I mean, this has Scott Brown vibes written all over it. And that was Massachusetts.

I mean, this is Virginia. It's not as blue as Massachusetts. But at this point, this should be like a 10-point Dem win. And, you know, let's give the caveats. They do have history going against them. Oftentimes, there's a swing back to, you know, a reversion back to the mean. All of those things. But, you know, a reversion back to the mean, all of those things. But, you know, Dems really kind of felt like they had the suburbs locked up. Like this

was done. There had been a realignment. And it was over. The suburban, these ex-urban voters were in their camp now. And that was that. And they, I think we already know dramatically overestimated how much of their support was actually about them and how much of it was just solely opposition to Trump. So we're going to get a good look tonight at just how badly they miscalculated. And look, you never know. Maybe Tara McAuliffe, maybe the polls are wrong in his direction. Gavin Newsom's polling was understated. Anything could possibly happen and maybe he wins by a more comfortable margin and they breathe a little easier tomorrow. But going into this thing doesn't look good. Yeah, it certainly doesn't. Okay, let's go ahead and

move on here because the polling really does fit with a lot of what we were talking about in terms of 2024 and its own implications. Now, look, obviously 2024, long time away. But the snapshot about how people themselves are feeling about it is still useful to implications. Now, look, obviously 2024, long time away. But the snapshot about how people themselves are feeling about it is still useful to us. So let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. It really caught both of our eyes, which is an NPR PBS latest Marist poll. Democrats want Biden replaced for 2024. 44% of the Democrats in the sample want somebody else. 36% want Biden. 20% are unsure. Well, uh, that's kind of a disaster there because the president, what he long had behind him was a Trump level, similar approval rating within the democratic party as in, and Trump would always do

this whenever he was president, he'd be like 97% approval rating amongst Republicans. Thank you. You know, it's like, okay, but like, what about right? And Biden often had the same thing. He had a 93, 94% whenever he took office. Now, his approval rating is still in like the mid high seventies, eighties amongst Democrats. But when you ask whether they want Biden to be replaced for 2024, 44% or a plurality say yes. Things can change, but this again points to one of the central dynamics in American politics right now. Nobody affirmatively liked Joe Biden. No one. They were affectionate towards him. They were shrugged towards him, indifferent, but nobody loved him. And when nobody loves you, well, in times of tough, times are tough like right now, then they're really going to flee away. During Trump and all of that, the people who loved him, they loved him.

And nothing anybody could say would ever shift around that. Obama, as you pointed out yesterday, was exactly the same way. There was about a 30%, 40% part of this country who just loved Barack Obama. And there was nothing that man could do in order to make you doubt what he was doing. Many other people were like this in our past politics, Reagan, similar other national type figures. But when you have this level of indifference and apathy, it makes it so where the winds are against you, that people will abandon you real quick. A theme I've been trying to come up with in my mind is about reversions to the mean, which is that coronavirus was just crazy. Like it changed everything. It

made everybody short circuit and haywire in all these different directions. And as we continue to crawl out of it, everything is starting to revert back. What was the theme of 2019 for the Joe Biden campaign, Crystal? Nobody really cared about his campaign whatsoever. It was a disaster. He barely campaigned. He didn't campaign. He was fifth in the polls of the Democratic primary. The entire press thought he was a total joke.

He seemed completely, you know, old, out of touch with where the country was. Obama thought he was a joke and waited until he absolutely had to wait. Obama wouldn't even endorse him. I know this is ancient history because he won the presidency. But listen, as we continue to move out and things become normal again, try to remember what Biden was like in actual normal days. And this is why you can see that Democrats who were never really all that jazzed about Joe are just very suddenly being like, OK, screw him. Let's go on to somebody else. That's a very dangerous dynamic. And as I said, I'm very reluctant and was several months ago in order to start reaching for the Jimmy Carter

comparisons. But remember, this is exactly the same situation that Carter found himself in whenever it came to the Ted Kennedy challenge. Even if it didn't work, there was still a significant amount of discontent within the Democratic Party at that time, which ultimately led to the collapse in 1980. Well, if you buy into this sort of like pendulum swing theory of presidential politics, which is that after one presidential personality, voters reach for like the polar opposite of that person. Joe Biden makes a kind of sense there because where it's Trump, like he can't resist weighing in on every freaking cultural issue ever, the women's soccer team or, you know, I mean, he just can't, even now he's sending out statements about Meghan McCain

and whatever, like he cannot help himself. He has to wait in. He has to be divisive. He has to freak everybody out and make everybody hate each other. Like that's just how he operates. Biden is kind of the polar opposite of that. I mean, first of all, he barely campaigned, so he barely said anything divisive about anything because he barely said anything. And we talked about early on how these culture war things, Mr. Potato Head and all these things would crop up. He would say nothing about it. He'd say, we have no interest in that, right? So he doesn't weigh in on any of that stuff. And I think during the campaign, look, it's something I personally appreciate because I think the culture war stuff is an obnoxious distraction from the things that really shape people's lives. But on the campaign, this really appealed to people because it was the opposite of Trump's divisiveness and his inflammatory rhetoric and all of this. But now that we're at this point where sort of the crisis is abating, sort of, we've got new crises popping up. We have people wondering, how did coronavirus change this country? What does normal look like? How do we feel hopeful about our future? And how do we make sure that regular people have a stake in that future? Like, is this country mine? What does it look like? How am I going to make sure that me and

my kids can prosper, et cetera? They want a vision for the future laid out. He's just incapable of offering that whatsoever. And so there's this level of uncertainty and ambiguity that comes from his ineptitude and silence that is really unnerving to people. And the things that they thought they might be getting from him, that word departure from Trump, things like competence and competence and like basic governance skills, they now feel like, well, we're not getting that either. So what exactly are

we getting here? Not a whole lot. I do want to, on that poll, so the wording of the question was, looking ahead to 2024, do you think your party will have a better chance winning the White House with Biden or with someone else? So they're not necessarily saying like, we hate him and we want him out, but this is no more comforting. You've got a plurality saying that someone other than the sitting incumbent president who has massive advantages as a sitting incumbent president, a plurality of Democrats and Democratic leaners

say, we think we'd be better off maybe going with somebody else. That's an extremely important point in terms of how people think someone will fare in the election is almost as important as whether they like them or not in terms of electability and all of that, especially in the context of Trump, who Democratic voters hate. And guess what? Republican voters, they're sticking with Trump. Here we have from the same NPR poll. Go ahead and put that up there. Do you think Republicans have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2024 if Donald Trump is the party's nominee or if someone else is the party's

nominee? Trump, 50%. Someone else, 35%. So effectively, the poll are opposite. A slight majority and definitely a plurality of Republican voters there saying that Trump himself is the best Republican to go ahead and run in 2024, which gives you a lot of the people who, number one, like Trump, people who are like, eh, on Trump, and even Republicans who are like, yeah, I particularly like him, but I also can't stand the Democrats. That is really what coalesces a lot of these GOP voters. And let's put the next one up there because actually this is the state of American politics writ large. Amongst independent voters, quote, in general, which party do you think is the bigger threat to democracy? Democrats, independents say 41%. Republicans, 37. But

here's the really pathetic part. Amongst overall voters, as in whenever you include everyone, 42% said Dems, 41% said Republicans. In other words, each party and a relative majority of the entire American electorate believes that if they're a Republican, that the Democrats are the number one threat to democracy. And if you're a Democrat, the Republicans are a number one threat to democracy. You can't live this way. It's like a total cluster in terms of the existentialism within politics. You do not want existentialism whenever it comes to electoral democratic politics. Why? Because nobody is going to get a knockout punch in a system which gives the voice to the majority. And so then you just have everybody campaigning, number one, on false promises of like, we're going to stick it to the Dems. It's like, okay, yeah, well, then they're going to stick it to you whenever they get into office.

And then it leads to no, like absolutely no cross-partisan effort whatsoever. It's all just about you drive up the base, you win in your gerrymandered district, and your greatest fear is getting primaried for not sticking it to the Democrats if you're a Republican, not sticking it to the Republicans if you're a Democrat. And not even from a policy level. Oh, yeah. Like in terms of like, yes, I agree with Trump. The election was stolen. Who can more signal their in-group loyalty? There you go.

That's all it comes down to. I mean, that's how you end up with closing ads in the Virginia governor's race that don't say a damn word about what either candidate is actually going to deliver for people. Because and the media has fueled this and played into it for ratings. How many segments we see on Fox News about evil Democrats and how they're a threat to your way of life and that this is, you know, the greatest threat facing you is someone who happens to have different political ideology than you. And how many segments do you see on CNN and MSNBC that's like, you know, calling out this racist Karen or whoever who won't wear a mask or is mean to so-and-so? Or, look, there are a lot of assholes out there. There's no doubt about it. That's a bipartisan situation there. But the news media has decided, this is the Taibbi thesis that I think is so important and 100% correct, that in order to maintain their own ratings, the best thing they could do now that the Cold War is over, now that the war on terror sort of sentiment, the fear around that, the juice in that has kind of run dry, that the best thing that they can maintain their ratings is by turning ourselves on each other. And there are endless threats when it's your neighbor, when it's the people in the town over, when it's somebody you've never met but they're convincing you you should be afraid of. And that's how you end up with a situation where voters are going to the polls, not so much with what these politicians might deliver for them and how they can make their lives better, but just to serve as a check on the bad guys who are going to destroy the country.

Yeah, that's right. And speaking of the media and the stuff that they don't cover, let's see what it did there. This is a great segment that we're about to do. So it's fascinating. Now, the Epstein connections to the financial world have long been known. Here in the United States, the latest time that we saw an actual financial regulator move on somebody with regards to their ties to Epstein was with Deutsche Bank was using Epstein to solicit clients, how they didn't report him to the FBI, even though his handlers would be like, hey, how much cash can we take out without alerting the feds? Just so you guys know, by asking that question, they're supposed to alert the feds.

And he would take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash for, quote, tipping purposes. They found wire transfers. Yeah, very relatable. Found wire transfers, which were almost assuredly used for human trafficking purposes in Eastern Europe. Payoffs to various types of people. All sorts of illegal activity, which the bank knew of, which they had all at the very highest levels, you know, were aware of, and they didn't cut off their business with Epstein because, quote, he was, or because of the knowledge that he was helping them solicit other high network individuals, okay? So this was all

admitted to, and they were fined by the New York State. Well, different financial regulators across the pond in the United Kingdom have been doing a very interesting investigation, and their findings have led to a bombshell in the financial community. Let's put this up there on the screen. So Barclays CEO, Barclays, one of the largest banks in the world, chief executive Jess Staley is now leaving the bank after financial regulators had a confidential review of the bank's relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Now, unfortunately, because of British law and all sorts of stuff, we don't really know what exactly was reported in the findings. It's unpublished as of now. And by the way, any Brits, if you're listening and you're a journalist, it would be great if you get your hands on that report for all of us over here.

Now, what's interesting is that it was so bad that even though Mr. Staley, Jeff Staley, disputed the findings of the report, the bank itself was like, you got to go, man, in terms of what they found here. So clearly there was something which was very important. And really what it is, is that Staley has long said that their relationship with Epstein and the bank, which was actually pre-existing prior to him becoming CEO, already a red flag, was one in which that he would help them find clients. So again, this is the same thing. He said that his relationship with Epstein, quote, tapered off significantly back in 2013, that he had not even seen him since he had become the CEO in 2015. He's like, I regret it. Of course, I regret it. But really what they point to is that what he did while he was working in the finance industry

is he leveraged his relationship with Epstein in order to get more clients for the bank. So this is the second titan of Wall Street in order to be brought down by this. And look, how many more have to fall? Leon Black, who is one of the largest private equity guys on all of Wall Street, he's worth like $9 billion, had to step down from Apollo Management Group because of his relationship with Epstein. And because it came out from the New York Times that he had paid Epstein up to, quote, $150 million in exchange for tax advice. Once again, when you're worth $9 billion, you can literally go to anyone at the highest levels of the tax industry to help you dodge your taxes. Why does this guy who knows nothing about taxes need 150 million bucks in order to advise you? It's the same story. And in this particular case, it seems to be that

all of the people who were at the very top and who were working specifically in the industry of managing the money of billionaires, of managing deal flow, of managing people's money and high net worth asset individuals, is that they knew that Epstein was a conduit to those people, which is what do we talk about here on the show all the time? Follow the money. You think these people are fools? You think that they're going to have a relationship with somebody if they're not making them hundreds of millions of dollars in fees and they're not going to overlook obvious financial irregularities and bad conduct beyond personal conduct, which was all public record and all of that because they couldn't make and become ludicrously wealthy.

This is just another clue in exactly where things – what the relationship was between Epstein and these people at the banks. And once again, Crystal, we have no idea what's inside this report, but I would really love to know. Bad enough to make the CEO of one of the biggest banks in the world resign. Resign. It's not an accident that Epstein, like all of these famous or wealthy people, elites, that so many of them have an Epstein connection. Yes. Because this was his strategy to continue his crimes, to be protected by, I'm actually going to talk about Katie Couric's memoir. She had an Epstein dinner. Why? Because he was cultivating media personalities

so that he would get favorable coverage. You know, having all these ties to the financial industry, having all these ties to people like Bill Gates. I mean, you just, you go down the list and there's like an Epstein picture for every rich, famous, wealthy individual. And it's because this was his strategy to try to cocoon himself in this sphere of elite protection. And it worked for a really long time. With regards to this particular individual, if you read between the

lines in this report from Reuters, what they seem to suggest is that Staley had told people that his relationship with Epstein had tapered off significantly after he left J.P. Morgan in 2013, and that he hadn't even seen Epstein since taking over as CEO of Barclays in 2015. It would appear that that was a lie, and that may very well be why this report is so damning to him, because he seemingly covered up, according to some other reporting, additional meetings, ties, interactions with Epstein after the point at which he said he had nothing to do with him. And that timing matters because, you know, I mean, what year was it that he actually was convicted for sex crimes and had the plea deal down in Florida? Oh, 2005, 2006. Right. So you would think that after that everyone would be like, all right, we see what's going on here and we don't want to have anything to do with you. But the further you

can push your relationship into the past, the more that you feel like maybe people will excuse it because you didn't realize how bad things were. But the New York Times reported in 2019 that Epstein had referred dozens of wealthy clients to Staley, 2019 being a long time after 2013 when he said the relationship had, quote, tapered off. They also reported Staley visited Epstein in prison when he was serving a sentence. That was between 2008 and 2009 for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

So he also can't say, like, I had no idea anything was wrong with this guy. He literally visited him in prison. And Bloomberg reported he visited Epstein's private island in 2015. Also, after the time that he said his relationship had, quote, tapered off. Amazing. So it looks like this guy got caught in a whole bushel of lies about the nature of his relationship. I mean, we see this with Bill Gates as well, who's like, oh, I had like a handful of dinners with him.

I met him once. Yeah, barely knew the guy. Where meanwhile, it's like, no, this was his boy. He was hanging out with him. He was going to him for marriage advice. Going to marriage advice, flying across the world to try and get a nobel peace prize um brokering deals i mean endless in terms of their connections there it's the same thing here which is you know those connections you're pointing to on the island visiting somebody in prison these people had full knowledge of what was up they

leveraged it um in order to take a lot of money from other high net worth individuals. And the ultimate question is, what did he have on them? And vice versa, that this was all just some big understanding where everybody's making a whole lot of money. Still no answers to that questions. I'd love for, by the way, while the Brits are paying attention, one of your princes also needs to get got and get his ass over here to the United States in order to stand civil trial in the state of New York. But as we'll continue to follow that story, this one as well. A bombshell that really reveals how much of the top levels of Wall Street worked until very recently. Speaking of the top levels of Wall Street escaping all accountability.

Yes. Jon Stewart had an interview with CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon. And I got to tell you, I've been watching Stewart's new show, The Problem with Jon Stewart. It's phenomenal. It's so good.

I'd particularly recommend to you the episode he did on the economy. Pulled together all the resources. You remember on The Daily Show economy um pulled together all the resources you remember on the daily show they pulled together all these clip montages from news yeah done phenomenally but then also it's it's a little harder edge than the daily show like he's clearly sharpened become more biting it's not on cable so he can curse it's a little more like it it's his ideology has clearly sharpened a little bit whereas he used to be a little more like it's his ideology has clearly sharpened a little bit, whereas he used to be a little more just like, let's all get along. Now there's a more direct

and biting critique. One of the hallmarks of his show, which has a companion podcast, which is where the Jamie Dimon interview lives, is all of these very powerful people, Dennis McDonough, Janet Yellen, have been sitting down with him thinking like, ah, he's a comedian. He's John Stewart. He's liberal. He's on our side. And then he just goes after them.

Shreds them. Shreds them in a way that like a true journalist actually should. Why? Because he doesn't care if he gets access to these people again. And he's already, you know, like famous. Yeah, he's rich, he's famous, he's got everything he wants. So it really feels like this show is about his passion to explain, his passion to deliver a message, his passion as always, which he's always been so good at, at sort of exposing the hypocrisies of elites and the media in particular. So in this interview with Jamie Dimon, he has a deep debate with him about the state of the economy and whether or not

it's rigged on behalf of the investor class, people like Jamie Dimon. And I'm going to play you a couple of clips. The first one, let me just set it up for you a little bit. Back when we were on Rising, remember we talked about the business roundtable? Of course. And how they had this bullshit pledge, oh, we're going to be socially responsible. Don't worry, you don't have to regulate us. You don't have to tax us. We're going to do it all on our own just because we're amazing people. So Dimon tries to spin Jon Stewart on like, oh, at the business roundtable, you wouldn't believe it. We're not out for just shareholder value and profits. We're really in it for the good of the people. Let's take a listen to how that exchange went. So you may be surprised, but the business roundtable,

which changed what it looks at is that we have to take care of customers, employees, communities, in addition to shareholders, actually wants minimum wages to go up. We want to fix the inner city schools. We want to have proper immigration systems. We actually have a lot of policies that would improve the safety net around healthcare, you know, and the system needs a lot of work to make it work for everybody. But then, Jamie, so here's where I think we get into the difficulty, which is that the business roundtable signs on to all kinds of socially responsible, I don't know, precept, whatever you want to call them. When given the chance to advocate for policies that would make that possible, almost always fight against them. Even for you guys, 2017, everybody lobbied for that corporate tax cut.

Well, the social policies that you're talking about, that the Business Roundtable would supposedly support, cost money. And any kind of push to raise a corporate tax rate is fought tooth and nail by yourself, JP Morgan, the Business Roundtable. The biggest obstacle is actually corporations like yours, the Business Roundtable corporations. Those seem like the biggest obstacles for us to actually implement the kind of changes that you yourself are supporting. So you see Stewart calls him out directly,

says you claim that you support social spending and all these good things. You really care about the common person. But when it comes down to it, the money you're using to lobby Congress is all about keeping your tax rates low. So where is this similar priority around these social spending goals that you claim to have? He calls them out straight to his face. I remember doing, yeah, that was one of the first big monologues I ever did back over at Rising on the business roundtable. And they were like, we're going to be socially responsible. And, you know, shareholder profits no longer, you know, are what we're going to be, our guiding, you know, our guiding lodestar or whatever. We're going to focus on workers.

Well, it's been a couple years. How did it all work out? I'm so happy that he called out that specifically because essentially what Jamie Dimon and Bezos and everybody else who's on the business round table do is they use that as a crutch in order to point to specifically whenever they confronted over these things. They go, hey, look, our lobbying organization, we've already changed the mission. But in practice, it always comes down to lower corporate tax rate. Right now, what are they lobbying against? Hardcore, a minimum corporate tax of 15%. That's too far for the business roundtable because these banks and Amazon and more,

and Jamie Dimon himself, he's a billionaire many times over. These guys are all in it for one reason, for profit. And hey, just be honest about it. But don't try and tell us about how, oh, you're for social responsibility and more. And oh, 2008, that was so unfortunate and that's why we've changed. I want people to have healthcare. I want people to do this

in terms of where they put their money. Follow where they push it. It is all towards making sure that they get to keep more. That is it, period. And you know, it is amazing because I don't know why these people seem to be sitting with Jon Stewart. Like, I don't quite get it. Like, Dennis McDonough and Janet Yellen and Jamie Dimon, like, do you really think this is going to go well for you? But I think a lot of them have the hubris to think that they can spin somebody that because John, you know, is very, you know, he's obviously very progressive, I think personally, and pretty much on a left to center perspective. But

I take anything away from his public commentaries, post Trump years, he seems to have a very similar diagnosis as us as to what really happened. And he understands how full of it both sides of the media are, and really how much class consciousness has been ignored by people in the elite circles for a long time. I really wish he'd been around during the Trump years because he seems to be one of the few that didn't have his brain broken by Donald Trump. He also obviously has left of center progressive views, but he is totally willing and, you know, ready and able to call out the Democratic Party and hold to account people like Janet Yellen and Dennis McDonough who are in the Biden administration. Jamie Dimon also is the Democratic donor. Big Democratic donor. So he's not afraid of also pointing fingers at the Democratic Party.

And I think that's something that you and I both find really important. Yes. Because, look, your ideology is your ideology. That's fine. We can have a debate about that. But if you're just, like, cheerleading for one team or the other, then you're fundamentally, first of all, you're a propagandist, and also you're not interesting. So there's another moment here that I wanted to play for you, which is also quite incredible and I think exposes just how wildly out of step Jamie Dimon and by extension the entire elite class is from the actual lives of regular Americans. And this is where they get into a debate about, you know, don't you think, Jon Stewart is saying, that things have been rigged in favor of these gigantic employers and

away from labor and unions have been crushed and workers have so little power. And Diamond actually argues with him that places like Walmart and Wendy's are amazing for workers and they're the best employers and we should be super grateful for them. Take a listen. Why is it that, you know, labor and workers haven't seen their wages grow? It's because corporations left to their own devices

will, as they should, only be looking out for their profit. That's just- And I totally disagree. I think that's how they- When you, ironically, short-term profiteering and stuff like that is the worst thing a company can do. And maybe, and again, it was some facts that some of these quote biggest companies in America

are the highest paying companies in America. And they all give medical care. They all treat their people really well. There are, I think, 30 million companies in America. And I applaud small business, which has been- Should they share in the profits? Like when Walmart makes billions of dollars, should their workers share in that?

Should they also get profit sharing? Should they also benefit when the company benefits, especially since the company benefits from American infrastructure and from the taxpayers subsidizing their workforce with social safety programs? So should that be the case? I don't want to talk about any one particular company. I'm using them as an example. A lot of companies do do that.

They have profit sharing plans and they've got training plans, and they have opportunity for people. Generally at the white-collar level, unless they have a really strong union. Again, that's just hugely not true. People make fun of these starter jobs. My whole life, I've heard people make fun of burger flippers and stuff like that. Jobs bring dignity. Jobs are, you know, that's first rung in the ladder.

My guess is that half the people- That's not making fun of jobs. Half the people that run McDonald's started as a burger flipper. It was McDonald's who trained them, who gave an opportunity. And I think it's a mistake to just diminish the role that these companies played.

Just like the US military does the best job in the world, in my opinion, of taking kids out of inner cities and giving them haircuts and training, that'd be teamwork. So the bigger companies provide a tremendous amount of that quite deliberately. I'd be hard-pressed to say that Walmart, Burger King, and those corporations don't exploit their workers. That is a classic of the genre, Crystal. That's a classic of the genre. These big guys, it's actually really good for work. It's like whenever people talk about how Amazon right now is paying like a $20-something minimum wage.

I think that's great in order for these people to get that. But they only get a 10-minute break. You can get fired by an app. They have a huge amount of control over your life. Don't you dare try and form a union. Make sure that whenever you're at the workplace that you're a good little soldier and you do exactly what you're told. And, oh, if all of you guys come together and say that actually we want a 15-minute break, every single one of you is fired. And, oh, we're the only employer in town, so good luck trying to go anywhere else.

You know, you used a word a moment ago, which is hubris. Yeah. And that is really what comes off in this exchange. Like, Jamie Dimon has clearly never had an honest conversation with a Walmart worker or any other service industry worker about what their life is like, how hard it is to survive, the type of hours that they're working, the inhuman way that they are treated when they are on the job. Because he can just arrogantly wave of, hell, of course these places are amazing for the workers. And Stewart, just stating the obvious, I'd be pretty hard-pressed to say that these types of companies don't exploit their workers.

And that theme of arrogance with Jamie Dimon comes through throughout this entire podcast. He repeatedly tells Stewart, basically, you don't know what you're talking about. This is way more complicated. It's above your understanding here. It's way more complicated than you could possibly understand. So with implication being, that's why you have to leave it to people like me and other members of the ruling class to set the policy for the rest of you peons who are too stupid to ultimately understand. Number one, that's absurd.

And these same people, the Jamie Diamonds of the world, how many times have they gotten things wrong to the extent that they nearly destroyed the entire world? They needed a bailout. Relatively recently, okay? Number two, look, you listen to the interview, you listen to Jon Stewart's work, you follow his work over the years. This is an incredibly intelligent individual who has done his homework and knows what he's talking about and has actually,

I think in the past 10 years, talked to some regular people who could give him a few insights into what life is actually like for them. Unlike Jamie Dimon, who seems to have none of that connectivity. So listen, I pulled two of the highlights that I thought were most revealing. But I got to tell you, the whole hour interview on the podcast is extraordinarily worth your time. There were many moments that I was like, oh, that's incredible. It's so satisfying to actually listen to this guy be told that he's full of shit to his face. Yeah. Well, props to John. Keep it up, man.

Seriously. Because it up, man, seriously, because it's so important here, and it's also very telling to me. He was a darling for elite media in the Bush years because he was calling out Fox, but nowadays he doesn't get nearly the amount of promo, nearly the amount of love, because now he's calling out everybody.

And, you know, I'm here for it. I'm here for the new Jon. We're here for it. We support you, John. That's right. All right, Tiger, what are you looking at? Well, there is an important concept that I touched on in yesterday's show that bears teasing out more today on Breaking Points.

That is the dictatorship of the small minority. The concept has been around for a long time, but it was articulated very well by Nassim Taleb. It's pretty simple to understand, but basically, if a small group of people really passionately believe or want something, while the rest may kind of disagree or at most apathetic, then the small group is actually going to win out over the larger. That is why there are vegetarian options at fast food restaurants, or as Taleb famously pointed out, nearly all drinks in the U.S. are kosher, despite only

three-tenths of the U.S. are kosher, despite only three-tenths of the U.S. population abiding by kosher. As of late, I've been especially thinking about this with respect to politics and vaccines. Now, most of the U.S. population is vaccinated at this point. Latest numbers indicate it's like 220 million out of 330 million people in this country have had at least one dose of the coronavirus vaccine, so roughly around two-thirds. Now, getting vaccinated is definitely the majoritarian position, and it's that thinking that led the White House and the Biden administration to think that a vaccine mandate would be very popular. Hence, the new OSHA rule, which is set to go into effect soon, that mandates of employers with over 100 employees

must require employees to either get vaccinated or provide testing for those who don't want to get the vaccine. But here's the problem for the White House. While most people have gotten the vaccine, the people who haven't really, really, really don't want to get it. And they care so much they're going to crawl over broken glass to vote, while those who have not really don't care that much either way about those who haven't. Now, this particularly struck me yesterday when it was discussing the Virginia governor's race. Recent polling there showed that those who have had one dose of the vaccine support McAuliffe by 14 points, but those who haven't back Youngkin by 77 points. In other words,

those who have not gotten vaccinated care a lot more about that and are willing to act en masse to try and block efforts to get them to do so, while those who have are mostly ambivalent. The same is beginning to manifest on a national level. While the original vaccine mandate had 70% support, it has gone into practice and they have become more real. Things have actually changed dramatically. Even NBC's latest poll finds that 47% support a vaccine mandate, 50% oppose. Furthermore, among those who strongly support or strongly disapprove, only 34% of respondents strongly support one, while 41% strongly oppose. So in other words, those who oppose are directionally with the larger and more vocal group.

So if you look at it in practice, the breakdown shows exactly what I'm talking about. When people were asked if they would support a congressional candidate who backs a nationwide mandate, 32% said they would be more likely to support them, while 40% said they would be more likely to oppose them. And while mass walkouts and quitting have not manifested in the same way that people predicted, there has still been some disruption. Police officers and firefighters across the nation have lost their jobs in limited numbers for not getting vaccinated. Their cases have generated a lot of attention. Now, overall, I think it manifests this way. Whether there is a mass quitting or not, the debate and the firings and the high profile attention and more is just a chaotic environment. And Biden was elected for one reason specifically to stop the chaos. That's it. Nobody

really liked the guy. Most people voted for him because he wasn't Trump. All he really had to do was give people $2,000 checks in the vaccine. And instead later on buckled to Fauci and he brought back the masks. He embraced COVID zero as a de facto policy of the government, and in doing so, in my opinion, he has spelled his own demise. Here's the truth. Coronavirus infections are winding down. All of society is trending negative in the worst direction in many respects. Most people are more pessimistic than ever today about the U.S. economy. 71% of Americans in the latest NBC poll said the country was on the wrong track. Now, Biden has zero enthusiasm.

And in general, there is a sense of chaos that will just simply not end. In other words, lack of normal is dragging this country down. And the more and more that pandemic theater intrudes on our lives, and the more that we see chaos either way as a result of these decisions, Biden is screwed. And worse, America is way worse off. Politically, the best thing people can do is move on. Don't just believe me. Look at the voters themselves. The Virginia's governor's race is more about critical race theory and Trump than it is about COVID. Or take New Jersey, which has less culture war. Current polls show that the economy, taxes, and schools rank as the top priorities for voters there. Politico even quotes top Democratic aides who arguably

benefited from COVID more than anyone, saying, quote, everybody's just ready to move on. And that, quote, whether the science merits it or not, the public is ready to move on. But don't just believe their words. Believe the dollars. In the final weeks of spending in October 2021 for the VA and New Jersey governor's races, guess what percent was COVID-related?

Six percent. 2019 is back with a vengeance, except this time it's 2019 plus all the problems that COVID unleashed. Remember how poorly Joe Biden was doing nationally before COVID. And think about what a return to normal really looks like for him. The coronavirus ruled out our national politics for nearly 18 months. And today, I think it's beginning to be over and the backfire is just beginning. And it's really amazing, Crystal, the more that you look at the polling data and you

see how very quickly, we were talking about this earlier, there's a reversion kind of back to old times. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? So guys, when I was in high school, every morning before school, I would watch Matt and Katie on the Today Show. Now, I didn't grow up in a political household. And so this was actually really kind of my first little spark of a budding interest in news and politics. When I was in college on spring break in New York City with girlfriends, we actually woke up at 4 a.m. to grab a spot at 30 Rock to hope for our 10 seconds of fame on the Today Show. We made a sign that said, following in Katie's footsteps, skipping class at UVA today, referencing the school that she and I both attended. And though Katie had by then moved on when I was at MSNBC, I got a special thrill out of the few times that I was invited to talk politics on the Today Show.

I just couldn't believe that I was actually in that room on that set sitting next to Matt Lauer. It's cringe, I know. So when Couric's new memoir came out, I was actually really curious. What was really going on at the iconic morning show behind the scenes while I was watching it with awe as a young woman? And as it turns out, quite a lot was going on. In going there, Katie Couric accidentally tells on herself and on the bankrupt news media that has failed our country at so many critical junctures. Now, the first thing to know is that I don't think Katie Couric is like an exceptionally bad or evil person. She's just an ambitious person who drew few lines or boundaries when it came to her own

career success. In fact, she might be on average more ethical in principle than most in the industry, having done some genuinely good things, things like raise millions for cancer research after her husband died of cancer at a young age. And yet, buffeted by the realities of corporate media and access journalism, she perpetuated the very worst of our media hellscape. For example, the book is full of anecdotes about the levels that Katie and her producers would stoop to in order to win the booking wars. They were willing to lie, cheat, and steal to make sure that the big get ended up on their air first. Anything, virtually, was justified in the quest to exploit grief and tragedy for ratings. Now, we've already covered the bombshell revelation that Couric edited in an RBG interview, leaving out explosive comments that the revered Supreme Court justice made about Colin Kaepernick. Katie wonders in the book whether she would have protected Clarence Thomas or Samuel

Alito from similarly embarrassing comments. I think we all know the answer to that one. And to complete her full round trip on the corrupt corporate media tour, Katie even spent an evening at a Jeffrey Epstein house party where he hoped no doubt to win over a few friendly media allies. But there's a story that's woven throughout this book that I think really gets to the root of how the media operates and why anchors and journalists prefer to punch down rather than to ever hold the powerful to account. So here's the story. Right after George W. Bush was elected for the first time, Couric had an interview with First Lady Laura Bush. And Katie actually did a good job in the interview. It was mostly about fluffy First Lady stuff,

but she also made some real news. She got the incoming First Lady to admit that she did not support overturning Roe versus Wade. This, of course, was a break from her husband's position and highly significant after he had just been elected on the strength of evangelical voters with an unapologetically culturally conservative platform. That segment, it became a big deal. It led the nightly news and it remained relevant for years

to come. People still talk about it. So was Kirk rewarded for doing an effective job as a journalist? Nope. Quite the opposite. The Bush White House was pissed and NBC execs, they weren't real happy either. Katie writes in her book, quote, Suddenly, I was persona non grata in the White House. After that, whenever there was a big interview, they swung the door wide open for Matt, and they closed it on me. It bothered me that NBC would let them call the shots that way, but I knew that if today made a stink, we could be shut out of the rotation. There was pressure inside the network, too. NBC CEO Bob Wright once sent an Now look, these threats were not implicit either. After Katie asked Colin Powell some tough questions about our unfailing loyalty to Saudi Arabia,

the White House officially put NBC on notice, calling in to say, quote, if she continues along these lines, we will have to cut off access. For the remainder of her time at Today, Katie was punished by the Bush White House and the NBC brass. They went right along with it. Now, just think about the incentives here for journalists. Katie Kirk is as big as they get. Her career, it could survive being shut out of the White House. But for some up-and-comer, losing access would be career death. How many would take that risk and ask that challenging question about Saudi Arabia? Now, years later, once she'd left today, and after some sucking up to Bushcom's director at the time, Nicole Wallace, Couric finally got an interview with President

Bush himself, now in her role as anchor of CBS Evening News. Here's how she thought about that interview, quote, While it felt good to be back in the business of questioning the President of the United States, I was keenly aware that I was on thin ice. If I got too tough, I ran the risk of being blackballed again. If I soft-pedaled it, I didn't deserve to be the anchor of the Evening News. She recounts in that part how she thought of pointing out to Bush how his invasion had galvanized terrorists, but she decided to keep that criticism to herself. After all, she couldn't risk losing access once again. Now, just multiply that choice by a thousand times or by a million times,

and you see how we end up with the media rot that we've ultimately got. Questions that are not asked. Stories that are not pursued. Obvious follow-ups which are left unsaid. Just ambitious career people playing the game because it's in their interest. The public's interest? Not so much. And Sagar, you know, it's interesting because no one even picked up on this nugget. Joining us now is a great journalist, NPR's Washington investigative correspondent, Tim Mock himself, is the author of a new book of misfire inside the downfall of the NRA. Tim, it's great to see you. Thanks for joining us, man.

Of course. Anytime. Thanks for having me. Absolutely. So, Tim, I think what really important for us for this book was, look, you know, no statements or whatever on guns, but there are a lot of well-meaning people across this country who joined the NRA. It was for a long time, one of the largest lobbying organizations in Washington. And then it collapsed almost within a couple of years, but it still has quite a bit of cachet in our culture. So number one, why'd you decide to write this book, and what are some of the things that you found? Well, look, the reason I was so interested in writing a book about the National Rifle Association is that it's kind of a black box. You know, we don't really know much about what's happening inside the organization other than what the organization wants others to know about it. We don't know much about the personalities and the people inside. And that's what the book Misfire really does. It gets behind the scenes and explains to you who these characters are, from Wayne LaPierre, this eccentric and anxiety-ridden CEO, to his wife, Susan LaPierre, to many other executives and folks who have ultimately been accused of tens of millions of dollars of misconduct and

spending that have led the NRA into crisis. Tim, could you expound on that a little bit? And this is a little bit personal for me because my dad is very passionate about gun rights. He's very responsible gun owner. When I talk to him about, you know, basic gun safety thing, closing loopholes and things like background checks, he's actually very supportive. But he's also very influenced by whoever the NRA tells him is the best candidate for him to vote for. He's a longtime NRA member. And so I've been talking to him in recent years about some of your reporting and some other reporting about the way that the NRA has basically morphed into just a scam, ripping off their members. What should people like my dad and others like him who

really, you know, they are passionate about the Second Amendment, they grew up really, you know, thinking that the right to own a weapon responsibly is something that's important to them and have been longtime members, what should they know about how their dollars are actually being used? Well, one of the reasons I was able to write a book like this, do over 120 interviews with folks inside the NRA universe and get thousands of pages of secret depositions and internal documents and emails from inside the NRA is a lot of folks inside the NRA universe feel very betrayed by how the NRA executives have acted. They feel for folks like your dad and other people who might be contributing $5, $10, $15 a month to the National Rifle Association

and seeing that money in the millions of dollars going towards private jet travel, exotic vacation for Wayne LaPierre and his family, trips to Europe and the Bahamas, really expensive dinner, six figures in suits for Wayne on Rodeo Drive. That's one of the big reasons why dozens of NRA insiders were willing to talk to an investigative reporter. Is LaPierre really the villain here? Is he the one who had these lavish tastes and was sort of appropriating, misusing the money that was coming in? Or was there a rot within the organization before he's named its president?

Well, you know, as the head of the organization, he's ultimately responsible for what happens in the organization, but he's by no means the only bad player in the saga. I mean, we've spoken a little bit about his wife, Susan LaPierre, but there are many other executives who have received millions of dollars worth of self-dealing contracts and gotten a lot of money, not even to show up or do any work at all, but by virtue of being connected to Wayne LaPierre. What else do you find to be the genesis of the corruption within the NRA, Tim? At what point did it happen? Did it just happen under LaPierre's rule?

Has it been a long time kind of within the organization? Where did you find this to be a problem? Well, the book opens out with a scene. It's Wayne LaPierre's wedding in the late 90s, and he doesn't show up. The wedding gets delayed. He gets ultimately berated by his wife and the priest into going through with it. It's a very awkward scene. He doesn't make eye contact with his bride during the ceremony. It's very weird. And I use the scene to make a point about Wayne LaPierre,

right? He's a very kind of anxiety riddled person. But over the years, people have learned, vendors have learned, people who support the NRA have learned that if you yell at Wayne LaPierre long enough, he's going to approve a contract for whatever money that you're asking for. So what's the basis of the rot? Wayne LaPierre is at the very core of it. Now, the problem really did get worse over the Obama era, right, because the NRA really does succeed and do well in fundraising in years when Democrats are in power. It's during the Obama era where a lot of this corruption happens. But ironically, it's during the Trump era when money contracts and there's less fundraising that these acts of corruption begin to bubble up during the contraction of their financial

situation. So let's talk about that. You write in the book, quote, the foreseeable decrease in revenue during the Trump era, because when Democrats are in power, they're good at scaring, oh, they're going to come for your guns, et cetera, et cetera. When Trump gets elected, there's a predictable decrease in revenue. You say that had not been addressed and every department within the organization resisted the cuts that Wayne proposed. Meanwhile, the cost of NRA TV continued to rise and the problem got so bad that by the end of 2018, the NRA was struggling to pay staff salaries. Tell us about their sort of implosion during

the Trump years. Yeah, they were finding it hard to make payroll. That's how dire the situation was in the 2018-2019 timeframe. And that's where another interesting character comes in, that of Oliver North. Oliver North, of course, is famous for the Iran-Contra scandal, but he comes in, he's brought in as the president of the NRA. Wayne LaPierre hopes he can fundraise using Oliver North's celebrity and kind of fundraise his way out of the problem. But Oliver North, when he comes in, realizes there's a deep, deep rot in this organization. He tries to initiate an internal audit of the NRA and ends up getting kicked out of the NRA in this very climactic scene in the book in this Indianapolis hotel suite that I outlined.

Wow. That's so wild. You know, we really appreciate you doing this reporting, Tim. I do think it is very important. Like we said, this is about misuse of funds. Regardless of what you think of the organization, there are many millions of people who joined it in good faith and really believe in the mission. And I do think it's a tragedy that they're getting taken advantage of. The book comes out today.

We're going to have a link in the description. Is there anywhere else that you would like or anything else you'd like people to do? I'd love for them to buy the book. Awesome. Well, we'll have the link. Everybody can go and check it out. We really appreciate you joining us, man. Thank you. Thanks for the great reporting, Tim. Great to have you. Thanks everybody for watching. We really appreciate it. We've got the studio upgrades. We're dialing in the cameras. Everything's working with the podcast. Thank you. Um, in terms of the, uh, just sticking with us, we have growing pains. We're a very small business, a small team and more. A lot of it is just Crystal and I texting back and forth. Like, how do I deal with this problem? How do I deal with that problem? But look, I would take it

over working for a big corporation any day of the week. The only thing that makes it work is your guys' support. So if you can help us out, the premium subscription is right there. You get all these benefits and more, but really what it is is that you're supporting the mission of the show. We just upgraded the studio. We want to be able to expand the team if necessary. Bring in any resources possible in order to make the show as good as possible for you, but also to spread the message and to spread the word to as many people as humanly possible. So thank you all so much. Already cooking up ideas for the midterm election so that we can make sure we provide the best coverage of anyone out there. That is our goal.

You guys make that possible. We love you so much. Listen, one note, I'm having a little bit of family health issues. Everybody's fine, but I am going to take Thursday off. Marshall will be here with Sager, so you'll be in very good hands, and I will see you back here next week. We'll take care of the studio for you. See you Thursday. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie.

Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy. But to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible. It's customizable.

And it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily

it's your Not the Father week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart

podcast.