Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 1/15/26: FBI Raids WaPo Journos, Ford Worker Flipped Off By Trump, Gambling Economic Takeover

Episode Date: January 15, 2026

Krystal and Saagar discuss FBI raids Wapo journalist, Ford worker flipped off by Trump, gambling underpins entire US economy, Pablo Torre reacts to indictments in point shaving scheme. Jenin Younes: https://x.com/JeninYounesEsq?s=20 Pablo Torre: https://x.com/PabloTorre    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Hey, it's Joel and Matt from How to Money. If your New Year's resolution is to finally get your finances in shape, we've got your back. Prices, they're still high. And the economy is all over the place. But 2026 is the year for you to get intentional and make real progress. That's right.

Yeah, each week we break down what's happening with your money, the most important issues to focus on. And the small moves that make a big difference. Kick off the year with confidence. Listen to How to Money on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A decade ago, I was on the trail of one of the country's most elusive serial killers, but it wasn't until 2023 when he was finally caught. The answers were there, hidden in plain sight. So why did it take so long to catch him?

I'm Josh Zeman, and this is Monster, hunting the Long Island serial killer, the investigation into the most notorious killer in New York, since the son of Sam, available now. for free on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Dr. Priyanko Wally. And I'm Hurricane Dabolu. It's a new year. And on the podcast's Health Stuff, we're resetting the way we talk about our health. Which means being honest about what we know, what we don't know, and how messy it can all be.

I like to sleep in late and sleep early. Is there a chronotype for that or am I just depressed? Health stuff is about learning, laughing, and feeling a little less alone. Listen on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent Media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right

that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breaking points.com. So a very concerning development with regard to First Amendment rights. We can put this up on the screen.

The FBI executed a search warrant on a reporter's home from the Washington Post. Here's what Cash Patel said. This morning, the FBI and partners executed a search warrant of an individual at the Washington Post who was found to be allegedly obtaining and reporting classified, sensitive military information, from a government contractor. Endangering our war fighters and compromising America's national security,

the alleged leaker was arrested this week and is in custody. And this is an ongoing investigation. We will have no further comment. Let's go ahead and put this C2 up on the screen. This is the Washington Post report with regard to this search warrant. So they say the FBI executed a search warrant Wednesday morning at a Washington Post reporter's home as part of an investigation to a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified government materials. That reporter, Hannah Natanson, was at her home in

Virginia at the time of the search. Federal agents searched her home and her devices, seizing her phone, two laptops and a Garmin watch. One of the laptops was her personal computer, the other a post-issued laptop. The post also received a subpoena Wednesday morning seeking information related to the same government contractor, according to a person familiar with the law enforcement action. The subpoena asked the post to hand over any communications between the contractor and other employees. go on to say, it is exceptionally rare for law enforcement officials to conduct searches at reporters' homes. Federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities

of their sources or information. They also talk about the email that was sent from the executive editor, Matt Murray, of the Post Newsroom, who called it an extraordinary aggressive action that is deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the Constitution. protections for our work. And I think that is the correct way to look at it. Obviously, reporting classified information is not illegal and is protected by the First Amendment. It's the subject of much litigation over a lot of time. We'll talk about the James Rosen case back from the Obama administration in a moment. But just to give you a little bit more detail about what the backstory is here, it can put C3 up on the screen. It looks like reporting suggests is from Kyle Cheney, who's the

legal analyst over at Politico. Reporting suggests the search warrant for post reporter Hannah Nathanson's home stemmed from the case of Aurelia Perez Lagonis, who is currently facing charges of illegally removing and retaining classified information. So listen, no surprise that the government will go after leakers. It is very disconcerting that you would have this aggressive search of a reporter who may have reported on some of this classified information. and the post from Cash Patel, too, who doesn't say she's criminal, but is very, you know, is sort of framing her activities as a journalist as being counter to national security is also, I think, unnerving and very, you know, inappropriate.

Well, beyond that, it's a terrible, but this is why the Assange case became so important, because he was charged under the espionage act for leaking classified information or obtaining classified information. That's literally our job. By the way, under the standard, I would be, I could be prosecuted, Ryan could be prosecuted, you could as well, and or not prosecuted, but subject to a leak. Let's say if somebody who had leaked to me, I mean, it's happened many times, classified information. Most recently, I think in my case, was Venezuela with USAID stuff. These were top secret documents that were leaked to us. We published them, vetted them as the State Department for comment. Let's say they were prosecuting the people who leaked that to us. They could then

skis my work laptop, my Apple Watch, or my whoop data, I guess, if I had one, not sure exactly why that's relevant, and my personal cell phone all of, for the prosecution of that person. Now, the reason why you don't do that is because we did not commit a crime, or at least currently there is no law of a crime. The person who did that, you could say that they were being prosecuted for a crime. In this particular case, though, the precedent has long been one. And this is, as we'll all show you, right-wingers have been freaking out. out about for a long time is it is a direct threat against the First Amendment, in particular

about the right to a free press. And in this case, while she is not being prosecuted, the detention of her personal laptop and information is then to try to be used to potentially not just look in this case, but in any leaker and or to use your information as a potential lead. to other people who are leaking to you. This has a long... I mean, to say that it's never happened before and not true, I mean, the Obama minister, Nixon, you know, there's been many cases where this type is up.

But in general, we don't see these types of prosecutions or others, not just over-concern about press freedom, but, you know, as we're all about to show everybody, with Fox News, it often, like, when there's a government in power, who doesn't like some sort of particular media outlet, oh, it just so happens they end up getting their phone searched or whatever. Yeah. And that's what happened, appears to have happened in this case.

Yeah, I mean, imagine, just think about if this was standard operating procedure. Anytime you report classified information, which is the job of journalists and, you know, the Pentagon's, like, rules about reporting notwithstanding, that is the job of, you know, especially national security reporters, that every time you could possibly be subject to this kind of aggressive search and seizure of your work and personal property, that's insane. and obviously would have a tremendously chilling impact, chilling effect on the type of reporting that was done because people would be fearful. I mean, that's the whole point is to make people fearful that they would be subject to similarly invasive activities from the government. We've been referring to this James Rosen. I don't know if you guys remember this. We put this up on the screen. This was a huge scandal. And rightfully so, under the Obama administration, James Rosen, this Fox News reporter.

and they claimed that his reporting, because he encouraged a leaker to leak, that that made him criminally liable and that he was a co-conspirator under the Espionage Act. And that's how they tried to justify this. Now, this, they didn't get very far with this. There was huge, you know, blowback both from the public and from the courts. But it was deeply seen as, and again, rightfully so deeply troubling because it was an attempt to effectively criminalize standard issue. reporting practices where, of course, if you're a journalist, you want people to leak to, you want to be able to shed light on things that the government wants to keep secret. And so they tried to use the fact that, you know, he was in connection with this leaker and was trying to, you know,

get information from them as an actually criminal activity. And it is very similar, like you said, to the Assange case. Very similar theory there. Assange was prosecuted under the Trump administration. Obama had looked, the Obama administration had looked at the Assange case and said, we can't figure on how to prosecute this without criminalizing journalism. The Trump administration decided to go forward with that and make a very similar argument that actually he was a co-conspirate because he had encouraged these series of leaks. Yeah, which is great. I mean, even in the Rosen case, I'd forgotten, but the line in here is they also seize phone records from more than 20 lines used by the Associated Press, again, trying to look at the people. Insane.

Going to the AP. And this is, unfortunately, this has been going back all the way to the war on terror. Prior to 99, stuff like this mostly didn't happen. Again, during the 70s, all that I'm not going to dispute in the 60s and 70s. But between the 70s and the 90s, there was a generally well-established norm. Then the war on terror happened and all of a sudden spying on journalists and or the collaboration and direct oversight of media by the government ramped up to the nth degree. I mean, there's the famous story about the warrantless spying from the NSA where Bush brings the journal who had this story into the Oval Office from the New York Times, and he says, if you guys publish this, Americans are going to die. And by the way, they shamefully actually held off on publishing the

story and didn't end up doing it for, I think it was several months or something like that, specifically because of this warning directly from the president over where they had a story where it was directly illegal warrantless. It's fine. From that point forward, I think since 9-11, there has been this overwrought approach after WikiLeaks. And largely that's because the reason why so much classified information and stuff like this has been leaked now over the years is because from the War on Terror and WMD and all that from the beginning, what do we know? They are constantly lying. They are constantly not telling the truth. That is why many people in government then leak classified information.

Fine, they do so have their own accord and they know the risks and they could definitely be prosecuted. I don't think they should be, but whatever, that's the law, right? So they could be. But going and seizing people's phone records, as you said, it's not just about chilling. It really, I think, is about operationalizing and using the law in this case to go after media out less that they don't like. And I think why we're trying to tell a story this way is this has been normalized, normalized, normalized, normalize, normalize, and then what does the Trump people do? They always just take the dial and turn it up to 12. This is why it's important to speak out at that time.

And, of course, a lot of mainstream media didn't say anything. about the James Rosen case. Some did. I'll give credit, you know, where it's due. But a lot of people were like, oh, it's Fox News, screw them. We're pro-O-Obama. It's like, well, this is a problem. This is how it gets normalized.

Yeah, and I do think it's worth dwelling onto those new Pentagon Press Corps rules. Oh, yeah, of mass exodus of every mainstream outlets, including Fox News. No, not just mainstream. Like, my former employer, daily caller, like right one outlets. Yeah. They were like, we can't agree to this because it required them to say that they would not try to pursue any sort of classified information that staffers were not explicitly authorized from the top brass to discuss. So it would sought to ban any sort of reporting that the government

would not want to come out. So now you have just the most, like, embarrassing group of sick fans that are in there asking the dumbest possible questions by and large. And so, you know, this is, this is the view that they have, that it should be basically not allowed. for you to report things that they don't like. And this is an, I think this should be seen as sort of part and parcel of that attitude that comes directly from the president of the United States. The other thing to say about this is, you know, it's a Washington Post reporter owned by Jeff Bezos, like Bezos have anything to say.

I haven't seen anything yet. Jeff Bezos, who's busy, you know, he wants to cuddle up to Trump and get his goodies from this administration and be able to do whatever he wants. I don't see him coming out and standing up for his reporter, standing up for First Amendment protections, that statement, still waiting on that one. Why would he do that? All he cares about is his yacht, St. Bart's life. I'm not, I would go off. If I continue to do this. It's a lot to psychoanalyze about these like nerds who become billionaires, you know. That's right. And testosterone replacement therapy. That's too. At a much older age.

That too. Some of the problems that apparently has wrought on all of us. But yeah, broadly, that's the issue as well, is that back in the day, you would have these media owners. They were intertwined with the state. Like, don't get me wrong. Yeah, like the grams or whatever. Being directly oligarchal with having immense interests before the United States government makes it so that in this case, you're just going to roll over and take it. Why? Because you don't want Amazon to get targeted. Or you yourself. You know, you're living in the high life on some yacht that's so big. They have to take a part of bridge in Amsterdam. That's all you actually care about. So, yeah, this pittily paper, which you bought for ego purposes under Obama,

now it's just become a nuisance, and you just use it for your own purposes, occasionally to try and boost your overall stock price or your personal tax advantage. That's it. That's what it's all about. Yeah. This interesting dichotomy between this story and the next one,

because you have apparently the billionaires of the world terrified of stepping out of line. But we've got a worker here at Ford, who was not afraid. New Year, new goals, and in this economy, a better money plan is more necessary than ever. I am Matt. And I'm Joel. We are from the How to Money podcast.

And every week, we help you to spend smarter, save more, and make sense of what's going on out there. If you want 2026 to be the year you finally feel in control of your money, we're here to give you the tools and advice to help you make it happen. Listen to How to Money on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Dr. Priyanko Wally. And I'm Hurricane de Bolo. It's a new year. And on the podcast's health stuff, we're resetting the way we talk about our health. Which means being honest about what we know, what we don't know, and how messy it can all be.

I like to sleep in late and sleep early. Is there a chronotype for that or am I just depressed? We talk to experts who share real experiences and insight. You just really need to find where it is that you can have an impact in your own life and to start doing that. We break down the topics you want to know more about. sleep, stress, mental health, and how the world around us affects our overall health. We talk about all the ways to keep your body in mind, inside and out, healthy. We human beings, all we want is connection.

We just want to connect with each other. Health stuff is about learning, laughing, and feeling a little less alone. Listen on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Every January, we're encouraged to start over. But what if this year is about slow. down and learning how to understand ourselves more deeply. What if this year is about giving ourselves permission to feel what we've been holding and knowing that it's okay to ask for help?

I'm Mike Delarocha, host of Sacred Lessons. This is a podcast for men navigating stress, emotional health, fatherhood, identity, and the unspoken pressures were taught to carry alone. We talk honestly about mental health, about healing, genera, generational wounds and about learning how to show up with more presence and care. If you want a healthier relationship with yourself and the people you love, then Sacred Lessons is the podcast for you. Listen to Sacred Lessons with Mike Dolorotcha on America's number one podcast network,

IHeart. Follow Sacred Lessons with Mike DeLaurocha and start listening on the free IHeart Radio app today. So, okay, so I'm about to show you this video of Trump flipping off and, saying like FU to this Ford worker. Trump went to a Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan. He's doing the whole, you know, tour with them, blah, blah, blah. And there was a Ford worker there who called him a pedophile protector. And Trump was not too happy about that. I can put this up on the screen. I don't know. Like, this is, I haven't seen quite this reaction. He's saying F you, pointing at the guy, FU, and then there's the middle finger there right at the end given to this guy. And then

put the next one up on the screen. Ford looks like they caved to pressure. The UAW worker who yelled pedophile protector at Trump today has been suspended, but he says he has absolutely no regrets. I'm going to go ahead and look up his quote because he had some sort of epic quotes in this regard, but quite an extraordinary moment there, Sager, coming from this worker. And before, let me put D3 up on the screen. The UAW, he is a member of the United States. at auto workers. This is why folks it's important to be in a union because they're standing up for his rights. They say the UAW

is speaking up and throwing its support behind a member Ford Motor Company employee from the automaker suspended after exchange with President Trump inside a Dearborn factory. So they are going to fight for this worker and because he's part of that union, he will have their team behind him. He will have

a contract in place that says when they can and can't fire him. So if you're just an at-will employee without the backing of a union, then they would let you go and not think twice about it, but they're going to have to go through a process and there'll be an investigation and he'll have people on his side to back him up. I didn't realize, actually, that you couldn't be fired for something like this. But beyond that, the question I think more broadly for this is, here you have a UAW worker in Michigan. This is the exact demographic, which the Trump people were very proud of winning over from 2016 onwards. We know that this was a problem within UAW, even though they were very supportive.

supportive of Kamala, a huge number of their ranks voted for Trump, a huge number of union households voted for Trump. This is exactly the type of demographic, which you're proud of, and you can say, we're becoming a more working class party, right? Well, the issue then becomes if you start to have confrontations. And actually, you and I saw this. Do you remember when Biden went face to face with that work? I think it was maybe even in Michigan, where the guy yelled at him over the Iraq war and he told him to shut up. This was back in 2020 campaign, I want to say. But it was a canary in the cold mind of like, oh, man, this is interesting. Like, you've got people who- The dog-faced lying pony soldier one or the look-fat one.

No, that was the fat guy, which he was right. I'll defend Biden on that one. No, there was a separate confrontation. But the point was that there was a union worker who was directly confronting Biden. And it was interesting because you're like, oh, you know, this is a traditional democratic demographic, not really something that you were going to see. In this case, you see a couple of things. Number one is just willing to like heckled, which, you know, wouldn't do it. it at my workplace if I were an employee, but whatever. The second, though, is notice the Epstein

story. And what do we hear consistently from the MAGA propagandists? The Epstein story is fake. It doesn't matter. What do you see right there? Like, what somebody chooses to yell is usually, like, it's not about. He's one moment. Yeah, it's this is your moment on the stage. You probably know you're going to get fired, okay, because you're embarrassing the company. You choose, like, you took your one shot while the president was here, and what do you say? Pedophile protector. I again point to that as evidence of how much the Epstein story matters and why I think that he got so upset because he no. In fact, there's all this reporting coming out now about how furious they are with Pam Bondi for humiliating them over the DOJ, the Epstein problem, creating the Epstein Files Transparency Act,

now from which passed and they ended up having to sign into law, which they're now not even in compliance of, this story will not die because they came into office, they promised to release it, they didn't release it, and now the entire country thinks that they're in on a cover up, regardless of whether they are or not, which I think we all think that they are. And so that, I think, proved it beyond anything how real this was. Like, it was very validating. Yeah. Because I've been saying for years, I'm like, for months now, I'm like, you guys just don't get it. Like, what people see in the Epstein thing is that if you're willing to lie, to me about this. You will lie to me

about everything. Well, and what it also tells you is that while maybe a lot of the press doesn't get it, Donald Trump gets it. Why? Why? Because he understands the power of a brand more than anything. That is what he really gets.

And big part of his brand was he's the outsider. He's going to expose the corrupt elites. And so when you're seeing, and I don't even think it's like disputable by the facts that he's a pedophile protector at this point. I mean, legally, like, legally speaking, there was a law that was passed.

They were supposed to release the files. They didn't do it. They were supposed to justify all of their, all of their redactions. They haven't done it. So it's just like, it's just a fact what this man said to be perfectly honest. You are a pedophile protector at this point. And Trump clearly got under his skin. Like, it got to him.

Oh, Chris, you haven't listened to the people who were like, well, they were teenage girls. Oh, I know. Nick Fuentesis's new line is that. Yes. It's actually a fibophilia is the technical term here. They're teenagers. You're protecting afebophiles. How about that? So let me give you the quotes from this hero's name is T.J. Sabula. And in an interview of the Washington Post, he said, as far as calling him out, he had definitely no regrets whatsoever. And this is after Ford had suspended him. He said he was concerned about his job security after the incident, claiming he had been. targeted for political retribution and for embarrassing Trump in front of his friends, correct? Quote, I don't feel as though fate looks upon you often. And when it does, you better be ready to seize the opportunity. And today, I think I did that.

Wow. Amazing. Sees himself as a great man of history. Amazing. Listen, he had his moment. He took his shot. And it got under it. I mean, that was the goal.

Right? There's now a GoFundMe that's been created for him. And let me, the full number. The last I saw was like $700,000. But this one now that I just pulled up says 330 in that it's been donations pause. So there might be a different one. But in any case, he has definitely, they have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for this man. Of grateful, Americans grateful for his comments and wanting to, you know, wanting to make up for the fact that he may be losing his job over all of this.

Although I do think there's a possibility he was able to retain his job simply because of the union protection that he has. Yeah. And the unions must be good. Because if you can do something like that and keep your job, that's wild. Well, that's, I mean, that's like a big part of what they do is if there is, you know, if somebody is, if there's a grievance in the workplace, then they, there's a process where they go in and they, you know, have to address that. Or if someone gets fired and it's unjust according to the contract, then they'll fight to get their job back. And they'll be like a series of negotiations and arbitration on that.

So that's, yes. So there you go, people. That's why unions. Very impressive. Why unions matter. They're able to do that as a union, get something like that. Because any other, if you don't have a union and you do this, you're going to be out. You humiliated the company in front of the president.

Like, you caused a real problem. Like, at any normal workplace, you're going to get fired. And I think he probably knew he was going to get fired. Even in that case, you're like, come on. He caused real problems. He understood the risks. Because now you've got Jim Farley over there begging Trump about tariffs and he has to worry about this guy yelling pedophile protector. But whatever.

That's just purely from the view of the employer. think that the ultimate thing that this proves is how potent the Epstein story remains and how disastrous the handling of the administration has had on this. And you can see it is a real thing. Like, as you said, he had one thing. He could have come up with a lot of shit, right? He could have said something like, war monger about Venezuela. No, it wasn't that. He could have said something about inflation, high prosecutor. Nope, wasn't that. Could have said something about ice. It could have said a lot of things. He chose Epstein.

Yeah. And so please take that to the bank, just to show you all how important the story remains. There's one more piece there. We've got some polling of working class voters because I think it is time to adjust a little bit of our priors on who is supporting Trump. At this point, I was digging into put D4 up on the screen. Guys, I can see what we got here. So UGov is really useful because they do all of these different demographic breakdowns.

And one of the ones that they do is by income level. And so this is, I know there's a lot of numbers on the screen, but I'll break it down for you. So this is Trump's job approval. And if you look all the way over there on the right, you have it by income. And his lowest ratings are with the lowest income demographics. So people who make less than 50K, which this guy is an auto worker, he probably makes more than 50K. But in any case, you know, people making under 50K, they have only a 34% approval rating. The 50 to 100K bracket has it at 46 and the 100K plus has it at 44. So I went through these, some of the other questions that they asked, including about, you know, his approval on the economy, his approval on inflation,

his approval on taxes. In every single instance, the lowest ratings came from this class demographic. He was at like 20-something percent on the economy with people who are making less than 50K. And obviously, a core part of his appeal and his coalition and what Republicans have been so excited about was that they were appealing to these lower income and working class voters, totally different from the Republican Party of the past. It looks like that is where Trump has lost ground more than any other, you know, at least income group, which I think is, you know, I think is really important. The other place that we talked about, too, is with young voters, where there was a lot of excitement about him making huge improvements over previous Republicans,

and that is the demographic where he has fallen off maybe the hardest. But I thought that was kind of fascinating to dig into those class and income demographics. And obviously, like, it makes perfect logical sense. What's the political story of year in my lifetime is that coalitions are not static and that they change dramatically over very short periods of time? Yeah. I mean, if you went back to the year 2000, just take a look at that electoral map and take it to today. I mean, I was literally old enough to vote under Obama in 2012, and you could see that map and then compare it just to 2016, four years later, and compare that map to 2024 when Trump wins, or 2020, when Biden wins Georgia and Arizona, right? And then four years later, it flips right back over. That is literally the story of America, especially in the last 25 years, is rapidly shifting coalitions and demographics for voters, which is actually, again, I think very inspiring because you really can't

count on anybody at any time. And people are constantly, I think especially in this day and age, very willing to shift and vote for change. You could make a case they've done it in every election since 2000 and that they just never really get what they want. So it's been 26 years. Probably going to do it again here just in New Year for the midterms. But I think that if you take that to the bank, maybe, look, it's hopeful, I think, for any aspiring politician, because if you actually just do what you say you're going to do, maybe you could actually get reelected and or, you know, you can always find a new coalition, activate them, and bring them to the ballot box. This has been the eternal problem. This was a huge problem for Biden, who won a lot of those folks

in 2020 by 2024. I think what was in the first election, people making under 100,000 voted for Trump or the significant number of those households. And a lot of that was inflation, a lot of that was culture as well. But stuff like that, people will be with you. They'll give you a short enough leash probably six months or so before they start saying, what have you done for me lately. So that's a good thing. Yeah, no, that's exactly right. Democrats learned that the hard way. They thought they had their coalition. They're like, oh, Latinos. Coalition locked in forever. And it turned out, nope, people, people change their minds. People are very, what have you done for me lately? One of my favorite books on my shelf. Forty more years by James Carr. Oh, I read that.

It's what I mean, it's a historical artifact. It is. Like, this is how arrogant they were. And then it's amazing. They still trot that guy out like he's some genius guru, you know, like, when's the last time you won an election again anyway? It is interesting sometimes. I will give it to him. I have a soft spot for genius. There's a documentary. The accent in his crossy ways and all that stuff. It is kind of compelling.

I can't remember the name of the documentary. I think it's on HBO, where they follow the Clinton campaign. I have a soft spot for it. I mean, again, even in that one, the fact that he became a political genius, they won 42% of the popular vote, okay? And Ross Perot cost H.W. the election. And Bill Clinton is like a generational talent. And he only won 42% of the popular.

He didn't even win a majority. Same thing with the, like, Obama. guys that are treated like these like sage geniuses, et cetera. It's like, again, you had like a generational talent on your hand. And you had a cratering economy and a more and John McKeon and the rock war with the Clintons and all of that. So in any case. All right. Sorry. Got it. Let's go on again. New year, new goals. And in this economy, a better money plan is more necessary than ever. I am Matt. And I'm Joel. We are from the. how to money podcast and every week we help you to spend smarter, save more, and make sense of

what's going on out there. If you want 2026 to be the year you finally feel in control of your money, we're here to give you the tools and advice to help you make it happen. Listen to how to money on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Dr. Priyankawali. And I'm Hurricane de Bolo. It's a new year. And on the podcast's health stuff, we're resetting the way we talk about our health. Which means being honest about what we know, what we don't know, and how messy it can all be. I like to sleep in late and sleep early. Is there a chronotype for that or am I just depressed? We talk to experts who share real experiences and insight. You just really need to find where it is that you can have an impact in your own life

and to start doing that. We break down the topics you want to know more about. Sleep, stress, mental health, and how the world around us affects our overall health. We talk about all the ways to keep your body and mind, inside and out, healthy. We human beings, all we want is connection. We just want to connect with each other. Health stuff is about learning, laughing, and feeling a little less alone. Listen on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A new year doesn't mean erasing who you were.

It means honoring what you've survived and choosing how you want to grow. It means giving ourselves permission to feel what we've been holding. and knowing that it's okay to ask for help. I'm Mike Dolorotcha, host of Sacred Lessons. This podcast is a space for men to talk openly about mental health, grief, relationships, and the patterns we inherit, but don't have to repeat. Here, we slow down, we listen, we learn how vulnerability becomes strength and how healing happens in community, not in isolation.

If you're ready to let go of what no longer serves you and step into the year with clarity, compassion, and purpose, sacred lessons is your companion on your healing journey. Listen to Sacred Lessons with Mike Delo Rocha on America's number one podcast network, IHeart. Follow Sacred Lessons with Mike Delocho and start listening on the free IHeart Radio app today. Okay, turning now to gambling.

We've been wanting to get this story out there. Very, very important new statistic. Let's put E3 up here on the screen. our friend Matt Stoller, who's reading through the new BLS reports, whatever data they still deign to release to the public. This one is old data, so at the very least we're going to trust it. And here's what he says. The second fastest growing sector in America in terms of GDP growth is now gambling

between 2019 and 2024. I want everyone to sit with that. That means that outside of software, aka AI data center, GDP growth, that the second largest growing thing in our economy is now gambling. Gambling companies have now overtaken motion picture revenue in terms of the amount that people are spending. It is by far the largest entertainment product now here in the United States. Emerged literally from a Supreme Court decision, zero oversight, rife with problems,

massive addiction, I mean, beyond corrupt. We're about to talk with Pablo Torre in which we're going to break down this new scandal about point shaving, game ringing. Now, who in America, what kind of degenerate are you? If you're betting on Chinese basketball games, okay? You have a problem. And yet, it is completely normalized. Tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions,

are now moving through these companies' coffers. Is it very little regulation? Cheating is openly, apparently allowed. You have their ability to ban winners. Literally, imagine that. It's a product where you get to ban linners and milk the losers. People are driven to absolute bankruptcy. see, and it is now, I think, a great symbol of the problems of our time.

Yeah. And it is now, and I warned about this, is it, it's like you think you can just restrict it to sports. It is bleeding into every sector, not just of our economy, but of our entertainment. It already, politics, remember, polymarket, the odds all became huge. Now we have a more recent one here of the Golden Globes. Let's put E1 up here on the screen. If you have, I didn't watch. Sorry, but as you can.

I'll see here, they're literally on the screen live polymarket odds for every single one, which was actually featured on the Golden Globes broadcast. Then you had the Polymarket CEO, let's put the next one please up on the screen, to show you that he actually tweeted out about how Polymarket ended up calling 26 out of the 28 winners right. I mean, this is the issue, is that this is rife for insider trading. And it's so obvious that these are all like generally lower stakes because you and I be like, ah, whatever, you know, somebody who happened, I mean, look, there's no SEC regulation on the Golden Globes or on the Oscars. Like, these are just private organizations. But being able to bet upon them then with no oversight or any of that makes it easily

manipulatable, easily leakable, you know, for many of these types of cases, it's such that you are watching it all be normalized. By the way, my personal favorite that I just saw yesterday, somebody was booking a hotel and in the hotel they were being sold insurance where pay $26 if it rains three days

you get $500 back so you're basically gambling on whether it's going to rain right and then rain is defined as 0.04 inches for more than a two hour period and not at 2 a.m. or something like that this is insanity

now they're going to start raking it with cloud saving it. That's right I know literally it's like this is crazy and you have You had the CEO of one of these companies, I think it was Cal She. No, sorry, it was Robin Hood, who said instead of insurance, people are using prediction markets, right? So, oh, don't buy insurance, don't buy insurance, buy our futures or all of that. And it's commoditizing everything in public life.

It just cheapens literally everything. It cheapens life. Like, you know, okay, the Golden Globes, are they the biggest, most important thing in the world? No, but now you just have in the back of your head, oh, they just, like, rigged it to, you know, to get a payoff. all of these sports games, like, you know, you just, you're watching these games. And I watch them differently now. You know, when a bunch of calls start going one way, I'm like, oh, you know, somebody's on the tape. You should be. Right. I mean, you just can't help but think that in the back of your head that like, okay, well, where's the money being made off of what I'm seeing?

None of this feels real anymore. And that's the point from Stoller, I think, is a really important one. Like, our whole economy is basically data centers and gambling. That's what our economy is, which are both deeply like predatory and exploitative. And actually they work together because the algorithms and the AI, what do you think that they're not using that to addict to? Of course they are. Of course they are. Absolutely, that is the case.

And so they're just, you know, financially sucking you dry, sucking all of the like natural resources out of the ground, jacking up your electric bills, all of that. I mean, it's just the most sort of like exploitative, predatory economy that you could possibly imagine. And, yeah, it feeds deep. cynicism about everything from politics to sports to entertainment, every, to the weather, apparently. I mean, literally every aspect of your life. And it's just become so embraced and normalized.

You know, just to give an example from politics, you can put E4 up on the screen. So there was this White House press briefing. This was right after the whole Venezuela kidnapping situation. And you had bets that were placed about how long. this press conference would go. And Daniel Scott tweeted this on, he said, today's White House press briefing had a 98% chance of lasting plus 65 minutes until Caroline Levitt abruptly ended it with just a few seconds to spare. So the betters on the no side on Polly Market multiplied their money by 50 times in less than 30 seconds. So she abruptly wraps it up right before that 65-minute cutoff. Now, was this intentional? Did she know? I don't know. But you have to ask the question.

especially the way this comes in right under the wire and how she ends it so abruptly, you got to think in your head, you know, was this intentional? To be honest, I don't even think so, but I don't want to think about it. That's exactly right. The fact that you even, that it even has the appearance of that is disgusting. Disgusting. Yes. And then finally, to your point, and by the way, this is 10 times worse. Can we put to E6 up here on the screen? Polymarket is currently taking immense amounts of bet. And I mean serious volume in their in their markets on whether we're going to strike Iran, right? They have

days, various days that you can bet on on whether we're going to strike Iran, which are easily manipulatable. But their Twitter feed is also rife with literal bullshit like this. Iranian regime security forces have lost nearly all control of Iran's Tehran, Mahshad, and Shirat. Not true. Literally not true, okay?

But what is the intention, Crystal, of that tweet? It's to get people to bet on regime change. That's right. That's why it's sick. Now remember with the whole Venezuela thing. Right. And then you have people who are in a position to influence the president in one direction or the other. Are they placing bets? And then giving the president information that literally impacts war and peace. I mean, that's where we are. Like, that's reality now. And, you know, this is why it's so right for, so like for example, we're journalists. I've been,

you know, trying to work the phones, trying to get some more info. Let's say I got some info on a specific timeline, right, as a journalist. And I bought no. And I could get a huge payout. And I didn't think we were going to get an attack on Iran. Is that technically illegal? Probably not. But it's wrong because that's not what you should be doing. That's why even allowing bets like this, it's crazy. I mean, imagine that.

And then if I, oh, it's not just me. I give it a taste to my friends. And then everybody starts taking the no side. And then it starts to leak out. And then it becomes a national security problem. The Venezuela thing, it is clear as day somebody inside of the U.S. military. Probably a logistics guy. You know, maybe the guy like fueling the helicopter or something.

He's like, hey, I'm making 75K a year. Okay, I can triple my salary right now with the single bet. Just yesterday, somebody put 160K bet on whether we were going to attack Iran or not. Who knows? Who is this guy? You know, literally, there's no insight. There's no information. We are commoditizing our entire life.

And it will bleed, as I showed you with the hotel thing. That's soon can you imagine. You got buy now, pay later. You've got the gambling thing. Now insurance, they're going to start coming in. Robin Hood offers sports betting. Cal sheet, 91% of the contracts on CaliShay are all sports. 40% of Polymarket is all sports.

It's effectively legalized sports gambling nationwide. And once you legalize sports gambling, not just legalized, but normalize, then why wouldn't you gamble on everything? There's a, you know, this famous stories. I remember Rogan talking about this once. He was with a bunch of gambling addicts. They would go to a window while it was raining, and they would bet on which rain drop was going to hit first.

You can see this with Jordan. He used to, you know, he used to like gamble, and Michael Jordan used to bet with the guys over like throwing quarters, like rolling them. Once you get that sickness in your mind, you will bet on everything. And that's what we're doing. We're normalizing it across the nation. And yeah, I mean, look, it's not to your benefit. You will lose. That's literally the way that the rules are written. And I just, I think it's, I genuinely think it is our biggest sickness. Yeah. And people are going broke. It's bad. Yeah. No, I mean, nothing will ruin your life faster than, you know. High suicide rate. Yeah, the financial losses that you sustain there.

And I mean, it's a perfect pivot to talking to Pablo Torre because we just had this news break about 20 people who are indicted over game-fixing, point-shaving scandal. So let's go ahead and bring him in and we can get his insta reaction to what we know so far. Very excited now to be joined by Pablo Torre. He is the host of Pablo Tori. Finds Out, a great investigative journalist friend of the show.

Good to see you, man. Thanks for joining us. Thanks. Thanks for having me back, guys. There's a lot going on right now. Yeah, there's so much. We originally were going to talk about NFL, ethics, and reporting. And then, of course, while we have you literally moments before we have breaking news that we'll put up here on the screen, some 20 people have now been charged in a sweeping college basketball fixing scandal.

Also, though, involving Chinese Basketball Association games in China. We have multiple names involved here. Pablo, I know you have been at the forefront of a lot of this gambling investigation here with the NBA, former players now involving college basketball, point-shaving schemes, China. Just give us your general reaction to the story. Yeah, I've been waiting for this. The federal government, the Eastern District of New York, their scope has not merely been professional basketball, the NBA. It's also been, of course, college games.

And in college games and in the Chinese Basketball Association, Sager, I think there's a key important element here, which is that the incentive structure for what is to be gained if you are to participate in an alleged scheme to, you know, orchestrate the outcomes of micro-events or the games themselves, micro-evented inside of games or the games themselves, they're just greater, right? As a cost-benefit analysis is concerned, compared to NBA players making millions of dollars. So these are always, it's right to consider them the softer targets,

the more logical targets, getting players to cooperate, allegedly, in such schemes. And so, look, without saying too much, because I am processing all of this as I'm talking to you guys, just know that some of these names are familiar names from the federal indictments. looking at guys like Shane Hennon, who, by the way, was the subject of the last episode that I did that you guys had me on to talk about. Marvis Fairley is another name.

I'm just reading off of the list of names provided here, according to this indictment that was unsealed in Philadelphia. And there are some characters, including in the Chinese Basketball Association, including former LSU player Antonio Blakeney, where if you were to just look at what, and again, this is, it's lame of me to do this because I didn't break this stuff. story, but if I were to show you the amount of group chatting I was doing about Antonio Blakeney last night, all of this would seem very much of a piece with the larger story that I've been talking to you guys about for months now. Give us a little bit of insight there. I mean, with Blakeney, again, we just got this. You haven't had a chance to read through what has been unsealed in this indictment, what is being

alleged. But what are the sorts of things that people were sort of like chattering about with regard to these guys? Yeah. So it's a social network. it's a question of, I mean, look, there's not a, it is sophisticated in one sense, but also very definitionally a bunch of guys group chatting to my earlier description of myself on the other hand. And so the question that the federal government has been asking that I have been trying to follow through,

frankly, a lot of public records and otherwise social media profiles, falling down the rabbit hole on NBA Twitter, on Instagram and all this stuff is who knows who. There are a bunch of guys in the NBA indictment, a bunch of characters listed as, defendants. And the question is who in college basketball and beyond knows those guys. And so Antonio Blakeney has been circled with Highlighter for me because he is in the social network among some of these characters. And again, my reporting is absolutely still ongoing. But the fact that his name has now been mentioned as, again, a former college Al American player from LSU who went to the Chinese Basketball Association, who has been, for those who are paying any amount of attention

to the CBA has been a character over there because of alleged rigged games. It's not exactly rocket science, but what it does require is something that I think hardcore basketball degenerates and now the federal government both have been doing, which is trying to figure out, wait a minute, is that the guy from that thing? And it turns out that in this case, allegedly, Antonio Blakeney is the guy from that thing. Got it. Paolo, the reason why we originally wanted to have you on was about this discussion of sports journalism. It struck me, you know, we talk here about journalism scandals every day, but these are political.

Ultimately, that's not what most people are paying attention to. And the one, I think, that probably broke open into the zeit guys more than anything, is this most recent one regarding the NFL and the Jacksonville Jaguars, where a local reporter, I guess, if you will, made a very praiseworthy comment to a head coach, which ignited a scandal over sports journalism. So for those of you who haven't seen the clip in question, let's play it, and we're going to get your reaction. I just want to tell you, congratulations on your success, young man. You hold your head up, all right? You guys have had a most magnificent season.

Thank you. He did a great job out there today. So you just hold your head up, okay? And ladies and gentlemen, Duvall, you're the one, all right? You keep it going. We've got another season, okay? I appreciate it. Take care of much continued success to you and the entire team.

Thank you, ma'am. So, Pablo, that clip by, again, somebody who's credentialed press corps, went viral. It was tweeted out by the NFL by Adam Schiff or many other journalists. He said a very sweet moment. other sports journalist said, hey, you're not really supposed to do this in a press conference. This ignited a huge scandal. And so I was curious whether that is generally reflective of a problem in sports media and in our culture writ large, where something like this is to be celebrated in a venue where you're supposed to be asking a question. Yeah, I mean, this is a story about vocabulary.

What does it mean to be a reporter? And we're really bad at defining what that is and how that might be different from journalists and how that might be different from person doing interviews. Is every podcaster a journalist because they ask questions? Is every person at a press conference a journalist, a reporter because they have a microphone in front of them? And I know that this is a story about the word reporter because the way that this broke open, Soger, to your point, was Adam Schaefter. I'll just quote what his tweet said because nobody was paying attention to a 22nd non-question from Lynn Jones, who is a longtime, a longtime employee of a black newspaper in Jacksonville.

they were responding to what Adam Schaefter said, quote, this is an awesome postgame exchange between a reporter and Jaguars H.C. Liam Cohen. And so everybody was responding, if I may be so bold as to speak for people who work in sports journalism,

as I think journalism is technically defined, they're referring to what it means to celebrate this as an example of reporting, as a reporter asking a question or saying anything at a presser. And it's interesting, right? Like, I am, I'm old enough to remember that Bill Simmons is a Red Sox fan. I'm old enough to remember that everybody who works in sports grew up, probably rooting for a team.

The question is, when you do one of these specific jobs of showing up at a press conference to ask questions, are you serving something resembling truth and fact-finding or the public? interest or are you there because you are a fan? And for Lynn Jones, by the way, who's been truly, and I get it, unapologetic about this because her view is, I'm from Jacksonville, this is my community, I serve my community, I want to say something nice to this guy. And in that way, like, I understand it. The problem is, does that become what people think of when they use the word reporter. Yes. And guys, all reporters have, all journalists have is vocabulary, unfortunately, you know, all we can do, and I'll let me explain what I mean by that. All we can do

is express, we are holding ourselves up to a higher degree of difficulty, a higher standard in which we will torture ourselves trying to get this story right, because our boss in the end is the public interest. And what that involves is, A, an amount of work that goes unseen and unappreciated and no one wants to hear, especially sports reporters complain about how annoying their job can be. But that's the reality of what it is. And then the second thing is it involves debating people about who gets to call themselves this thing, because all you get in return, right, all you get in return for the higher to give difficulty and the work that goes unseen is the ability to call yourself a journalist. And so it is this thing

that of course blew up, of course exploded. And of course, by the way, Lynn Jones, who has such a great, by the way, just like in terms of her vibes, like the only thing that would have been worse for sports media, the press core writ large, would have been for this person

to have been like a kid reporter, like a make-a-wish child. It's just like the worst possible stand-in for a problem, but the problem is vocabulary. Yeah, I think that's really smart. Paavo, let me, get you to respond to Pat McAfee who says that love seeing these sports journalists getting

absolutely buried for being curmudgeon bums and goes on to say that people like you just actually low-key hate sports. Let's go ahead and take a listen to a bit of what he had to say. Why is this show having the cess of it? And I think it's because most of the people that have been covering sports for long time, not most, sorry, a percentage larger than you would hope, much larger than you would hope, that chose to do sports journalism.

I think they don't like sports. I think these people hate sports. I think they're political journalists by nature who preyed on sports as an easier path to be able to get into the biz. You know, sports journalism is everywhere. Sports media, bum, bum, bum. I don't think they like sports. I think they cover sports. I don't think they like sports.

Your response, sir. Yeah. I want to be very clear about this. Nothing is quite like sports when it comes to having to deal with fandom as well as real serious issues. Like the billions of dollars coursing through it, like the political favors granted by an administration, like race relations, like protest, like free speech, like what it means even to be a civic institution that benefits from public money. Right. So a fascinating thing, right? Like movies are kind of like that.

You got people who are like, you know, man, that guy's a dick because he keeps on criticizing these movies. He doesn't really love movies. But in this case, you also have this larger institution that happens to be the last monoculture left in American life. Yes. And so what I would express to anybody who doubts whether a sports journalist loves sports is gatekeeping fandom is, I would say it's not only childish. It's a contradiction. And I say it this way. If you're a sports journalist, two things can exist.

You can absolutely love the games, have grown up, love. the game to be able to give you chapter and verse, naming a bunch of guys, a bunch of players, be obsessed with the games that are being gate-kept, apparently, once you express an interest in telling the truth about something. But on the other hand, you can also, because, again, it's, I don't want to be the guy who inadvertently quotes the James Baldwin thing about America, right? Right. But like, I love it so much that I must criticize it.

You know? And so the fact that critique and hard questions and all of that are mutually exclusive with loving something is one of the most logical fallacies. Yeah. One of the most illogical things that can be expressed when it comes to just how you exercise your free speech. Very smart. And also the last point on this, I suppose, is journalism has a problem insofar as it comes off being the school marm. Like we're holding a ruler, wrapping everybody on the knuckles who wants to have. fun and just watch the games, bro. And the whole premise of what I love doing in sports specifically is to remind people that

silly and serious, highbrow and lowbrow, smart and stupid can all coexist. Telling a story that is premised on truth does not need to be an exercise in scolding. Oftentimes, it's really fun to find out what people, especially extraordinarily rich and powerful people who would love more Pat McAfee's saying more of exactly what he just said, right? It's really fun to find out what they don't want you to know. And in sports, because they know of this fandom and how fervent it is and how your love of something can be confused for anything resembling, gosh, an allegiance to truth, which is not.

It's just not the same thing. Let's just stop confusing it. You love the team. You don't care about what the team is really trying to do. You just love it, right? Like illegally funnel money to a player potentially or... And to that point when I report on the Clipper stuff, right? In sports, because it is the toy department, I want to be honest about that too, right?

Like sports reporters should acknowledge, and I do all the time, that it has the ability to touch all these other serious things, the adult sections of the newspaper, but it is still sports. And I love it for that reason. But in sports, you get to have your cake and eat it too. You get the billions of dollars, often in public money. and you escape the scrutiny that attends it because it's just the games, man, sports are meant to be fun. And so, for instance, in sports saga, you're just referring to this Clippers thing. The NBA investigation is happening right now. And it's the example of sports gets to investigate itself.

They get to decide, are we the bad guys? Right. Who's the turd in the punch bowl? And so it's left a lane, frankly, for me to come in and be the guy who tries to, you know, make people realize it can be fun to know. the truth. But it's a lot easier and a lot more financially incentivized to just say, can we just have fun as if there's a choice, as if there's a dichotomy between fun and truth. Well, and also, I mean, McAfee says this thing, like, oh, they're political journalists by nature who preyed on sports as an easier path to get into the biz. I mean, I know some people like to

imagine that sports can be totally divorced from politics, but it just can't be. I mean, as you just said, Like, a lot of these leagues are sponsored by public money. They get, you know, they are deeply political institutions. Happy owners are ambassadors. Yeah, I mean, every, and frankly, like, every facet of public life is deeply political in some way. But you're dealing with very wealthy people who have a lot of power who are benefiting from a lot of public money. Of course, it's political. Like, obviously, it's political.

And to pretend otherwise is just frankly dishonest. Yeah, I mean, look, we exist in the real world. Like the whole notion of a toy department is that it is like off to the side and it is cloistered and not having to deal with the real world issues. And then, by the way, you get into these stories that break through that everybody has to talk about and a lot of people are all of a sudden out of their depth because the thing they were pretending, which is that we don't exist in the real world, they have to engage with. Right. And when that happens, a lot of people who just say, I just want to talk about games, bro, they show their ass. And it's okay, by the way, if you want to be a person who doesn't do journalism. I want to be very clear about that.

It's better for my business on sub-level. It is totally understandable. Maybe you just want to be a movie critic. Maybe you just want to be a fan. And all I ask in that way is disclosure, right? Just like be open and honest about what you're here to do. And don't try to pretend that because you've chosen that thing, that the people over here who are imposing a view of difficulty on themselves

that is harder are the people who are your enemy. It's not that way. It's just, yeah, it's just, it's farcical to put it in those terms. It's like a child's understanding of what the media is. Totally. Pablo, thank you so much for joining us, man. You're so elegant. We really, really hope everybody goes, supports your channel,

subscribes, and supports all of your work that you're doing. and we value you more than any at any time than right now. So thank you very much. Thanks, Paolo. Great with you. I got to read this indictment. I'll come back and talk anytime. We'd love that.

Thank you. Thanks, Pablo. Thanks. Thanks, man. Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it. We will see you all later. Hey, it's Joel and Matt from How To Money.

If your New Year's resolution is to finally get your finances in shape, we've got your back. Prices, they're still high, and the economy is all over the place. But 2026 is the year for you to get intentional and make real progress. That's right. Yeah, each week we break down what's happening with your money, the most important issues to focus on, and the small moves that make a big difference.

Kick off the year with confidence. Listen to How to Money on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A decade ago, I was on the trail of one of the country's most elusive serial killers. But it wasn't until 2023 when he was finally caught. The answers were there. hidden in plain sight. So why did it take so long to catch him?

I'm Josh Zeman, and this is Monster, hunting the Long Island serial killer, the investigation into the most notorious killer in New York, since the son of Sam, available now. Listen for free on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Dr. Priyankawali. And I'm Hurricane de Bolu.

It's a new year, and on the podcast's health stuff, we're resetting the way we talk about our health. Which means being honest about what we know, what we don't know and how messy it can all be. I like to sleep in late and sleep early. Is there a chronotype for that or am I just depressed? Health stuff is about learning, laughing, and feeling a little less alone. Listen on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.