Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 12/20/22: FBI Hunter Biden/Cops Dispute Elon Doxx/Trump Prosecution/Fake Congressman Resume/SBF Extradition/Don Lemon Triggered/Fortnite Fined/Lockdown Sickness

Episode Date: December 20, 2022

Krystal and Saagar discuss the revealed pressure by the FBI to censor the Hunter Biden story, LA Cops disputing Elon's claim of doxxing, Jan 6th Committee saying Prosecute Trump, New Congressman Faking His Entire Resume, Andrew Callaghan triggering Don Lemon live on CNN, Fortnite Game Maker Hit with Record Fines, and Lockdowns Leading to New Wave of Sickness.Give the gift of Breaking Points for friends and family with a premium subscription to gain access to more exclusive content: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/gifts/newTo become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/AUSTIN LIVE SHOW FEB 3RDTickets https://tickets.austintheatre.org/9053/9054Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The OGs of uncensored motherhood are back and badder than ever. I'm Erica. And I'm Mila. And we're the hosts of the Good Moms, Bad Choices podcast, brought to you by the Black Effect Podcast Network every Wednesday. Yeah, we're moms, but not your mommy.

Historically, men talk too much. And women have quietly listened. And all that stops here. If you like witty women, then this is your tribe. Listen to the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday. On the Black Effect Podcast Network, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you go to find your podcast. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The

murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it means the absolute world to have your support. What are you waiting for? Become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. good morning everybody happy tuesday we have an amazing show for everybody today a little bit of at home show for personal reasons but crystal what do what do we have today? Yes, indeed we do. And we'll be back in the studio on Thursday. But a lot of stuff to get to this morning. We have more Elon Musk and Twitter news, new Twitter files dropped. I mean,

it's funny because I think people have sort of lost interest in the Twitter files. But in some ways, this was the most interesting one. The specific communications regarding the banning of any sort of links to the information about Hunter Biden's laptop. So we'll get into all of that. We also now officially have criminal referrals being made by the January 6th committee of Donald Trump and a few of his associates. So we have those details and everything that that means. SBF has agreed to be extradited to the United States. At the same time, we have more information about exactly who he was donating to, which is very interesting to dig into as well. And this story, I'm sort of fascinated by. This new Republican congressman who just won election, who apparently lied about literally every aspect of his bio, where he worked for, what his business is, where he lives.

I mean, everything you could possibly think of. And so that is now coming out. We'll give you the details on that and his reaction. We also have a great moment with Don Lemon being told to his face the problems with CNN and mainstream news. And he doesn't take it all that well, Sagar. So that is what we're going to get into. But before we get to any of that, live show show i hope it's not too loud as i shout into my

microphone that's right paramount theater austin texas friday february 3rd we're gonna have an awesome show there we're gonna do some fun stuff while we're in austin we'll have great guests and we've got a great thing planned it's gonna probably be the last one of the season so if you're in the are on the fence if you want to buy a gift or anything like that, now is the time. Tickets are actually selling really, really well. So if you want to go ahead and grab your seat, now is the time folks, before you get it into the new year. But let's start with Twitter. Of course, the Twitter files itself. There was some new and very interesting revelations put out by Michael Schellenberger, who's a part of Barry Weiss's The Free Press, with some revelations last night on

the FBI and the Hunter Biden laptop story. So let's go ahead and put the first one up there on the screen, guys. This, in our view, is one of the most important ones. It shows that Jim Baker, who is a former FBI general counsel and actually a staffer over at Twitter, repeatedly insisted to Twitter staff that the Hunter Biden materials were either, quote, faked, hacked or both. And it was a violation of Twitter policy. He did so in a Google Doc and over email, both on October 14th and on October 15th. The reason why this matters is that Baker was setting the pretext through the initial banning of the Hunter Biden laptop story from the New York Post and peddling obviously false lies both at the time and in the future

that the Hunter Biden laptop story and the associated materials were, quote, hacked or some sort of disinformation. You guys will remember you had the Intel community and others saying this bears all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, even though from day one, all Hunter had to say is it's not my laptop, it's not true, and it's all fake, of which he has never once said and of which all of the materials now on the laptop have since been confirmed. Let's go to the next one there, guys, and put it up there on the screen, because it's also important to remember this.

By 10 a.m., after the story had been dropped, already within nearly an hour, Twitter executives had bought into the, quote, hack and dump story. Quote, the suggestion from experts, which rings true, is that there was a hack that happened separately than they were loading the hacked materials on the laptop that then magically appeared

at a repair shop in Delaware. So, Crystal, they are clearly twisting themselves into lengths and honestly creating an even more fantastic story

than what actually happened as to why these are hacked materials in the first place. And then finally, the third element there, guys, please, which also just reveals here the deep connection between the FBI on the social media platforms. It continues to this very day on August 20th in August of 2022, nearly two years after this, Twitter executives were still preparing for a meeting with the FBI, whose goal was to, quote, convince us to produce on more FBI EDRs. EDRs, they're defined as emergency disclosure requests, a.k.a. a warrantless search in which Twitter voluntarily hands over your and my and everybody else's information at the request of the FBI, possibly even for shitposting, for jokes. And it just shows again what they have known really from the very beginning, that there is a deep connection between the intelligence community and the social media companies. It goes deeper in some ways than we already know as to what they're curating and

asking to be censored. But it is astounding to see this corrupt, you know, FBI former general counsel, Jim Baker, directly playing a role in censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, Crystal. Yeah, I mean, now we have all the pieces sort of coming into place. We knew before from Mark Zuckerberg over at Facebook slash Meta that they had been primed to expect some sort of hack and dump operation from the deep state. So they had been warned something is coming, though they weren't told specifically about this Hunter Biden laptop situation. So when the Hunter Biden laptop information is revealed, they are all primed to think that this was a hack and dump rather than actually his laptop that actually got

left at a computer repair shop. Same thing happened over at Twitter. So you have Yoel Roth and others who are sort of primed by the deep state to expect some sort of hack and dump operation. So that's number one. Number two, when this actually happens, Yoel Roth is actually very skeptical that this should be banned from the platform, that this violates terms of service whatsoever. And it's actually Baker, who of course has those

FBI ties, who really almost bullies and cajoles him into believing this more fantastical conspiratorial story about how this information was really because of a hack and it wasn't legitimate and it should therefore be banned. And then you see them taking these incredibly heavy-handed approach after the fact. So it's sort of, you know, the FBI preps them for this. Baker, because he comes from that world, you know, pushes the most conspiratorial, absurd interpretation of what this material ultimately is. And then UL, Roth, and others decide ultimately to act. That's the picture that's painted from this latest release. Yeah, I think that's right. And that's why we wanted to lead with it, which is and I know people are getting sick, including us talking about

Elon and Twitter. But these are monumentally consequential events. I mean, we had a genuine election interference thing happened with Twitter where they just decided unilaterally to ban the story in a complete violation, really, of both their role as a quote unquote platform moving totally into the publisher realm and just setting the standard through which it's been exposed that the intelligence community has these deep underlying connections of which even if you don't care about the Hunter Biden laptop story, what we found out from Ken Klippenstein and from the intercepts reporting on the DHS, this is including Biden, any criticism of Biden on the Afghan withdrawal, quote unquote,

COVID misinformation of which, by the way, I'm still very much waiting for some of those Twitter files to be released. I would really love to see some of the lab leak censorship, some of the other COVID censorship that happened within. And we're also just learning that as capricious as Elon was, and he's a single individual, they had a bureaucratic capriciousness as well, in which they're straight up admitting many of these things don't abide by their own, don't violate their own policies. And then we're also seeing the FBI just basically

preparing the ground to get Twitter to censor whatever they want and browbeating them to the point where they're even making pro-censorship figures uncomfortable, Crystal, with their monumental number of requests that they're sending over their way. Yeah. And I think the other piece that really becomes clear here as we put all these pieces together is just what incredible levels of evil were spawned by Russiagate, both in terms of the FBI and the expanded powers that they took on and the expanded reach in terms of, hey, we now feel like we need to police every bad joke that's tweeted out from our own citizens. And then also the conception of these social media companies in terms of how they should be

moderating content. Because if it wasn't for their idea of foreign interference from 2016, they would not have had this policy in place. Yoel Roth directly says, oh, after we learned what happened in 2016, we need to take action here. I'm parap directly says, you know, oh, after we learned what happened in 2016, you know, we need to take action here. I'm paraphrasing, but that was basically the idea. So you can see the way that Russiagate was used and perverted to hand both the social media companies and the deep state much more power and much more reach into our individual lives and into our sort of small d democratic speech. At the same time, Crystal, some interesting stuff happening with Elon Musk and the plane account. So guys, let's go ahead and put this up there

on the screen. Musk has blamed the Twitter account for an alleged stalker. Police actually see no link. And so, yes, I will caution you. It is co-bylined by the one Taylor Lorenz. However, the information that we're after has nothing to do with Taylor Lorenz and has to do with the Los Angeles Police Department, which said in a statement that its threat management unit was in contact with Musk's representatives and security team, but that no crime report has yet been filed. However, video from the airport itself at a gas station allegedly near Grimes' home. So, Crystal, this kind of casts doubt on the idea that the Elon jet account itself had anything to do with the attack on Elon's son in the car in the first place because it happened so far after the fact and away from

the airport. There's no indication that the airport actually played any role at all, even according to the police officers themselves. The police officers did caution and say, look, any sort of live information and all of that could have played a role. We don't yet have the full information on that. But we're still wondering exactly why Elon is drawing a connection between these two incidents when, according to the police themselves and according to a lot of the facts of the matter, it doesn't actually look to have had to do anything with it. jet account hadn't posted in nearly 24 hours when this incident occurred. It didn't occur particularly close to an airport. So it's hard to really directly say that the Elon jet account had anything to do with this other than potentially just, you know, raising safety concerns for Elon in general. But I just go back to the point, like, I think anyone could relate to being fearful of their children's lives and wanting to do whatever they could to keep them safe and to keep them protected.

But the whole problem with having one person or a small group of people in charge of a major platform like this is they start to make decisions based on their emotions and their whims versus any sort of clear and consistent standard. The other thing to point out here, Sagar, it is really relevant that Taylor and the other author who had the co-byline here, these were two of the people who were banned temporarily from Twitter. And specifically, Taylor was banned after she asked Elon for comment on this story. Now, Elon said, oh, it had to do with a previous doxing incident from this account. But it sure looks like he was punishing her for writing a story, a totally legitimate journalistic story about him that he happened to not like. Yeah, no, I mean, I don't think that there's a way to come away from that conclusion because it wasn't just Taylor. It was the other reporter on the first lead byline, Drew Harwell, for The Washington Post reporter. And, of course, all of this comes on the heels of the poll on Elon saying, should I step down?

Some 57 percent went ahead and voted yes. actually issued any update on the matter since, although he did kind of imply in a reply to Kim.com that perhaps the vote was rigged because of bots that were on the platform. I don't know. We'll see. Maybe Elon is going to pull his own version of Stop the Steal on this post. But it does matter and comes on the heels of a major discussion we had yesterday. The financial incentives that are playing behind the scenes, pushing Elon perhaps away from the CEO chair. Let's put this up there on the screen from Senator Warren. Senator Elizabeth Warren there saying ever since Twitter was taken over by Elon Musk, asking on behalf of Tesla shareholders whether there is a conflict of interest and whether Elon is misappropriating

Tesla resources because Tesla itself, of course, is a public company. It has to be accountable to the Tesla board, not just to the whims of Elon Musk. Obviously, she's just trying to grab something which could inhibit Elon at the helm of Twitter. That said, though, it is a legitimate concern that we've been trying to highlight for folks. Let's put this up there. The third largest shareholder actually in Tesla is urging Elon to actually step aside as CEO. He was somebody who has tens of millions of dollars, or sorry, tens of millions of shares in Tesla worth some $3.57 billion, only trailing Elon and Tesla chairman Larry Ellison in terms of his share in the company, he's actually planning to buy more. He's more saying, I think that he needs to set aside as the Twitter CEO because this is both having a problem on this Tesla stock, and obviously, it's going to draw some of

his time away from actually running the company itself. He says, quote, an executioner Tim Cook-like is needed, not Elon. Some sort of Tim Cook figure, Bob Iger figure who can come in to a real drama filled mess and kind of bring order amidst the chaos. But I think that's one of the major storylines in all of this, Crystal. He is literally the third largest shareholder in the entire company. So of course, he's going to have a say. Yeah, there's no doubt Elon is under pressure, definitely from Tesla investors, some of whom have been public about the fact that they're not happy with him over there screwing

around at Twitter while Tesla stock is just going down and down and down. May also be under pressure from Twitter financially in terms of trying to bring in new money and potential investors not being impressed with his tenure there as well. That is another possibility. And as you know, Sagar, I have a personal stake in all of this because I personally would like Elon to stop screwing around with Twitter and get Starlink working so that I actually have internet at my house. So that's my personal grievance here. But some of the questions that Elizabeth Warren is asking are quite legitimate. You'll remember early on there were reports of how Elon had grabbed some of the top engineers from Tesla and brought them over to Twitter.

So one of her questions centers around like, hey, is this harming Tesla that you took apparently some of the top talent over to Twitter. Is that an issue for Tesla? She also asked whether there are conflicts of interest here, whether Tesla is overpaying for ads on the Twitter platform. You'll recall Tesla has now bought a bunch of ads after a lot of other advertisers fled. Is Tesla getting a preferential rate? Are they overpaying? Is this a fair market transaction? And then there's also questions over whether Elon could use the Twitter algorithm to unfairly boost Tesla. So you can see how there are some legitimate conflicts of interest here and also legitimate questions over whether Tesla investors are kind of getting a raw deal here. And as you indicated, some of those investors

are already expressing their concerns publicly. Now, the last thing I'll say about this is my assumption with the whole Elon poll of whether he should stay or go was that he basically knew the outcome was likely to be that people would vote for him to go. And that this was an excuse for him to find his way out the door, given that he is under a variety of financial pressures, just based like personally in terms of the stock he's had to sell and also from his investors, et cetera, et cetera. But, you know, it's not entirely clear that he did expect that he would win this poll, that he could take this as a piece of information and say, look at the media out here complaining about me, but put it to the people and they want me to stay. So at this point, it's a little less

clear to me than it was yesterday, given again, some of his interactions that he's had after the fact with Kim.com and others online. We'll see. We're all in a holding pattern. We'll update everyone if there's anything there. Indeed. All right. At the same time, some big news. Grand finale of the January 6th committee was yesterday. And as expected, they did send a few criminal referrals of Donald Trump and some of his associates, including Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani, to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution. Right out of the gates, I want to say the fact that a House committee sent a criminal referral over doesn't really mean anything in terms of it doesn't force the Department

of Justice to take any action. It is just simply a recommendation. Nevertheless, you know, it is extraordinary. It's something that we should take a look at, and we'll dig into the details. Before we do that, though, I want to show you some testimony from Hope Hicks. Now, Hope Hicks, as you know and as the audience likely knows, was a steadfast supporter of Donald Trump. She served as his comms director and as a White House counselor in a variety of other roles. She actually indicates here that she felt some of the activities building up to

January 6th and calling into question the results of the election were undermining what she saw as his great legacy. Let's take a listen to what she had to say. I was becoming increasingly concerned that we were damaging we were damaging his legacy what did the president say in response to what you just described he said something along the lines of you know nobody will care about my legacy if I lose. So that won't matter. The only thing that matters is winning. Sounds very Trumpian there. The only thing that matters is winning.

No one will care if I've ultimately lost. I wonder what you make of that piece of footage before I get to the details of the criminal referrals. I mean, you know, it's true. It just sounds vintage Trump. And yeah, look, Trump has an amazing capacity to convince himself of anything, whether it's true or not. I think in the beginning, he just had to make a calculated choice. He's like, no, I didn't lose. This is something that my people kind of expect from me, despite all evidence and not even evidence, just all advice that you can see. What's the most remarkable story to me is that many of these stop the steal defenders and pro-Trump MAGA figures behind the scenes, they were all telling Trump to concede. They were all telling Trump, they're like, this is going to be bad for the country. You should just move on for your legacy. This isn't worth it. And he made the concerted choice. And they've all fallen in line since then. So there's a bite. There's like two stories. There's one of how cynical they are because they're willing to lie to the one person to say, no, I'm going all in on stop the steal.

And still, though, a lot of people followed him, as you can see. Unique is one word for it. Let's go and put the CBS News tear sheet up on the screen that has the details of the criminal referrals here. They urged the Department of Justice to prosecute Trump for obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and incitement, rebellion, or insurrection. They say Trump's actions could also constitute violations of two other conspiracy statutes, depending on potential evidence developed by the Justice Department. So, again, to emphasize the fact that they sent these criminal referrals over does not mean the Department of Justice has to do anything with it.

It is a recommendation. However, this is the first time in history that you have had a House panel of this sort recommend criminal charges against a former president. So from that perspective, it's extraordinary. I'm going to get into the details of some of these charges and which ones are sort of most likely to stick. But the other thing to say about this is, you know, I think you and I were both skeptical of this committee at the beginning of what it would accomplish politically. But after the midterm election results and how clearly Stop the Steal was such a stain on every candidate that embraced it, I think you do have to say that this panel did, this committee ultimately did have an impact on the electorate. Having the evidence laid out in

front of them did land. And I also think just everybody living through the experience of January 6th, seeing Donald Trump continue to cling to these conspiracies, it ended up being incredibly politically potent and incredibly damaging for the candidates who were most closely associated with it. I absolutely concur. I mean, I did not think it would matter. I didn't think that people would care all that much two years later. And I was absolutely wrong about that. I think people care quite a bit, and especially in the context of just general like MAGA extremism on the issue of voting and just being really abhorrent to the entire electorate. This is

clearly now going to be a problem for them and just generally feeds the idea of not only like Trump being crazy and doing stuff that most of the electorate doesn't even care about, but also just being embroiled in scandals. And I don't know why exactly, though. For some reason, these scandals are hitting differently than in the Mueller era, maybe because, you know, January's literally did happen, maybe because he literally did, you know, claim that the election was stolen and push all kinds of false elector schemes, etc. But this is hitting. And whether you care or not, I think knowing the details, it matters enough to some voters in many of these swing states in Georgia, in Arizona and Pennsylvania and all across the country. So let me just give you some of the details of these potential charges. The first one here listed obstruction of an official proceeding. Based on some reading and research I did before, that seems to be the one that is sort of the most clear cut. This CBS News article we had it before says, for its recommendation of prosecuting Trump for obstruction of an official proceeding, they argued he was directly and personally involved in the effort to delay the counting

of the electoral college votes during that January 6th joint session of Congress and acted with a corrupt purpose. They cited not only Trump's attempt to pressure Pence, but also the plan to submit fake slates of electors to Congress. So obstruction of an official proceeding. We've seen some of the January 6th defendants already charged with that as well. That one seems like it is the most straightforward and potentially the most clear cut. The next one they list here is conspiracy to defraud the United States. And this one, you know, there is a clear cutcut case here, but it'd be a somewhat novel application of this law.

And federal government prosecutors tend to be very sort of conservative in their approach. They don't particularly like to use novel conceptions of a law. But what they say here is that for this possible violation, the panel again cited what it said was Trump's multi-part plan to reverse the outcome of the election, as well as Jeffrey Clark, one of his lawyers, participation in the effort to keep Trump in office. They also highlighted Trump's repeated claims the 2020 election was rife with fraud, despite having been told by multiple close aides there was no evidence of significant fraud. So basically the argument here in terms of defrauding the country is that you knew this was a lie. You persisted with the lie. You attempted to disrupt the certification and therefore this would be a charge of conspiracy to defraud. Again, this is one that the analysis I saw said it would be a bit of a novel application, so maybe somewhat less likely. The next one is

conspiracy to make a false statement. They say this is based on the fake slate of electors submitted by Trump supporters to Congress in the National Archives. And then the last one, which is sort of the biggest and most eye-catching, would be inciting, assisting, aiding, and comforting an insurrection. They argue Trump's actions related to the Capitol assault constitute a violation of federal law regarding assisting or aiding and comforting an insurrection. Specifically, they point to him encouraging his supporters to descend on the Capitol and also for going after Pence and claiming he didn't have the courage to discard state electoral votes. This one to me is probably the biggest stretch and also runs into

the biggest problems in terms of protected political speech. So I think it's probably the least likely for them to pursue. But, you know, the other thing to consider with all of this saga is, number one, Trump is much weaker than he was before the midterm elections. So perhaps these political considerations shouldn't be taken to an account by the Justice Department. But there's no doubt they're looking at this and wondering, you know, can the country Perhaps these political considerations shouldn't be taken into account by the Justice Department, but there's no doubt they're looking at this and wondering, you know, can the country take it? How strong is Trump? What is his supporters going to ultimately do? And given that he is in a relatively weak standing right now politically, I would think that has to embolden the Justice

Department. You also have the Proud Boys trial, Enrique Tarrio going on right now. And you previously had the Oath Keepers trial where Stuart Rhodes was found guilty of seditious conspiracy. So, you know, that was a big charge that they laid there that was, you know, kind of a stretch and it ended up panning out for them. So that may also kind of embolden the Justice Department and the special counsel, Jack Ryan. Yeah, I think that's very possible. I think it's possible they do do this, especially considering all the other investigations that are happening. They already had him under investigations that could fold this as part of the broader one, not only including Mar-a-Lago, but all of the various schemes, including tax,

including January 6th. So I just think in general, it contributes to bigger problems for Trump. And by the way, speaking of that, Crystal, we have his tax return problems that also could return now. Yes, that's right. So after exhausting every appeal, House Democrats actually have some of his tax returns. The last, I think, six years of returns they have, I'm pretty sure that's the right number. And so they're trying to figure out what they're going to do with them, whether they're going to reveal them to the public. There is some sort of legal question over whether or not they're allowed to reveal them to the public. They want to act quickly. They're having actually a meeting and a vote on this next week while Democrats still control the House and control power in these committees. The Ways and Means Committee

is the relevant one here. And so to be determined how much of those we ultimately see and how damaging they are for the president. There's been speculation, of course, about these returns for a very long time. And it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, comes out of them. Yeah, that's right. We have the Politico tear sheet, guys. B3, we can put up there on the screen in terms of how they're poised to release the Trump tax secrets, how exactly the scheme that they're going to do it. Not even sure if we'll necessarily learn anything bombshell. Although, look, I mean, from transparency's sake, it's always good to see exactly what the president

of the United States is getting his income from, from where we can seize various businesses, net worth, et cetera. We can either put to bed or look into any foreign ties and more. And I'm personally very interested to see if we can learn anything from these tax returns. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, listen, it's been a long time coming. At this point, we've had so many scandals with Trump that I'm not sure there's anything in the tax returns that could shock us the way that other things have shocked us with Trump. We're so jaded at this point, but it'll still be interesting and good for the interest of transparency. So one more thing kind of hanging over his head. Let's get to this next story,

which I am fascinated with on a variety of levels. So there's this dude named George Santos, who just won a suburban New York district for Congress. This was a hard fought race. And he portrayed himself as an immigrant who was the sort of like classic embodiment of the American dream, successful business owner. He had this whole rags to riches story that he was peddling. There's about to be a twist in the story, but first let's take a listen to how he was presenting himself during the campaign. The reality is we need fresh new leadership. Robert is more of the old same party. He's been in politics for 30 years. I'm a private sector guy. I was born and raised in abject poverty in this country and only in this country that somebody who comes from a basement apartment in Jackson Heights, like I did,

is able to rise to become a successful business person to then run for United States Congress. I want solutions. I don't want, I don't want Misha God. I don't want talking points like Robert does all the time. I don't make a living off of it. So he made a lot of his personal bio and his, you know, story of overcoming adversity to be this American success story. biography and found effectively all of it is a lie, or at least they could find no basis for anything from where he currently lives to where his income comes from to where he went to college to previous firms that he worked for. So the headline here is, who is Representative-elect George Santos? His resume may be largely fiction. Mr. Santos, a Republican from New York, says he's the embodiment of the American dream, but he seems to have misrepresented a number of

his career highlights. That is to say the least. They found that he could not verify that he said he worked at Citigroup in Goldman Sachs. They said they had no record of it. He said he went to Baruch College. They said they had no record of him there. He said he founded this nonprofit called Friends of Pets. The IRS said they had no record of that charity. One of the greatest mysteries here, Sagar, is he does seem to have at this point a fair amount of money. He donated $700,000 to his own campaign during the midterm election. So that cash came from somewhere. And yet the businesses that he's

associated with, there's basically no records of what type of business they're engaged with. He claims to own a number of properties that he derives income from. There's no record of what those properties ultimately are. He hasn't disclosed them as he'sives income from. There's no record of what those properties ultimately are. He hasn't disclosed them as he's supposed to. So there's a whole lot of questions here up to the point of, you know, he has a certain address listed of where he votes from. They went to that address and the person there was like, I have no idea who or what you're ultimately talking about. Put the next piece up here because this kind of sums it all up. They say, this person on Twitter says, let me get this straight. George Santos, whose campaign bio is below, lied about working for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs,

lied about graduating from Baruch College, lied about having an animal rescue charity, made bank doing question mark, and maybe lied about owning a real estate fortune. So a whole lot, whole lot going on here, ultimately, Sagar. Yeah, but the thing is, the money came from somewhere. So whose money is it? Where did this money come from? Who are you, dude? There are so many questions.

My favorite thing, too, is he was like, in response to this, he said George Santos is a fighter. George Santos is standing up against the corrupt Washington. They're like, I don't care about George Santos lying about his resume. That's almost the immediate one. But the major one is what the hell was his opponent doing? What was the DCCC, the Democratic Party, doing? Let's throw this up there on the screen. How did they not catch literally any of this? As this person says, apparently the

New York Democratic Party, the Nassau and Queen Democratic Parties, the DCCC, the Zimmerman campaign collectively employs zero opposition researchers. And even his opponent says, this story is not a shock to me. We always knew he was running a scam against the voters, but we were drowned out in this race where crime was the focus and the media had other priorities. I just think this is complete cope on behalf of this. Oh, yeah. Whoever this gentleman is, because clearly he did not do his due diligence research kind of whatsoever. I mean, Crystal, you ran for Congress. I'm assuming that even at the most basic level, you have some level of opposition research that the Democratic Party provides to you. So this is a massive systemic failure on their part. Even the most bare bones campaign

would hire what is called an opposition researcher to look at, OK, what past statements have this person made? What sort of you know, is there made? What sort of, you know, is there a criminal record? Are there, you know, is there a tax lien? Does the bio check out? Is he who he represents himself as? So a lot of times, if you're running a race that isn't a high priority for the party, they don't pick up the tab for that. and they don't really do that for you, but the campaign itself would do it. But in a race like this, which was high profile, which was a real target because this was the type of suburban district that frankly, across the country, outside of New York and Florida, Democrats mostly won, you would expect actually the party to have done this research. And in fact, I saw in an article in Semaphore,

the DCCC, that's the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, ran by Sean Patrick Maloney, who also lost his seat, by the way, and that's kind of relevant here. They did some research on him, but the only things they had were like his, you know, stupid extremist statements regarding January 6th. And they entirely missed the fact that literally every piece of his bio fails to check out. And oh, by the way, there's also a question of apparently he's accused of check fraud in Brazil, too. So there's that piece hanging out there as potential criminality. So total failure on the part of the Democrats as, you know, very interesting subplot here as well.

But it's just amazing to me that someone could lie in this day and age about every part of their bio and basically get away with it enough to get elected. I mean, I think the next time around was going to be tough for him anyway, because it is a kind of a challenging district. Now, I think it's going to be very difficult. Republican leadership, they're basically keeping their mouths shut. They haven't had much of a comment on this at all. We do have a comment from Mr. Santos. Let me pull it up here on my computer and I can read it to you guys. He says, and this is funny too, George Santos represents, and we can go ahead and put this

up on the screen, the kind of progress that the left is so threatened by. A gay, Latino, first-generation American and Republican who won a Biden district in overwhelming fashion by showing everyday voters there is a better option than the broken promises and failed policies of the Democratic Party. After four years in the public eye and on the verge of being sworn in as a member of Congress, the New York Times launches this shotgun blast of attacks. It's no surprise that Congressman Alex Santos has enemies at the New York Times are attempting to smear his good name with these defamatory allegations. As Winston Churchill famously stated, you have enemies, good. It means that you've stood up for something sometime in your life. So there's a lot going on there. Most importantly, he doesn't actually deny any of the allegations, number one. Number two, I love the use of identity politics

when it's convenient, you know, a first born son of immigrants or whatever he says there. And then I also love that he uses this Winston Churchill quote, which is actually not even a Winston Churchill quote. So while denying that he like lied about all of the details of his bio, he also managed to lie about a Winston Churchill quote. So good job there, buddy. Yeah, it's all just a little bit too perfect. Will it matter? I don't know. I mean, Richard Blumenthal lied about getting drafted, right? He's still a senator from Connecticut. This is a little bit more extreme. Will it all, will the Republicans seat him? Will they do anything about it?

Probably, right? Will he resign? Doesn't look like it, but yeah, amazing. And a huge failure by the Democratic Party here. Yeah, well, and Kevin McCarthy, obviously they have a very narrow majority in the House to start with, so they don't want to do anything about it. And this guy has pledged his vote for Kevin McCarthy as speaker

of the house. And Kevin McCarthy is having trouble gathering the votes to be able to do this. So don't expect any courage here from the Republicans. And one more just brazen detail about the web of lies that he apparently created. He said at one point that he had lost four employees in the Pulse nightclub shooting. That also looks to be a complete fabrication. So again, just to show you the extent of the brazen lies that this guy just created out of pull cloth, it is quite astonishing, quite astonishing. That is such a scumbag move. Yeah, it's disgusting. Let's move on. Speaking of liars, speaking of scumbags, and speaking of potential justice, let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. Some real weird moving

and shaking happening in the courtroom yesterday. So SBF, in a very confusing courtroom appearance, appears to have now agreed to be extradited to the United States. However, this all came amidst an insane court hearing where the lawyers had gathered in Bahamian court where SBF's lawyer was about to agree to extradition. But then he said he was, quote, shocked to see SBF actually in the court and said he needed to then talk to them. Then the judge granted this. SBF and his lawyer were conferring. The Bahamian lawyers appeared to be in chaos. And ultimately, the end result appears, and again, appears to be, remember, we are not dealing with the U.S. Department of Justice here. He appears to say he will agree to be extradited to the united states once he is he will be arraigned in the federal district court in manhattan and likely detained at the metropolitan detention center

in brooklyn pending a bail hearing it is very unlikely he will be granted bail however given a flight risk and all of that although it it's technically possible. Why does any of this matter? The moment that he gets to the U.S., that's when actual U.S. legal proceedings can begin. And Crystal, SBF is saying the reason why he's being agreed to the extradited to the United States is because he, quote, wants to do right by his customers and make his customers whole. Now, I think that has to do less with him appearing in U.S. court and more likely to do with the actual money that he allegedly stole.

The also interesting corollary to this is that you and I were looking, the prison that he's being held in is allegedly one of the worst in the entire world. It's not exactly rated as a five-star facility. So he may actually feel that being held in the Bahamas, especially given his medley of like drugs and, you know, health conditions and all of that, he's probably better off, you know, from a health perspective being in the United States. But overall, it's a big, big problem for him. And it also just shows you the amount of chaos that's happening right now in the Bahamas with the legal system where they are And that seems to be exactly what has actually happened

is he's hoping that potentially the situation in the U.S. federal prison system is better than the situation that he's facing right now in the Pamas. A sad statement on the state of both prison systems that this is what he's ultimately weighing and calculating based on. But yeah, sort of chaos in the courtroom yesterday,

but ultimately it looks like he is set to be extradited. And the other thing, Sagar, is originally, remember Matt Stoller is pointing out, it can take years. If you fight your extradition, it can actually take years to be extradited to the U.S. We now will see a much more expedited process so that the criminal proceedings can move forward here in the States. Yeah. And at the same time, we're actually learning a little bit more about his campaign finance operation. Let's put this up there on the screen.

Brian Schwartz from CNBC going through the indictment. and co-conspirators, quote, worked with others known and unknown who knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to defraud the United States to intentionally skirt campaign finance laws. They are reportedly right now looking at the former head of engineering, Nishad Singh, the former CEO of FTX Digital Markets, Ryan Salim, who was one of the top Republican donors in the entire country, number 10 overall as a GOP donor. They collectively contributed some $70 million towards the 2022 midterms, which is insane. And SPF himself gave some $40 million. What they are alleging here is basically a straw donation scheme of epic proportions, and also including and possibly ensnaring his own brother, Gabe Bankman-Fried, diverting some $12 million to his brother's nonprofit.

Another, Mind the Gap Super PAC, which was his mother personally donated some $1 million towards, mainly towards democratic issues, and also then using cutouts and others and friends to give to his parents non-profits so overall you're basically seeing a fraudulent embezzlement scheme of massive proportions that has major political ramifications because what the indictment the sec both and the doj layout is that he was diverting FTX customer funds to Alameda Research, his privately held hedge fund. And then Alameda Research was both loaning billions

of dollars to him, to other FTX executives of which they were using for political donations. But Alameda Research itself at the entity level was also giving donations, both to SBF-affiliated nonprofits. All of this, of course, is a nightmare for him from a tax fraud and wire fraud perspective. But it gives you just a good deep dive into some $22 million last year, just from SBF's brother's entity that was able to be raised. It doesn't disclose its donors per se, but it does show that Alameda Research itself gave $12 million to them just in a single period of late last year. And again, all of this is being funded with actual dollars from FTX customers. That's what makes it go so skeedy.

This is not money that he rightfully earned himself. These are customer funds, according right now to the SEC and to the DOJ. as like, oh, this isn't about my own personal profit. I just want to make sure that we're ready for the next pandemic. This is all about pandemic preparedness, which was always like, yeah, okay, buddy. But you see it really clearly here with the donations to his brother's nonprofit, which was called Guarding Against Pandemics. And then the brother turns around and gives a bunch of this money to, you know, direct democratic groups. So like Voto Latino, which spent the money opposing Gavin Newsom's recall, it's like, maybe you could make some sort of tangential connection to pandemic preparedness. But this just seems like, you know, standard issue, democratic political fundraising. Same thing with his mom

had this political advocacy organization that I actually knew about. It's called Mind the Gap. He was donating to her as well or through his cutouts or through Alameda or whatever. So basically, he's accused of violating campaign finance law in almost every way that you can. Straw donors, illegal corporate contributions, and also using effectively stolen funds in order to fund this giving. And then the other allegation here as well is that he thought that the press would like him giving to Democrats and that this would build his personal brand. And so then he uses these other cutouts to give to the Republicans he wants to ultimately win over. So it's just

this piece is maybe the part at this point I'm the most interested in because, you know, SBF is going to go to prison. His empire is collapsed there. It's going to be interesting to see some more of the details about how all this went down. But you still have these politicians who took this money are still in office. And there are still a lot of questions about like, OK, well, what did you do after you got that money? How did you serve this gigantic donor who contributed in some case? I mean, gave millions of dollars to Joe Biden. You know, did you call off the SEC from an earlier investigation that could have saved a lot of

customers a lot of pain? That's the piece that I continue to be really interested in and is a really going concern. Because again, these people are still office holders. And so they still need to be held to account, even above and beyond SBF ultimately having his day in court and paying a probably very heavy price for all of this. 100%. I hope that the clawback laws don't work out so well in the politicians' favor and that every single one of them has to detail exactly how much they got and how much they've given back. So the feds, I'm calling on you to do that. Something useful.

All right, let's move on. One of our favorite segments here, YouTuber Andrew Callahan appeared on Don Lemon's show over at CNN to promote a new documentary, which looks really interesting. And he really triggered Don Lemon when he commented on the cable news business model. Let's take a listen. The movie is not just about like the Capitol riot and all that. It's also about media echo chambers, you know what I mean? And the dangers of the 24-hour news cycle and how I think mainstream media like Fox and even CNN competes for views by running constant 24-hour news cycles based upon fear, division,

outrage, and panic, probably to sell ads. So it's not just about the Capitol riot. I'm not exactly sure. First of all, I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'm not exactly sure of how that played into people going into the Capitol and rioting

on January 6th. There's nothing fake about CNN. Oh, I'm not saying like fake news. I'm just saying ramping people up and increasing division during that period of time. Just watching people kind of fall down the rabbit hole and be pushed into action and like, just, yeah, falling down the conspiracy rabbit hole.

Wow. He really triggered him there in the most Don Lemon way possible. I don't necessarily agree. And look, what you're watching is the lack of ability to grapple with what their job actually is. Andrew has him pegged properly. Their job is to gin people up so that they stay tuned in between the ad breaks. That's it. That's all you're supposed to do. The ad breaks are the only business. The actual news is just secondary. It's what gets people glued to the screen. And so he was like, look, you and Fox are both ginning people up, which causes people to go down rabbit holes. You do it for business purposes. And that has real world consequences in our politics, of which resulted in January 6th. I really appreciate him not just doing the typical like Fox News doing this. You know, they're the only ones because, yeah, look, of course they are. But it's everybody. The whole point is that it's an entire system which is designed to gin up hate against others and which can have devastating consequences then in the real world. And look, clearly, Donna didn't like that very much. And he doesn't want to take any responsibility for his own role over the last, what, four years,

five years or whatever in the Trump era of doing the exact same thing that he accuses Fox of doing every single night, Crystal. Yeah. And they want to say, oh, we're not as bad as Fox. We're not as bad as OAN. We're not as bad as like whoever. But, you know, ultimately, CNN, MSNBC, all of them are kind of poison. They're all bad for the country. And so, you know, Andrew, who is a very interesting creator, a really strong creator, actually encourage you to check out his YouTube channel. He kind of has some dead to rights here. And at the beginning of the segment, they set it up like, oh, you know, this is all about January 6, this new documentary about January 6. And he clearly takes issue with that. And it's like, well, you're kind of missing some of the point here, because you may want to use this to just exclusively serve the narratives that you're interested in. But there was actually a broader point here about

the news media's role in this and the divisiveness of that and the problem with the 24 hour news cycle and serving your advertisers and people keeping people glued to the screen. And he and Caitlin Collins both get very uncomfortable with that part of the conversation, immediately try to shut it down and move back to the points that they are comfortable opining on. Yeah, I mean, I think one of the I encourage people to watch this trailer and to check out the doc whenever it's out. I also watched Into the Storm, the QAnon documentary, and I just came away with that with like a much deeper understanding of like, wow, like this stuff is real. You know, people really can just lose themselves entirely in this. And it's a broader societal problem of which the media is complicit in, but there's also many other

structural factors. And unfortunately, the Don Lemons of the world just simply don't want to question not even their own complicity, but what leads to society to get to this point where people are so angry that they're willing to storm the Capitol based on the word of Donald J. Trump? That's a really interesting question if you want to look into it. It doesn't have to be just about other people being bad. But whenever you have the business model that they do, well, that really is the only one-dimensional view that you're allowed to take. So I really appreciated his appearance on CNN and kind of setting the record straight. I also love that he is just very he's like, yo, come on. He's like, that's what you guys are willing to do here in his

own very Andrew way. It was great. The other thing that I enjoyed about this exchange is it was sort of like two worlds colliding, you know, they don't quite know what to do with him. And it's it is like a traditional media and new independent media, like being oil and water effectively in this interview. They're engaged in two very different processes and engaged in two very different activities. So it's kind of funny to see those two worlds collide and Lemon and Caitlin Collins really having no idea what to do with him. All right, Crystal, what are you taking a look at? So, guys, the Federal Trade Commission has now settled with Fortnite game maker Epic Games for a massive amount of money over violations of children's privacy and also these sort of efforts to get customers to pay for things that they didn't actually want to buy. Let's go and

put this tear sheet up on the screen and I can give you all of the details here. This is from TechCrunch. They say FTC fines Fortnite maker Epic Games $520 million over children's privacy and item shop charges. Let me give you a little bit of the details here, and then I can show you the FTC press release as well. So they say that $520 million payment is actually divided into two settlements. There's a COPPA fine that is $275 million, largest ever penalty for violating an FTC rule. And then separately, there was a $245 million fine of Epic. That is actually to refund customers for what it calls dark patterns and billing practices. Epic says that they're going to pay both of these fines, the latter of which

will be the FTC's largest ever refund amount in a gaming case. So if you are a Fortnite player, you might be eligible for a refund from this $245 million fund. I do want to read to you what Epic has to say about all of this, and then I'll get into the FTC press release and what exactly they say that Epic ultimately did wrong here. So Epic says statutes written decades ago don't specify how gaming ecosystems should operate. The laws have not changed, but their application has evolved and longstanding industry practices are no longer enough. We accepted this agreement because we want Epic to be at the forefront of consumer protection and provide the best experience for our players. And I do want to say

some of the practices that are detailed here, they have made changes in order to better comply with the law and not run afoul of FTC regulations. So these fines really have to do more with some of their actions and failures in the past. Let me go ahead and put this FTC press release up on the screen that details some of the problems here. The first has to do with this Children's Privacy Act. They say that Epic collected personal data from children without first obtaining parents verifiable consent. So that runs afoul of regulation.

They also say that since Epic settings enable live on by default text and voice communications, Epic was matching children and teens with strangers to play Fortnite together, and they harm children and teens in the process. They say children and teens have been bullied, threatened, harassed, and exposed to dangerous and psychologically traumatizing issues such as suicide while on Fortnite. And I read through this entire complaint. Effectively, what was happening is, if I'm not a gamer, so forgive me for sounding like clunky and cringe and describing this, but when you log on, you are sort of automatically put into these chat rooms and ability to talk directly to players that you're

playing with or playing against. And they knew that these were kids, sometimes little kids. The game is explicitly marketed to little kids. And that's reflected in the fact they're, you know, selling merchandise to kids. It's clear in their corporate communications. And they're matching these little kids with grown up adults who are, you know, which is like wildly inappropriate. And it was very hard to opt out of participating in this live chat. Now, I believe this is one of the areas that Epic Games has now changed to make it easier to opt out of this. And then the other piece was collecting children's data without getting their parents consent. That is just like a blatant violation of this particular regulation. Go ahead and put the press release back up on the screen because there's another piece of this. This is where they were basically manipulating their customers into buying things that they didn't really intend to buy. They call this dark patterns. They say that the company has deployed a variety of

dark patterns trying to get consumers of all ages to make unintended in-game purchases. They, for example, would charge them while they're attempting to wake the game from sleep mode or while the game was in a loading screen or by pressing an adjacent button while attempting to simply preview an item. These tactics led to hundreds of millions of dollars in unauthorized charges for consumers. And an important part of this, too, had to do with children once again. Basically, once they had gotten their parents' credit card information entered in once, they could just press a button and continually charge their parents' credit card without the parent having any idea. And it was very easy to do. And in fact, sometimes it would

happen without you even intending to buy whatever you were buying. And then if you disputed charges on the account, they also accused Epic of they would freeze your account if you disputed a charge, wouldn't let you use any of the stuff that you had actually, you know, authorized and purchased. And they threatened to lock you out of your account entirely if you persisted with disputing any of these credit card charges. So just sort of like blatant consumer manipulation and abuse here, ultimately, Sagar. And one of the things, Sagar, that I was remembering and why this really struck a chord with me. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com.

All right, Sagar, what are you looking at? Well, you may have noticed in the news that there are a couple of things going on with respect to public health. Number one is in China. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. After the Chinese Communist Party has been forced to recede from its COVID zero idiotic policies, now it turns out there is a mass outbreak of COVID inside of China, both wreaking havoc on the elderly and some 10% of the entire world's population could be infected with COVID in the coming weeks, given how widely spread the virus is, with which they have almost no plan to deal with it.

Second, actually, and what I wanted to combine with this is what's happening here at home. Let's put it up there on the screen. The next element there, please, is the so-called tripledemic that's happening here right now in the United States, the spread of both COVID, of the respiratory syndrome virus, or otherwise known as RSV, and of the flu. And I think, Crystal, what I really wanted to get to was about how much this involves lockdowns and the failure of these policies. Because the reason why China is having this massive COVID outbreak right now is because they did not allow some sort of reasonable level of community spread up until this point and are getting slammed all at the same time by banking

on a completely foolish and ridiculous policy. It's actually linked also to the same so-called triple-demic that's happening right now here in the United States. And I'll explain this. Mass infection of COVID was basically always inevitable, especially with the rise of Omicron. By locking people and especially kids up now for two years, we are now suffering the consequences of weakened immune systems that are all being exposed at once. And I want to be clear here. I'm not saying that the immune system itself became weaker, but it's called an immunity

gap. It's a lack of exposure to many pathogens, germs, and infections that otherwise people would have gotten. RSV, for example. RSV is not a special virus. We've literally been dealing with this for years. However, and actually, every child in the United States, and this is according to the CDC, is usually exposed to RSV by age of two and then continually on from that point.

By having school closures and having a shutdown, we had a natural exposure cycle that would have happened both for infants and toddlers that are getting infected with this now, but also all children that are in some cases bringing it back home. It's now happening, though, all at once. This is, again, a direct consequence of school closure and of the lack of socialization of children. And I think this really is the first sign of a major public health catastrophe as a result of lockdown. I want to read directly from a new piece in The Atlantic, quoting mainstream scientists who are talking about how infants born during lockdowns

have microbiota and immune systems irrevocably abnormal, which could result in a huge surge of autoimmune and health conditions. Quote, perhaps most at risk are kids whose families went into hyper hygiene mode in the first couple months of their lives. Microbes are crucial for properly calibrating immune systems, antipathogen alarms. Miss out on those opportunities.

Our body's defensive cells might end up mistaking enemies for allies or vice versa, sparking severe infections or autoimmune disease. For the health professionals who are listening, some of this is derivative of the so-called hygiene hypothesis. But something I want to underscore is that this is not conjecture. The CDC right now, in response to what's happening with RSV and the hospitalization of children, says, quote, because of low RSV cases in 2020 and in 2021, young children may be at risk for a more serious infection since their immune systems weren't exposed to the virus as much over the last few years. Direct admission by the CDC that school closure and lockdowns had very much to do with the actual overall immune development of children, very much also applicable to what's happening in China with their COVID

outbreak right now. It is a direct fault of the government for both selling zero COVID to the population, especially in the case of the elderly who didn't want to get vaccinated and are now going to suffer the consequences. But also, they have nobody but themselves to blame for keeping people locked up for so long and then sparking a major basically run on the hospitals as of right now. So that's really what I wanted to focus on, Crystal. You know, everyone, a lot of zero COVID advocates on Twitter and elsewhere are like, see, this is what happened. And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagar's monologue,

become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. I really want to thank everybody for sticking with us. We had some technical difficulties on our end. So we're going to try and get the show out as soon as possible. Don't forget about the live show. We've got the tickets that are on sale right now for Austin. They're selling really well. And we really hope to see all of you there. Otherwise, we're gonna be back in the studio on Thursday. We promise and we love you. Happy holidays. Love you guys. See you soon. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time,

have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The OGs of uncensored motherhood are back and badder than ever.

I'm Erica. And I'm Mila. And we're the hosts of the Good Moms, Bad Choices podcast, brought to you by the Black Effect Podcast Network every Wednesday. Yeah, we're moms, but not your mommy. Historically, men talk too much. And women have quietly listened. And all that stops here.

If you like witty women, then this is your tribe. Listen to the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday. On the Black Effect Podcast Network, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you go to find your podcast. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there.

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