Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 12/4/24: South Korea Martial Law, Jon Stewart On Hunter Pardon, Dan Osborn Interview & MORE!

Episode Date: December 4, 2024

Ryan and Emily discuss martial law declared in South Korea, Jon Stewart shreds Dems on Hunter Biden pardon, Trump floats replacing Hegseth with DeSantis, SCOTUS to hear Tennessee ban on trans youth healthcare, Wisconsin Dem on race for DNC chair, exclusive Dan Osborn interview, journalism giant exposed for U.S. gov backing.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. 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 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar 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 BreakingPoints.com. All right, good morning, and welcome to CounterPoints. Emily, it's our first show since Thanksgiving. I hope it was a good one. We've missed a lot since then.

Yeah, the news just doesn't stop. Apparently not. We thought it would get better when the election was over, but... No. No. You can never get off this ride. No chance. So, I mean, today, obviously, we're going to start by talking about the really pitiful attempt at a coup over in South Korea, where the prime minister himself tried to coup his own government with the military, but didn't have the military behind him.

And we'll talk about how well that worked out. Yeah. Not well. We've got some video footage. There's all kinds of good stuff. Stay tuned for that. Yeah. You thought January 6th was pathetic? Like, wait till you see this one.

I don't know how many people thought January 6th was pathetic. Except the opposition actually stood up. Yeah. I mean, it was pathetic in the sense that what were those January 6th people thinking they were going to accomplish if they took over the Capitol? Right. Like, you think if you get the gavel, you've beaten the final boss and now you're the speaker? Yeah.

Like, that's not actually how it works. Yeah. Like, this is not like 1789 in Paris or something. Thank God. We'll also be talking about Jon Stewart laying into Democrats over their handling of the sweeping Hunter Biden pardon. So we've got some video of that.

And breaking news, actually, that Pete Hegseth is actually being considered as, or being considered to be replaced. Being unconsidered. Yeah, being unconsidered. Donald Trump is considering replacing Pete Hegseth, his nominee, to head up the Pentagon with none other than Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. That's a report in the Wall Street Journal that has since just in the last 12 hours been confirmed by others. And DeSanctimonious is qualified because he report in the Wall Street Journal that has since just in the last 12 hours been confirmed by others. And De Sanctimonious is qualified because he served in the torture chambers in Guantanamo. He did do that. So we'll get into all of that because the story is fluid.

And moving quickly, there's also a major Supreme Court oral argument hearing today over the transgender treatment for minors ban in Tennessee. So there's all kinds of interesting stuff that we can talk about when it comes to that. And we have Ben Wickler, who's running for DNC chair, making a very powerful effort to head up the DNC, the head of the Wisconsin Democratic Party. He's going to be joining us. Yeah, and he's one of, he may be the front runner. Ken Martin of Minnesota might be the front runner for chair at this point. It's not entirely clear. What's wild is Ben Wickler, who comes from the kind of progressive-ish wing of the party, move on, that sort of world, just got the endorsement of Third Way, the centrist organization, which shows, which says a lot of interesting things about where the party is now. Also, at Dropsite, my colleague Jessica Burbank interviewed Dan Osborne, the independent

Nebraska Senate candidate, and we're going to exclusively run that entire interview here. Jessica lives in Iowa, so just drove over to Nebraska and sat down with him. It's a really fascinating kind of window into how a working person reflects back on a Senate campaign in which he faced millions and millions of dollars in negative ads and ended up losing 53-47 and outperforming every other Democrat in the country, except for he was tied with Jon Tester for overperformance. And Jon Tester, Montana senator, three times elected. So in other words, running as an independent who has a genuine working class story to tell is as good for your kind of brand as serving for 18 years as a populist kind of in Montana.

Jon Tester's a guy, he's a farmer, he's lost his finger in a combine. You know, he's got that whole flat top thing going on. So it works for him, until it didn't, and Montana got too red. Yeah, I mean, that had Mitch McConnell rattled, for sure. That race had Mitch McConnell rattled. So excited to see the interview. Ryan, you had a fantastic report at Dropsite this week. I mean, it was like riveting, and we're going to break some of it down here. Yeah, it's our first collaboration that we did at Dropsite with three other independent media outlets in Europe looking into this giant of investigative journalism that was instrumental in doing a lot of the investigations you've heard of, like the Panama Papers, the Pandora Papers, a lot of these investigations into oligarchs around the world. What we collectively can reveal now for the first time is that the primary funder of this organization is none other than the United States State Department. And so we're going to get into that. One other thing I wanted to flag

before I start the show, on two days from now, we'll mark the one-year anniversary since Israel assassinated Palestinian poet, Reifat al-Arir. After his assassination, his poem, If I Must Die, Let It Be a Tale, became this absolute global sensation. It's a poignant poem that is addressed to his daughter, basically asking her to carry on hope for him and for the world. His daughter was then killed in April. Next week, on Tuesday, there's a book called If I Must Die, which is Ray Fott and Ella Rears posthumously published book of prose and poems. And what we are going to try to do and this is where this is where you come in We have nothing to do with the publication of this book. It's by it's by Oh our books

But we're gonna do is we're going to try to turn this into a bestseller As a small measure of if not justice at least a tiny bit of revenge to let people know that the world is still watching that the world has not forgotten about the Palestinian people and also that the world has not forgotten about the assassins of Rayfad Al-Arir and his family. It's also an incredible book. It's one you're going to want to own. Do not order it yet. It comes out on December 10th. So order it on that day.

We'll put a link down in the notes or in the comments where you can sign up to get a reminder to order it on that day we'll put a link down in the in the notes or in the in the comments where you can like sign up to get a reminder to order it on tuesday because if everybody orders orders it on tuesday that will fuel the algorithm and push it to the very top and i think we i think i think we can do it you only have to sell five or ten thousand books in a day yeah to hit basically number one on the list right so it's possible. It can be done, and it should be done for Ray Fod's book. It's definitely possible. Yeah, that was an amazing poem. It really is extraordinary. Just go Google that poem. And as you read the poem,

you will see why we're doing this. Let's get to South Korea, Ryan. So over in South Korea, over the last couple of days, we watched a farcical attempt at a military coup without the real support of the military unfold. As President Yoon Suk-yeol, and we can roll this here, on Monday night, South Korea time, declared martial law. This is a man with about a 10% approval rating, and accused his opponents of being North Korean communist sympathizers who were harassing him by impeaching his cabinet officials by investigating him. By the way, this turns out to be a South Korean reporter here, the one who... Oh, wait, where is she?

If you're watching this, there's a woman who grabs a gun. And if you're listening to it, you're seeing it. If you're listening, what we're watching right now is a woman grabbing a gun from a soldier. She turns out, as Ryan was just about to say, to be a reporter, right? Then there's the soldier pointing the weapon right at her. She doesn't back down at all, which was a metaphor for the civil society response from the South Korean people to this declaration of martial law. You had some soldiers basically storming the Capitol, and we can put up the next element here, kind of storming the parliament to

try to, you know, take it over, to try to block the parliament from overturning martial law, because the constitution says that if, basically, if parliament votes against the martial law, then it's lifted. So the marshals were trying to keep the law from getting into the place where they could cast the vote. There's this great viral video of the leader of the opposition scaling a wall. We can put the next element up here. Scaling a wall to get in. They ended up voting, I think, 190 to zero or something to lift it. At one point, you had soldiers trying to get in and they were beaten back by reporters and kind of staffers and lawmakers who wielded a fire extinguisher, sprayed the soldiers with a fire extinguisher, and otherwise just kind of used their camera flashes in their faces.

You can put up this next element here. I believe this is the one where South Korea's parliament votes 190 to zero to lift the martial law. After that vote, Yoon finally capitulated and he went on early in the morning and said, look, it's too early to get a quorum, but I promise once I finally get a quorum, I will lift the martial law and we'll return things to where they were. I think if you want a good rundown on kind of the history of what led up to this and also the details of how this went down. We'll have a story later today up over at Dropsite News. You can check that out. Emily, the Biden administration is claiming that it was caught off guard by this. That he did not tell them.

That he didn't tell them they were going to do this. And that apparently the intelligence community, whose job it is to know that these kinds of things are going to happen when done by your top ally, apparently also didn't know. They also claimed some ignorance about the seizure of Aleppo, which people have been like, how are you ignorant about that? These are your guys seizing Aleppo. Maybe because our president is sleeping through the day, presumably. Yeah. So, so the best case scenario for the United States here is that they were caught completely off guard. Worst case scenario was that they were, that they were okay with this and thought it, thought they could pull it off. Some background here, I did, which I, which I think is unlikely because it was such a comical, farcical, pathetic attempt at a coup.

So the background here is that Yoon is a very, very tight ally of the United States and has given the United States the thing in one person that they have wanted in South Korea for a while now, which is not just somebody who's willing to go after labor unions, which that is the U.S. interest in South Korea to crack down on labor unions because we want cheap exports out of South Korea, but also that they will make a tight alliance with their former colonizer, Japan, and form a bulwark against China. Like, that is our thing. And North Korea. And North Korea, because North Korea

is seen as a proxy for China. Right, right. Right. And so there could be nothing less popular in South Korea to do than to create warm and friendly, cozy relations with Japan. And it's not surprising that the president who would do that or the leader who would do our bidding on that question would also be somebody who's got like a single digit approval rating.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. And so just if we put A2 on the screen, this is some of the political backdrop here. He was narrowly elected. The president of South Korea was narrowly elected from the conservative. It's called the People Power Party. Their rivals are called the Democratic Party, funny enough, who just had a big victory in the parliamentary elections. And so he's a lame duck, as Politico reports in this piece. And he's accusing the Democrats, members of the Democratic Party, of, quote, sympathizing with Pyongyang and paralyzing the government with anti-state activities. Those anti-state activities obviously targeted him and his party, hampered him and his

party. They were arguing over the course of the last couple of weeks over a budget bill that the Democratic Party would not greenlight. Again, he's a lame duck. And so that's the kind of political backdrop of how he ends up declaring martial law in this speech. Biden administration says it doesn't give a heads up. It was not given a heads up, which is shocking given that over the last half a century, this is one of our top recipients of aid. If you look at the last half century of foreign aid from the U.S. to different countries, South Korea is a leader in that. I mean, people don't realize that. Yeah, it's like top, I would say it's like probably top five. Oh, definitely.

Yeah, over the course of, it's probably a little different in the last 10 years, but over the course of 50 years, huge, huge recipient. And so the fact that they get so much support from the United States and then the president who has been close to our president doesn't give a heads up before declaring martial law, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying it's a massive slap in the face to the Biden administration. And it leaves the Biden administration looking ridiculous. Yeah. And we supported the brutal police state and military dictatorship in South Korea up through the late 1980s. And so there are Israel in the region, basically.

They're kind of outposts. And this is just hugely embarrassing. Now, the opposition party is fairly American-friendly, too, but they're more labor-friendly. And so we're annoyed by that, because that means we have to pay a little bit more for stuff that comes out of South Korea and they'll be much less interested in making a common military cause with Japan against China. And they put up, this is A3, the opposition party simply said the declaration is illegal and unconstitutional as it has not at all met actual requirements for emergency martial law declaration that are stipulated in the Constitution and the Martial Law Act. So it wasn't even legit martial law, according to the opposition party here. If you're going to declare martial law, you should do it within the law.

Yeah, and the unions immediately declared a general strike and are saying that they're going to remain on strike until Yoon just, until Yoon resigns. And it's really, his entire staff is resigning. It's very hard to see how he is still in power even by the end of this week. So CIA should send a transport plane and get their man out of there. Like this, it's a wrap for this. So on that note, let's roll A5. This is Joe Biden egging on Marshall Law president to sing American Pie at an event last year. As Bill O'Reilly would say, to play us out. To play us out. This is A5 and a good illustration of just how friendly this relationship is.

And I think maybe what a statement on Joe Biden's, his own lame duck president, how exactly lame that lame duck president is. So enjoy. Long, long time ago. I used to know how the music used to make me smile. Well, for you and the music has died. I think we can leave it there, right? That was the day that the music died. South Korean pie.

Yeah, yeah. There you go. Shame. Well, I hope everyone enjoyed that little musical interlude. It's not often we get to do a musical interlude, so a little treat. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution.

But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. Voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships.

It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship

that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops and 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. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1.

Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. John Stewart is excoriating the Democratic Party for its reaction to Hunter Biden's pardon or Joe Biden's pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. The sweeping pardon has not gotten a ton of criticism from Democrats as they've been asked to respond to what the president did. So let's take a listen to Stewart here. It's not like he's ever going to run again. So why not take care of your kid? Even if you said you weren't gonna, I respect it. I don't have a problem with it. The problem is the rest of the Democrats made Biden's pledge to not pardon Hunter, the foundation

of their defense of America, this grand experiment. Yes, yes, yes. To everything that you guys were saying, if you hadn't made Hunter Biden not receiving a pardon, the Mason-Dixon line of morality between Democrats and Republicans, there's a big gap between the law is the only thing that separates us from the animals and monkey threw shit at me first. I had no choice. Rules, loopholes and norms.

The distance between the systems Democrats say they are revering and the one that they're using when they need to is why people think it's rigged. Use the rules. Use the loopholes. F*** the norms. But also use it to help the people. So Gavin Newsom has been basically the only major Democrat I've seen gently condemn what Joe Biden did. But Ryan, there's an interesting point also that Stewart is... More people than that, I think, have been going after him.

More than Gavin Newsom? Yeah. Like people who are elected officials? Yes, like the Colorado Senator Michael Bennett went after him pretty hard. Because I think he's on his way out, and I think people feel like it's a free shot at him. Yeah, I've been curious about that, actually. I mean, it seems...

It's a pretty easy option. The cable heads have not covered themselves in glory. And they have no reason not to. But the politicians, actually, who actually have to deal with voters... You'd think. ...have been, actually, I think, pretty critical of it. Stewart had a good montage of Jasmine Crockett, other elected Democrats who have been very

defensive of Biden, but I'd totally take that point. I think it's, yeah. Gavin Newsom is one very, as much as I can't stand him, he's sort of, his political instincts are smart to the point you're making about understanding where voters are on this. This is a free hit. And this is exactly where I was going. Biden actually said over and over again, as Crystal and Sagar have covered, that he wouldn't do this. But what's interesting about that is it was all before the election. So Hunter was going to be sentenced this month, and I think in both cases. But to

say over and over again before the election that you wouldn't pardon him, and then after the election to pardon him, whether the timing had to do with the sent again before the election that you wouldn't pardon him, and then after the election to pardon him, whether the timing had to do with the sentencing or the election, voters are going to feel totally lied to and cheated by Democrats and by journalists who weren't as skeptical of those claims as they might otherwise have been. So, obviously, it is a huge free hit. Yes. And I think we're covering this now because I think people might be curious for our takes on this, even though this is a day or two old now. I'm curious for more on yours.

But from my perspective, yeah, there are a bunch of different layers to this. On the top layer, to me, if you are a mother or father of a child who is a child, and I'm calling him a child, he's like 50-some years old, who has committed a nonviolent crime or hundreds of nonviolent crimes, you are a complete jerk if you just don't use your pardon. You can pardon them and you don't, and they're in recovery. Just pardon the person. It's what you do as a parent. The other layers, though, are the hypocrisy. Biden is the guy who deserves as much credit for the drug war as anybody else. Hundreds of thousands to millions of people rotting away who he has never shed a tear for and has the opportunity now to pardon hundreds of thousands

of nonviolent, maybe tens of thousands of nonviolent criminals who didn't get out from first step and who are in federal prison. he hasn't done it. He campaigned on ending the death penalty. He could commute every federal death sentence today, and he ran on it, so it would be a legitimate thing to do. Is he going to do that? No, he's not going to do that. And then the layer below is, of course, the lies. Like, you want to pardon your son, fine. But did you really have to lie about it and say that you absolutely were not doing it when you knew you were considering doing it? And then beyond just the lie, it's one thing to lie and then flip and then do it.

To lie and build the sandcastle of your integrity on top of it. Yeah, the sandcastle of your integrity. It of it. Yeah, the sandcastle of your integrity. It's like, come on, get out of here. That's actually the title of like your next book. Democratic Party. Yeah, the sandcastle of integrity. So what's interesting also is that Trump's defense has also already used, his legal defense has already invoked Biden's pardon of Hunter in its own defense saying, well, clearly this shows or this proves malfeasance in the Biden DOJ. Like, this is a reflection, even the president himself, which is interesting because Biden's DOJ was already going very lenient on Hunter to the point where a judge had to stop when she looked at the deal that was being presented by the DOJ.

This was, what, a year and a half ago now? And said, Noriega is, I think, the judging question. She said, I'm sorry, what? This is the weirdest thing I've ever seen the prosecution present me with. Right. And even if you believe their rationale there, it doesn't excuse the lying. Because they spent years saying that the problem with Donald Trump is that he planned to weaponize the Justice Department to get revenge against his political appointees if he was reelected as president. Like that was one of the top lines that Democrats used against Donald Trump. pardon Hunter, to then cite that, cite Trump's vindictiveness and his willingness to put Kash Patel or whatever as the head of the FBI as the reason that you changed your mind. It's like, wait a minute, were you not watching your own ads for the last two years? You're the ones who were saying that he was going to do this. So yes, the lying, the hypocrisy,

all of that is the problem to me, not the pardon itself. Like, I would have been angrier, and I was actually angry at Biden when I foolishly thought that maybe he might not actually pardon Hunter Biden. Like, I thought that was cruel and vicious, like, as a father. Like, just pardon your son. Just do it. Yeah. Well, I mean, Hunter Biden is somebody who, to your point, has perhaps committed hundreds of nonviolent crimes over the years. And he looks like he's

going to. Well, we definitely know. I mean, he committed, he probably committed, there were probably days during his bender where he committed a hundred crimes. Yeah. Like in a single day. Yeah. Now, the reason they went all the way back to 2014 and gave him this blanket pardon is because the more trial was that he was so high and so irresponsible that yes, he was paid to do foreign influence work. But he couldn't. But he just cashed the checks and spent it on drugs and put it up his nose and never actually did the work. And it's the work, the unregistered work

that would be the crime, not taking the money. So it'd be a hilariously novel legal theory. It's like if you're arrested for selling drugs, and you're like, actually, this was just baking soda, and I just kept the guy's money. At that point, you'd be like, okay, well, actually, if there was literally no cocaine in that bag, you may have committed some fraud against this poor sap

who thought he was getting an eight ball, but you didn't actually sell drugs. You saved his life, Hunter. Unless he snorted the baking soda. Well, I mean, it's not going to kill you, but it's pleasant, I'm sure. Yeah, but in this case with Farrah, the violation is actually just not registering as opposed to, it's totally legal to do the lobbying. It's more a question of like whether or not you, after you sign a contract, which he did register, which is a funny kind of part of, that's why their defense

just might not work. Except if you didn't do the lobbying, if you only took the money. But if you registered. But he never registered. Well, no, but if he signed the, that's right. But if he signed the contract, and then he's supposed to have registered. He defrauded Ukrainian. You're supposed to register as soon as you sign. 30 days, right? Like you get the 30-day grace period. Right.

I mean, so that's why they pardon him. Because like this novel legal theory might be laughed out of court by jurors. You never know. Amazing theory, though. And just lastly, I'm reading from Playbook here. They say lawyers for Trump deployed the president's statement explaining his pardon of Hunter in a filing seeking the dismissal of the hush money case against Trump in New York. His lawyers argued that Biden's assertions about Hunter Biden have been selectively and unfairly prosecuted and treated differently were tantamount to a quote extraordinary condemnation of President Biden's

own DOJ. So an amusing tidbit there. Yeah and I will I will say that the only thing that got him so far on was this filling out the form on the, when he went to get the gun and said, it had this, and we've talked about this before, my argument that I would have made to the jury didn't, didn't pass water. I mean, didn't pass muster to the jury, but it says, are you currently using drugs? And he checked no. Right. And from my perspective, if I'm filling that out, if I'm in the gun shop not using drugs, then I'm not using drugs. Like, did I use drugs yesterday? Maybe. Do I plan to use drugs tomorrow? Absolutely not. Never touched them again as long as I live. And then maybe you relapse. Didn't work. But in that moment when you filled out the form,

and then aside from that, it's like, aren't you all these big Second Amendment champions? Like, where in the Second Amendment does it say, you know, the shot passed no law that restricts, you know, the right to keep and bear arms, except a federal form that you have to fill out about gun ownership, I mean, about drug use, and if you're

okay with that, are you okay with mental health? Well, I mean, you can flip that around so easily on Joe Biden. Like, aren't you and Hunter the opponents of, you know, an expansive Second Amendment interpretation? And, you know, shouldn't this mean that everyone who's been convicted on these types of gun charges? It would. That's why it would have been quite ironic if Hunter Biden ended up being used to go to the Supreme Court to like blow even greater holes in our gun safety laws. Yeah, that would have been pretty interesting. So that's another thing that won't happen. Hypocrites, all of them, right and left, no question about that.

Yeah, I think that's about right. So speaking of people's personal addiction problems being weaponized against them, Pete Hagseth is getting absolutely torched in the press for his alleged drinking problems. He's talked about some of this personally after he returned from war, but NBC News published a story just yesterday detailing allegations, all anonymously sourced, by the way, from people inside Fox News, essentially saying that he would show up to work hungover and that everybody knew he was a heavy drinker. Now, since the publication of that story, it has become clear that NBC News did not reach out to Pete Hexeth's coworkers, like Rachel Campos-Duffy, an anchor actually on Fox News.

All kinds of people have come out on the record and said they've never heard anything like it. They're obviously all friends and allies of Pete Hegseth. But after the publication of that story, which comes after allegations of sexual abuse, it comes after allegations of drinking and wild sort of incompetent runs overseeing concerned Vets for America. Pete Hegseth now is being potentially replaced by Ron DeSantis. We can put this element on the screen. A Wall Street Journal report last night exclusively broke the news that Donald Trump was mulling a replacement of Pete Hegseth with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

What I saw last night, Ryan, is people who seem to be in the DeSantis camp saying this story is true. They have people that are telling them the story is true. It was confirmed by other news outlets in different ways after the Wall Street Journal published it. And that is significant. My former boss, Sean Davis, who is very well sourced from the Federalist in Trump world, says the story is not true, that it's being planted by DeSantis' allies. So maybe there's a kernel of truth that they're using to plant stories in places like the Wall Street Journal, making it more likely that DeSantis ends up just stepping in for Pete Hegseth. Hegseth's mom is going to be on Fox News this morning, so literally as we're taping this. And then she's also going to be, he's actually going to be on Brett Baier's show this evening. He's meeting with senators here in

Washington all week. So Ryan, this is a very precarious nomination at this point to head up an agency that is deeply suspicious of outsiders, that doesn't want outsiders, whatever you think of Pete Hegseth, there's definitely a campaign to get him out the door. Yeah. And what's annoying to me as somebody who would love to see a wrecking ball brought to both the Department of Justice and to the Department of Defense, is I would like you guys on the right to kind of get your act together. Like, come on. You have a chance to take on these titans of elite power centers,

and the two people you throw at them do seem to be real wrecking balls. I've got differences with them in some areas, but these both Matt Gaetz and Hegs would be real wrecking balls. I've got differences with them in some areas, but these both Matt Gaetz and Hegs would be real wrecking balls thrown into these institutions. Cash Patel, yeah. And if you're going to take on the man at that level, you've got to be squeaky clean.

These guys aren't squeaky clean probably today. Well, Brett Kavanaugh was squeaky clean. Well, Brett Kavanaugh is squeaky clean. Also, Brett Kavanaugh is squeaky clean. Also, he's not taking, he's not a wrecking ball. He's not taking on anything. He's just a servant of the Republican Party apparatus for 20, 30 years. I agree, but I think your point is actually really important, which is that- And also he got through. I think it's really important because these Trump nominees, if you want to upend the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Pentagon, nominating Pete Hagseth and Matt Gaetz, right away you know that there's going to be, there's such easy targets and you know that, let's say hypothetically, even though I think this is probably true, there are people inside the Pentagon and their allies in the press who are really eager to discredit any nominee that is going to dramatically shake up the department. They will go to any length to stop you from being confirmed. So not only should you be

squeaky clean, you shouldn't be Matt Gaetz. It's so obvious. Or somebody who is in Pete Hegs' case, he's admitted to drinking too much. He's admitted. We know that he has slept around with all kinds of different women. So it's a... And the thing with the mother is amazing. And that's what she, in her email that was published, which is wild that a mother's email

to her son is now part of the conversation. She refers to him as a serial abuser of women. People read kind of violence into that She doesn't say that in the email what she's really talking about is is emotional abuse and and you know relentless cheating and denigration and just treating women terribly and even if it's the case that the

the charge of sexual assault, rape that he was accused of, isn't true. He wasn't charged. It's great that he said, she said. Let's say that he didn't do it. At minimum, he was having an affair within weeks of his new girlfriend having a baby. Right. And that baby was breaking up his last marriage. Right. Just Hillary Clinton's description of deplorable would fit that situation. Yes, although she probably wouldn't use it that way because it would be uncomfortable for her own husband.

Yes, right. And once you're in the category of being compared to Bill Clinton, then you're like, you've kind of lost. And again, you know, we're not saying everybody's got to be a choir boy, but you've got to do a little better than this, guys.

If you're going to try to take on, like if you are going to toe the line and just do what you're being asked by the powers that be, then you can actually probably get away with all of this stuff. You're going to take on the man. Right. You got to be a little bit more stitched up. Well, I think you and I both know the problem is that if you are somebody who actually wants to radically transform a department like the Pentagon, you're probably going to be a little crazy, right? Like that takes a crazy person to say, I want to go into the Pentagon and upend it and fire people and threaten contracts, billion, multi-billion dollar contracts. Like it's very difficult. Ron DeSantis, and this is why I

think the story is particularly interesting. It's a similar dilemma that Trump had with Attorney General. Pam Bondi is a lobbyist for major corporations, Qatar. She is not Matt Gaetz. The benefit from Trump's perspective, and even from the perspective of those of us who say, like, enjoy the schadenfreude because we believe that these departments desperately need some type of like metaphorical grenade to be tossed in. That is, you only get that with Matt Gaetz. You don't get that with Pam Bondi. You only get that with Pete Hegseth to the extent that he would be capable of it. I don't know if any individual is actually really capable of it. You don't get that with Ron DeSantis. But a revolutionary does not have to be reckless.

Now, you're right. This is interesting. You're right that the personality type that produces a revolutionary is often somebody who has reckless tendencies. But your buddy Steve Bannon is always talking about Lenin. Lenin and the vanguard. He does love Lenin. He loves talking about Lenin. Go read some Lenin and talk about revolutionary discipline.

Like, these cadres need more revolutionary discipline. Go read some Mao. Like, you think that any of those revolutionaries would be tolerating this level of indiscipline when they actually believe that their revolution is so important that it is going to save humanity. Like if you believe it, then you can zip it up at a conference when your wife has like just had a baby six weeks ago. Come on. So I take it you're in the Lenin. Come on, revolutionaries. Lenin didn't have syphilis camp.

No. Come on. But no, I mean I think that's all completely true. It's just, and like if you look at, for example, Bernie Sanders, somebody who on the right, like let's say, what is the revolutionary comparison to Bernie Sanders on the right? I mean, on the right, people who have gone full MAGA and are true like quote unquote revolutionaries in the sense that want to Throw the medical metaphorical grenade into all of these departments. Look at Ted Cruz Ted Cruz is more of a Ron DeSantis though Right. Well, well now Donald Trump not exactly the most disavow revolutionary but never drinks or it touches drugs He does the the raping and the pillaging but yeah the yeah I mean it's just hard to It's it's not an easy thing because you tend to be pretty eccentric if you are from that camp

But it is no excuse I do want now would not tolerate any of this now would not tolerate any of this and as somebody Who's looking at the FBI and saying what the like this is this is disgusting you can't it's incredibly frustrating To see like somebody like Matt Gaetz put in the nomination position to oversee the DOJ. And the validation for my theory looks to be Kash Patel. He seems like personally, as far as we know, buttoned up. We're not hearing from his mother about his indiscretions. And he's just as much a revolutionary as the rest of them. And he's probably going to get confirmed. Yeah, we'll see.

And that is, by the way, with Hegseth, there is a question of whether, to be fair, if you've ever seen the Pentagon, I understand why, obviously drinking, if he is an alcoholic, which I don't think there's evidence that he's an alcoholic right now, but if you are sleeping around, drinking a lot, there's potential for being compromised. There's potential for being in a... He's seen a lot of combat, right? I'm sure he's got a lot of trauma that he's got to work out. Yeah, absolutely. And there's potential that he's self-medicating with this exploitation of women and drinking and whatever. If there's a national security emergency and the head of the Defense Department is drunk, that's a problem. And it also creates opportunities again for foreign compromise and all of that.

So I get why some senators are, Joni Ernst, for example, have been given thoughts. They're probably just seizing it because they really don't want him in there. But it's an excuse. He'd be a hand grenade thrown into the Pentagon. Yeah, I think it becomes an excuse for all of the lobbyists chirping in your ear about how bad this is and how dangerous it is. If too much drinking disqualified you from a position of power in Washington, we'd be an anarchist system. There'd be nobody in power. Yes. The people who leaked to NBC News and honestly saying that they suspected he was hung over at Fox and Friends, it was like, how is NBC News publishing this? Great, great scoop. All right, let's move on.

Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie.

In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024.

Voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. I know a lot of cops, and 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. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that Taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company

dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th.

Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. The New York Times describes the oral arguments happening at the Supreme Court today as the, quote, marquee case of the Supreme Court's term. They are considering a challenge to a law in Tennessee known as SB1. You may have heard of this, it was passed last year, that bans the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for teens who identify as transgender. SCOTUSblog says the dispute could be one of the most

significant decisions of the term and with similar laws in 23 other states the court's ruling is likely to have broader implications for the protections available to people who are identifying as transgender around the country. So those 23 other laws are really critical here. And people on both sides of the case are rallying outside of the Supreme Court, as you would expect for a quote-unquote marquee hearing or oral arguments. So that will be happening throughout the day here. So I'm going to read a little bit from this New York Times article that we can put up on the screen. They write, glancing encounters with such issues since the employment discrimination case in 2020, which featured a majority opinion from Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Mr. Trump's first appointee to the court. Now, that is interesting because this is the intervening years between Bostock. So you

may remember the Bostock ruling. Which was Bostock? Bostock's the employment law that they're just referring to about the— Oh, where Gorsuch sided with the trans rights. Right, yes. So that gender identity is protected under sex, that you are necessarily discriminating on the basis of sex if you're discriminating on the basis of gender identity. Right. Infuriating conservatives, which is interesting because conservatives are feeling really good going into the case today. And obviously they can afford to lose Gorsuch, but Gorsuch wrote the opinion in that case. So they can afford to lose him going into the case today, but they could,

is Gorsuch a canary in a coal mine? Is the Bostock opinion a canary in the coal mine for how other justices who, some conservatives have been unhappy with the Trump justices. Obviously we know what happened with Roe, but there are cracks in what some people consider to be a really strong foundation, obviously, given that they were plucked straight from the list, the Federalist Society list of approved justices. Some people have not been happy with how all the justices have performed. So the challenge to the Tennessee law feels, there are a lot of people feeling very confident about it, but obviously there are reservations about what you could see from a Gorsuch or possibly someone else. I would

say those fears would be probably unfounded in this case. This was a law that was passed by the representatives who were duly elected by the people of Tennessee. So you have that going for you if you are on that side of the case. So I wouldn't be as concerned about Gorsuch in this one. Is the difference for Gorsuch here that one involves children and the other involves adults? Probably, yeah. Because when it comes to adults, I think most Americans, probably even most people in Tennessee at this point, I don't know, you correct me if I'm wrong, would say adult trans people should not be discriminated in any way and should have all the same rights as everybody else. Now what those rights entail when it comes to what sports teams you're allowed to play on, what bathrooms you're allowed to use, I think is a source of contention. But when

it comes to employment discrimination, I think everybody would say you absolutely should not be able to discriminate against somebody for that reason. I think public opinion is on that side of the debate. But I also think, yeah, because the conversation is so dominated by bathrooms and prescribing puberty-delaying medication, offering hormone therapy, or performing surgery to treat the psychological distress caused by incongruence between experienced gender and that assigned at birth, but the law allows those same treatments for other purposes. So this is where that question again, the Bostock question about sex discrimination comes in. The Times continues, the primary question for the justices is not whether Tennessee's ban is wise or consistent with the views of medical experts. It is instead whether the law makes distinctions based on sex.

If it does, a demanding form of judicial review, quote-unquote heightened scrutiny, scrutiny kicks in. If it does not, the Tennessee law will almost certainly survive. So when Gorsuch surprised everybody by saying gender identity, you're necessarily discriminating on the basis of sex. If you're discriminating on the basis of gender identity, or he also talked about sexual orientation, that becomes a question here. If you are a boy who is allowed to, or let's say if you're a girl who is allowed to take puberty blockers because you have an early menstrual cycle or other medical condition that were previously, it was commonplace to use puberty blockers to treat certain medical conditions. And you can get those puberty blockers for that purpose, but you can't give them to somebody of the other sex.

Is sex the question? I don't think sex is the question there. The question there is the condition. And the condition that you're talking about there is the early onset of puberty, which is related to sex, obviously, but both sexes go through puberty. So it's not intimately tied to it. The details of it are tied to your particular sex but you're going to go through puberty either way so in that sense i think it wouldn't

it wouldn't apply and gorsuch's logic in that case was was always interesting and it's like it's like so slippery it's hard for me to keep my mind around. But what he's basically saying is that it is sex discrimination because if a man shows up to work dressed as a man, they will not be discriminated against by the employer, like just as a matter of fact. Like, of course they won't. If a woman shows up dressed as a woman, they won't be discriminated against. But if a originally biologically, a biological woman shows up to work dressed as a man, which is how conservatives would describe a trans man, then they might face discrimination.

And so a person dressed exactly the same gets discriminated against, according to this Gorsuch logic, because their underlying sex is different. And so therefore it's sex discrimination, and therefore it's covered by the Civil Rights Act, which was always really, to me, an interesting way of getting to constitutional protection for trans rights. But I don't think it applies, in this case, if you're Gorsuch.

Right, I see what you're saying. Because the reason for the ban is the condition. Now, it's the condition that it's being treated. Yeah. lawmakers going in and saying precisely what a doctor is out loud to prescribe as treatment for particular conditions. Like, that makes me really uncomfortable. On the other hand, the way that this entire conversation unfolded was so fast. It was not very democratic. It was not kind of out

in the open there was no discussion about it yeah and there seems to be so much like inability to do it in the normal scientific way like science like researchers who are trying to look into it from different directions like won't publish information if it doesn't conform to like what they were hoping for like that so that part of it you're like Alright, well I understand why the public is now intervening because the faith that we put in the scientific process was undermined by the scientific process Itself being politicized. So if it's political it ought to be democratic broadly rather than in Some backroom insular case as just just as a process and I think it shows

that the that the approach that the trans rights movement took, which was, and this was their strategy from the beginning, was to go right to the top, like to change minds at the very top, and then from the top down, change everybody else's mind. And I think what it shows is that that is that's not going to work. You have to change everybody's mind. You have to

really reach people rather than just the elites. You have to get buy-in. Because they had like 100% elite buy-in for many years. And

it wasn't enough. Right. Because people weren't bought in. It's a really good point about how there was censorship within like scientists censoring science in a way that may have ultimately hurt the goal of those scientists. Right. They succeeded in their strategy that worked, but it didn't work in the long run. Right.

Right. Yes. The short term games might not pan out long-term. Yeah, I think that's a good point. And this is from the Times. They say Tennessee's brief, their legal brief, said that scientific uncertainty meant that legislatures rather than courts should decide what treatments are available to minors. It pointed to what it said was a lack of consensus abroad. Politico has a kind of tongue-in-cheek piece about how conservatives used to bemoan the influence of European politics on American politics and laugh about whether we

want to import European stuff here. But I think the reason conservatives point to Europe in this case is that a lot of these smaller concentrated countries with democratic socialist healthcare systems have really concentrated samples and they were all in they to your point they their elites had bought all in on this um the public had bought all in on this and then it shifted when those concentrated samples didn't turn out the right way uh as they anticipated they would in those cases there was a medical question there was research done right and they care because it's public money right they're like is this working as a treatment right and it didn't right yeah i mean initially the argument was if you don't do this treatment Right. And they care because it's public money. Right. They're like, is this working as a treatment? Right.

And it didn't. Right. Yeah, I mean, it just. Initially, the argument was, if you don't do this treatment, these people are going to commit suicide. Exactly. And so then he studied it and like, oh, wait, there's actually, that's not. There are some other effects, too, that have to be factored into a cost benefit analysis about protecting and preserving the lives of people who are suffering from gender dysphoria. It's a very, extremely real and anguishing condition if you talk to people who are going through it. And so the reason that a

lot of conservatives point to it is that actually it is because it's an example because these countries were so culturally progressive on the question that even them walking it back, and it's not totally banned, the Biden administration, which joined the parents and doctors that were suing the state of Tennessee over this law, the Biden administration, that's why it's USA versus in this case, it's the Biden administration joined the suit. They have said that in Europe, there aren't blanket bans like there is in Tennessee, which is true. They have basically restricted, like even the Cass review from Dr. Hillary Cass in the UK said that some of these treatments should still be available in some cases. So there aren't blanket bans in the same way that Tennessee has.

A blanket ban just feels wrong. It's interesting because it's saying that in this case, medical professionals can't, like we have outright banned. And a lot of this came, we can put the second element up on the screen, after Matt Walsh got documents from the University of, from Vanderbilt, I'm sorry, inside Vanderbilt, the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh blog says Benjamin Ryan is not exaggerating when he takes credit for triggering the Supreme Court case over pediatric gender transition treatment. The Tennessee Attorney General's brief to the court in defense of the state's ban makes reference to Walsh on page one. In the fall of 2022,

Walsh publicized the first gender transition treatment and surgeries that Vanderbilt was providing. This prompted the legislature to ban the practices and ultimately gave rise to this case against the state that will now reach the Supreme Court. And it is being argued by Chase Strangio of the ACLU, who is trans. Walsh got documents that basically were showing there was a profit motivation inside some of these medical conversations about pushing trans care for minors. It's just really icky stuff that obviously, to your point about getting the buy-in, it hurt when all of this information starts coming out that there's other motives in that cost-benefit analysis. And it's not saying it's the only motives.

I think most of these medical professionals sincerely believed that this is life-saving care, that this is the right thing to do. Right, and their argument was it's much harder for somebody to transition as an adult than it is to transition as a child before you've gone through the puberty and that sex you were born into. Right. But that is an empirical question. Yeah. That was being treated as an empirical fact but had not yet been answered.

Exactly. And, of course, it turns out that stopping, delaying, monkeying with natural puberty has major implications for the development of your body. Of course, yeah. And so then it's a cost-benefit question. Right. Of what is the psychological cost of not doing it, delaying it until you go through puberty and adult? And what about people who aren't necessarily sure at 10 or 9 years old exactly what they want to do.

And if they do something at nine or 10 that's irreversible, what is the cost of that and is it being factored in? Right. No, I think it's a really good point about the way the, even the way some of this was explained to the public and to parents, has it been overreach in a way that's hurt the cause of the people who were trying to promote these treatments in the first place, because it ends up leaving people like feeling as though the rug was pulled out from under them and then not trusting

and saying like, yes, blanket ban, there's no appropriate way to prescribe these medications for this condition, et cetera. So I think that is an important point. And, of course, what they're actually deciding at the Supreme Court today is sex discrimination. It's a different question. That's what the argument is going to be over, whether or not this is. Obviously, it will factor in whether or not these treatments are appropriate. Obviously, what's being argued by the state of Tennessee is that these are experimental. And that's kind of what we're getting at. You know if you're if you're not being honest about whether

these treatments are experimental that can factor in so there will be some debate about the merits of the treatments but sex discrimination it's it's sort of like the Bostock case a really sort of fascinating constitutional issue at hand. All right let's move on to our guest, Ryan. I'm excited to talk to Ben Wickler. Ben Wickler, candidate for DNC chair and current chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party. Stick around for that. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a

miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia

that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind VoiceOver, the movement that exploded in 2024. VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships.

It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together.

How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever

you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops, and 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.

Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season One, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season One, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Well, the illustrious tenure of Jamie Harrison is coming to an end at the Democratic National Committee, which means this mess of a party now needs a new leader. Leaping at the opportunity to take on that thankless task is Ben Wickler, among other people. Ben is currently the chair of the Democratic Party in Wisconsin. And look, anybody that comes on this show, I think, is already, in our minds, one of our favorites for the job. So Ben, thank you for joining us. Good morning. Thanks for having me on today. Yeah. So let's start with the question of of the basic question. Why do you think Democrats lost? And what can Democrats do differently? And what is the DNC's role in facilitating that? In every wealthy democracy around the world, left, right, and center parties lost votes.

And when you look at who they lost, it's not concentrated among one ethnic group or one racial group or one gender or one geography. It is across the board. The biggest uniting thing is people who were the beneficiaries of support during the COVID pandemic that dramatically raised the income that people had, especially in the bottom end of the economic spectrum. And then that support went away. And so even though wages were growing more at the bottom end of the economic spectrum for the first time in a long time in the United States, thanks to a lot of policies that I strongly support, people's experience of how much money they had went down at the same time as prices went up. And the fury and frustration about that for folks who had to choose between filling a prescription

or buying groceries, that led people to vote for something different. It's not an endorsement of Trump's plans or policies. The highest swing came among the people paying the least attention to political news. And the biggest swing towards the strongest support from Harris came from people who knew the most about her policies and Trump's. And what that tells us about what we have to do is that we have to mount a permanent campaign that actually breaks through and reaches people who are not paying attention to politics to make totally clear that we are fighting for them and

what the other side plans to do to them, which is to rip them off in order to enrich a handful of the wealthiest people in the universe who are now peopling the Donald Trump incoming administration. I mean, I think that's true. I think 2021 and 2022 kind of opened a window to people that said, oh, wait, you actually can have a better world. Like overnight, we cut child poverty in half and Democrats were celebrating it. Look, we cut child poverty in half. Like, wow, we can do that. We increased unemployment benefits such that people who lost their jobs had a little bit more breathing room as they were looking for a new work. And then we took it all away. So I think you're exactly right about that. But then what can Democrats do about that between now and the next election and also in general? The Trump administration, last time they were in, their one major signature legislative accomplishment was passing a multi-trillion dollar tax cut for billionaires and giant corporations.

And that expires next year. And so we know that there's going to be a huge fight in Congress over what should happen with those tax cuts and with that money. And we know that the Republicans across the board are going to try to shovel gigantic amounts of money that a lot of people could urgently benefit from instead to the people who already have the most. And Democrats can unite and fight back against that at every level in a way that makes absolutely clear whose side we're on and whose side the GOP is on in this moment. There's a lot of disagreements, and it's a healthy thing within the Democratic coalition, but there is a united belief that we shouldn't be dismantling the support that the middle class and working class folks across this country rely on in order to enrich the already ultra wealthy. And that's a fight that we can wage that resonates across our whole coalition, and it will be in the center of the fight, win. We're going to do that next year, and we've got to do that each year to show who we're for and who the Republicans are for, why they're trying to divide us in order to rip us off.

I think if we do that, we're going to be able to make dramatic gains at the state level and local level and congressional level and build up towards a chance to win control of the government back in the 2028 elections. Ben, there are or are there structural changes that need to happen when it comes to fundraising? Obviously, Democrats have benefited significantly from corporate money and from billionaires as well as Republicans. So would you commit to changing fundraising practices at the DNC or does anything like that need to happen at the DNC so that the party becomes more re-centered with working class voters. So I think the biggest thing for me is to win the political power to change the rules that affect everybody. And the second thing is, I think as Democrats,

we should be clear about the big uniting values we fight for, which is including very much fighting for working people and fighting for the fundamental idea that everyone deserves freedom and respect. And folks can invest in that or not. And I hope that they do donate to that. But we're not going to shrink away from that kind of fight. We're not going to try to make a deal

to give half as many trillion dollars to billionaires in order to curry favor with folks who might decide to support the Republicans or Democrats if only Democrats would get on board with Trump's policies on this. I think we have to fight for what we're for and then enlist as much support as we can to build a winning coalition to make that happen. And so your roots are really on the kind of progressive wing of the Democratic Party. But the people who are voting on who becomes DNC chair, there are not a whole lot of people from that wing. So I'm curious, as you're kind of positioning yourself for DNC chair, like tell our viewers, like who votes for DNC? What types of Democrats are those? And how does that shape how the DNC thinks about what it's going to do? But my job before being the state party chair in

Wisconsin was as the Washington, D.C. director at move on. And at move on, I was deeply involved in the fight against the repeal of the affordable care act. And then I moved back to Wisconsin when I ran for wisdom's chair, I discovered a lot of the people voting in the, in the, uh, electorate for chair of the state party were getting my emails at move on. And they knew about that work. Uh, the, the members of the DNC, they represent the full kind of ideological coalition of the Democratic Party. But the central thing is that they believe in the Democratic Party as a force that can make positive change in people's lives. And that is a belief that I deeply share. And I know there's lots of critics left, right and center.

I think that the Democratic Party has been a driving force behind many of the biggest steps forward in our country's history. It is absolutely. There's lots of other moments that are in our history, but we need to build on those things that are good. And what I've done in Wisconsin, my pitch now, is that I can help unite a party. We're gonna be a big tent. We're not gonna force out folks who identify as centrist or moderate,

or folks who identify as progressive. Or folks, that was my coffee, folks who identify as progressive. We're to find the big uniting values and fights that can bring us together. And in Wisconsin, there are Democrats running in different kinds of districts who have different views. Often, I think, to identify as a centrist means to say to voters who believe in a caricature of what the left believes in, no, I don't believe in that caricature. But centrist Democrats, progressive Democrats, everyone are going to be together

in fighting against Trump's giant ripoff attempt next year and against his most extreme and awful nominees. There's a whole bunch of stuff that brings us together as a party. And we have to find the energy that comes from those kinds of fights in order to demonstrate what we're about. And Ben, you and I are both from Wisconsin,

but as someone on the right, I've been kind of fascinated by the debate swirling over whether or not the Kamala is for quote unquote, they, them ad that the Trump campaign ran over and over again in swing states actually was working. Is that something that significantly moved voters? There's some research that says it did move voters. So I'm curious, Ben, for your take on whether that ad was successful in states like Wisconsin, where obviously you oversaw Tammy Baldwin overperforming Kamala Harris. And Tammy Baldwin, obviously openly gay. So there's something to that as well when we're considering the ad in question. So was that ad successful? If so,

why? And what would you do to sort of combat messaging like that from Republicans in a way that helps Democrats win the war there. Well, what's interesting is the states where that ad was being run the most are the states where the shift towards Trump were the least. Wisconsin had a shift of one and a half points towards Trump relative to 2020. Nationwide, it was six points. Outside the battleground states, it was 6.7 points. So the places where Trump campaigned the hardest and Harris campaigned the hardest, Harris did better than the places where neither of them were campaigning. And we saw the same flood, a massive flood of anti-trans ads attacking Tammy Baldwin and down-ballot Democrats. We flipped

14 state legislative seats and Tammy Baldwin won her race. I think the central argument in that ad that I would guess did have some effect, and they ran a lot of tests of it, was an argument about whose side Tammy's on. Because it was, she's for they-them, which is a bid to, I guess, non-binary phobia, not for you. It was an argument that she wants to spend money on people other than you. And that was tapping into, it was trying to inflame division and fear. And at the same time, it was making an economic argument that she's not focused on your priorities and fighting for people like you. And this is a context where Democrats lost people making under $50,000 a year. So there's a cultural message, but the central big message that Trump was trying to win with was, I'll bring down your prices. I won't do taxes on tips. I'm going to be,

you know, do all this stuff. And for Democrats, puncturing that and showing that in fact, Trump is not, is completely against working people. He's the guy who smashes unions and wants to fire people who are striking. He's the guy who wants to carve up the federal government and give handouts to the people with hundreds of billions of dollars in their bank accounts. That argument can puncture those kinds of appeals to division that are fundamentally about othering some community in order to make voters feel like Democrats would put them in an out group. And I think we need to be able to narrate and explain why they're doing that and then punch

back. And we have won a lot of races in the face of those attacks up and down the ballot in the state of Wisconsin. We can do the same thing nationwide. Our colleague Crystal has made an interesting point about that ad, which I agree with, which is that, and actually flows out of your point, that it was the he's for you part of it that probably landed harder than the previous part. But the idea that Democrats care about other stuff, like they're not serious about taking care of your needs here domestically. And I think there's a counterintuitive kind of connection to democratic foreign policy there as well. I feel like the amount of energy and time, forget the money, but the money matters too. But the amount of focus on the war in Ukraine and also the Israeli genocide

going on in Gaza, plus that, which then, you know, unspooled into this regional conflict, you know, beginning really in October, the worst possible time for the Biden-Harris team, deliberately so, I'm sure, you know, from Netanyahu's perspective. But as voters see Biden focusing so much on things overseas, the wars overseas, it feeds into that perception that Democrats care about things other than what's going on here to me at this moment. So I'm curious for you, what role do you think the kind of more militaristic approach that Democrats took bringing Liz Cheney onto the stage with them. In Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, like really solidified that idea that this is the thing that we care about.

Do you think that that hurt Democrats? So I know that others disagree with me on this. I don't think it hurt Democrats. And I will say that the counties where we actually increased, not just the number of Democratic votes, but actually increased the margins were the suburbs of Milwaukee. They moved towards Democrats this year, while the rest of the country and the rest of the state moved a little bit in Wisconsin and a lot nationally towards Trump. And the question is,

you know, which message wound up landing the most? You have to be a pretty tuned-in voter to think about foreign policy when you see Liz Cheney and Kamala Harris on stage talking about democracy and talking about how across the spectrum we think that Trump is a disaster. Now, you have to be a fairly tuned-in voter to be thinking about democracy too. It's not a message that if you're trying to figure out how to not lose the place where you put your kids to bed at night because the cost of housing is so high, you're probably not thinking about the erosion of democratic norms. So this is a message that was fine-tuned towards voters who were still trying to make up their minds, who had misgivings about Trump. But from the evidence that I can see, it did move those voters. At the same time, your broader point that a lot of Trump's argument against the foreign policy of the Biden administration and of previous Republicans is fundamentally about this is all about other people elsewhere and we should be focused on right here.

That's the kind of core of America first. And that is a potent argument, especially when people are in economic pain. And I think that for Democrats, centering the fight of the moment on actually being on people's side, understanding their struggles and fighting to change it and explaining why it's so hard, why it's so expensive, the fact that every single Republican voted against trying to expand, extend the child tax credit, for example, and voted against support for child care and against support for housing, all these things. Every Republican voted against them. And a couple of Democrats didn't, you know, weren't ready to go along. But there's overwhelming near unanimity, and I think in this Congress could be unanimity,

around a set of priorities that actually do go directly to people's lived experience and struggle. I'm a believer that people vote, as Kellyanne Conway said, who I don't agree with much, fundamentally people vote on what affects them, not what offends them. And I think that when you look at a lot of the Republican ads and messaging, you think it's about something that offends you. But it's actually a way of saying Democrats are focused on a thing that offends you and they're not focused on what affects you. And for Democrats, our strongest argument against that is to fight about the things that affect people in a way that provokes a reaction from the Republicans to make clear whose side they're on. If they're out there trying to protect the rights of the ultra, ultra wealthy to smash Social Security and to break apart the supports that allow people to have a middle class life and be able to support their kids. If Republicans are

defending that terrible policy and we're on offense, then that makes clear what the battle lines are. And that's why that's why it's so critical that we engage in these fights, as we did in the health care fight that became the defining issue of 2018 because we fought so hard in 2017 against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. That changes what an election is about. And that, to me, is a key role for the Democratic Party. It is to help define and narrate where the battle lines are in a way where the large majority of the country actually wants a country that works for working people. And as chair, I focus on building infrastructure in every state, figuring out the critical fights we need to have, making sure we have the people and the resources to do them, and then leaning into those fights that bring the majority of the country together against people who are trying to rip off almost everyone else. And one of the reasons I think your bit is so compelling to people is that the

Wisconsin Democratic Party was, let me put this in a charitable way, sort of a mess in the Scott Walker years, sort of wandering in the wilderness in the Scott Walker years. But what was always interesting about the Scott Walker years is that Wisconsin isn't exactly a purple state, it's a pretty blue state. And these kind of Tea Party era austerity messages were for some reason attractive to Wisconsin voters, not just at the top of the gubernatorial ticket, but down ballot in races, assembly races, Senate race, state Senate races around the state for a number of years, almost a decade. And I guess I'm curious, Ben, what lessons you took from bringing the Democratic Party of Wisconsin out of the wilderness after the Scott Walker era.

Why were those policies so attractive to Wisconsin voters at that time? And how did Democrats sort of rebuild and repitch their message after that era? I agree with you that I think there's a kind of beating blue heart or a heart that is at the root of the progressive movement is in Wisconsin. And there's also a far right strain in Wisconsin. The John Birch Society is based in Appleton and jail gunner Joe McCarthy came from Wisconsin. And both Wisconsin's exist. They're always in contention for political power in the state. We saw this zigzag where Obama won a massive landslide in 2008. Scott Walker won big in 2010. Obama won again and Tammy Baldwin in 2012. Scott Walker won again in 2014. In 2016, what we saw was the

culmination of what Walker and Republicans did in all those years, which is to rig the state to break our democracy. They gerrymandered the living daylights out of our legislative districts. They suppressed voting rights. They smashed unions. They defunded public education and public services. They used every tool they could to try to undermine the basis of worker power and of people power and of an educated citizenry and all of the things that allow what the public wants to be expressed through their votes and turn into public policy. And that culminated in 2016 when Trump won the state. He was the first Republican to win the state of Wisconsin since 1988. Now, that said, it was also a very close year and Wisconsin elections are close over and over. Five of the last seven presidential races in Wisconsin have come down to less than one percentage point.

So the thing for me has been to work with our whole coalition, with our amazing allies and local activists all over the state and say, we need a permanent campaign that organizes in every corner of the state of Wisconsin, that builds trusted local communicators to communicate, which, you know, to make this vivid, we just had an election. We're gearing up for a state Supreme Court race this spring, April 1st. Susan Crawford, a judge who defended Planned Parenthood in court and has defended workers' rights against Brad Schimel, who was Scott Walker's attorney general and helped lead the fight against the Affordable Care Act for abortion bans for gerrymandering, defended that in court, supported Act 10 and terrible anti-worker policies. That fight is gearing up right now, and we have an organizing team right now pulling together the voter universes, making the plans. We'll be knocking on doors in freezing cold in the winter this year. And it's by winning those

fights that we've been able to unrig the legislative maps that allowed us to flip 14 state legislative seats this November. I think there are Susan Crawfords and Brad Schimels running for offices no one's ever heard of nationwide. And that, to me, is what the Democratic Party nationally should partner with state parties and local parties around the country to lean into those battles, because those have enormous up-ballot consequences and can help tip presidential elections.

If you make sure that the rules actually empower people to have a voice, then you can stop those who want to put our democracy in chains from being able to rig the system to ensure that they stay in power. And I wanted to ask you about one of the more high profile things that you've been criticized about by some party activists, and that is ballot access during the presidential, during the 2024 presidential election. Dean Phillips kind of sued the Wisconsin party, which you're the chair of, in order to get on the ballot. And some party activists have said that you and the Wisconsin Democratic Party were too closed off and made it too hard

for people to get on the ballot, and that's anti-democratic and so on. Now, I personally don't think that this issue will be relevant in the DNC race. And I, and I, because I think DNC delegates don't care about that. I think that's a different problem. I think they should, I think they should care about it, but I think the, you know, the party insiders who are going to choose this are probably all on the side of following the rules. And if Dean Phillips doesn't follow rules, you know, screw him. But I wanted you to give your perspective and your counter to this criticism that the Wisconsin Democratic Party kind of

unfairly kept people off the ballot and that Joe Biden really needed a challenge and that the lack of a challenge to him was one of the things that undermined Democrats when it came to, you know, the final election results. So in Wisconsin, there's two ways on the presidential ballot if you're running in a Democratic or Republican primary. The first is that the party, which, you know, had long before endorsed Joe Biden, can put the names of candidates on the ballot at a meeting that's held. And then the second, which my team explained to Dean Phillips's campaign manager, is that you can go and collect 8,000 signatures from your supporters to get you on the ballot. And you have a period to do that. And we collect many,

many times that number of signatures for ballot access. We're in the midst of doing that right now for local candidates who will get on the ballot for school board and city council races. That work happens in winter in Wisconsin every single year because every spring there's a spring election. And the Phillips campaign decided not to do any organizing. I don't know if they had supporters. They could have asked to go and stand outside a grocery store and ask people to sign the nomination papers. But this is a matter of course for almost everyone who gets on the ballot for every office in the state of Wisconsin. And they chose not to do it. And instead, they decided to go to court and then launch a media campaign to say that this was the big party stomping out their right to get on the ballot and run for president. They wound up

getting 16,000 votes. They did worse than Ron DeSantis in Wisconsin, who dropped out a long time before on the Republican side. And, you know, ultimately to me, I think you have to be able to demonstrate and build support and do some organizing if you want to run for president of the United States or just about any office. So I hear the criticism, but to me, there was a very clear path that my team made clear to the campaign that they chose not to take and have decided instead to launch a media campaign about it. Once they launch the media campaign, why not just fold and put them on? Like, all right, fine. And why not put it, or why didn't the party just put them on, like, in that meeting? Because it was clear he was running, or maybe he wasn't running by then,

I don't know. He was, I mean, they reached out and asked about what the process was. We explained that process. They sent a letter about their candidacy. They didn't literally ask. I'm sure they would have liked us to put them on the ballot. We had an extensive message with a very clear ask from the Biden campaign. But fundamentally, if you're going to challenge a sitting president, you should have a campaign that builds capacity to do that. And we at the Democratic of wisconsin had endorsed joe biden and uh you know their the opportunity for them was right there in the law they didn't launch the media campaign until they launched the lawsuit the day before the filing deadline for those signatures so

i was honestly a little bit baffled i thought that was the period where they were collecting signatures and instead that was when they were preparing their lawsuit but you know that is that that is how it went down there There are different rules in different states, but in Wisconsin, there's a very clear path for people who want to challenge, want to get on the ballot even if a party didn't put them there. And this is something that for decades has been the practice. When there's an incumbent president,

the party puts that candidate on, and other people go collect some signatures if they want to get on the ballot. I guess if Emily doesn't have anything else, last question for me would be, and some news that is breaking this morning, Third Way endorsed your bid for DNC chair. From my perspective, that's kind of shocking. Like, I feel like that should disqualify you. But then on the other hand, Third Way has taken some really interesting positions over the last couple of years. They've been supportive of the child tax credit. They've been supportive of a lot of kind of social spending and even said nice things about Bernie Sanders.

You and I, 20 years ago, we remember Third Way being a mortal enemy and probably said some pretty vicious things about you back when you were at MoveOn. What the heck's going on here? How did you wind up with third-wave support? And why shouldn't this just kind of rule you out of contention as far as progressives are concerned? Well, my argument is unite, fight, win. And uniting means bringing a whole bunch of people together to fight fights that we can agree on, that I think spell out the core difference between what Republicans are about in this era and what Democrats can and should be about in this era. If you read the op-ed, I read it this morning,

they made the argument that I represent, I'm from the Midwest. I see how campaigns actually happen in a place that's incredibly contentious and where Republicans throw everything they can and we fight back and we're able to win more often than we lose. They argue that I'm from a new generation and I think seriously about how we communicate, where we communicate. I'm here with you right now. I have a background in new media. There's a lot that we need to do to retool how we reach people who do not trust mainstream media sources or don't tune into political news. And that's something that's non-ideological but critical for victory. And then their last point is that I recognize that there will be candidates,

you know, in different places in the ideological spectrum, and I believe in a big tent. And I do. I think that, you know, I was talking to the chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party last night, and how you win in Louisiana is very different from how you win in Vermont or lots of different places. But there are some core values that are fundamentally the same across all those places. And that's, I'll go back to where I started this interview. Democrats believe that our economy should work for working people. And there's some debates about exactly how to do that. But that is a fundamental core belief for this party. And we believe everyone is worthy of freedom and dignity and respect, that that is just a fundamental value.

And making that case, often with different language in different places, there'd be different messengers who are more trusted in different places than others, finding ways to puncture the right-wing caricature of what it means to be a Democrat, that work plays out differently in different parts of the country. But fighting for those fundamental values is actually uniting victorious proposition. And when voters clearly hear what it is that we are actually fighting for, they do respond. And I think we have to get a lot better at making those battle lines clear and making clear who we're for, which is the many in this country. The vast majority of Americans do much better when Democrats are able to set these policies. If we can do that, then I think we're gonna be able to win sweeping, like many, many, many elections, down ballot in 25, six, seven, eight,

and we can end this era of pretty frightening, kind of mega extreme authoritarian attacks and plutocracy, that is the ultimate reason why people are backing those attacks. We can end this over the next four years, and there'll be a lot of challenging fights in the middle, but we've got to do this work. And I guess just last question, and just quickly,

I'm just curious, personally, because of the work you've done in Wisconsin bringing that party back to life, you can kind of punch your own ticket in the party. People have talked about you as a potential senator or governor, cool jobs. Becoming DNC chair, if you actually do, it probably sets you back from any of those ambitions because DNC chairs are not generally popular. So what are you

thinking? Like, why go for this job? I am drawn to this job because the stakes of this job are so enormous. And I think this is a time when I hope a whole lot of people are running into the fire. I think the stakes for the rest of our lives, the rest of our kids' lives, the rest of the lives of all the people in this entire country are going to be affected by what happens in these next four years. And trying to contain the damage and also fight back in a way that builds strength for Democrats and for people who believe in democracy and in an economy that works for everyone, over these next four years, we can win trifectas in states that are out of reach right

now. We can break Republican trifectas. We can break Republican supermajorities in states like North Carolina, where they just won this critical state Supreme Court race, and now Republicans are trying to throw out tens of thousands of votes. We can make changes that will affect people's lives in every corner of the country, including in my state in Wisconsin. And that, to me, I'm drawn to this job just for one reason, which is the impact that we can have together if we unite and fight these fights. I think that if we can win, ultimately the only measure of politics is the impact that it has on people's lives. That's the thing you have to work backwards from when you're deciding what to do. And if you think that the stakes are as high as I think they are,

I think that the opportunity to work with folks in every state across this country with the Democratic Party at this moment is the highest impact thing we can do to try to create that change that people desperately need. All right. Well, that's Ben Wickler, chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, candidate for DNC chair. If you're watching this and your name is Ken Martin or your name is Rahm Emanuel, feel free to reach out to us. We're happy to have you on as well. No favorites here at CounterPoints. But, Ben, thank you so much for coming on. Thanks so much for having me.

You got it. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment

and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator,

and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. Voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times

where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room.

You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops, and 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. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for

Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season One, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st

and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. All right, as you guys know, we covered the independent Senate campaign of Dan Osborne in Nebraska here quite closely. Osborne was a union leader who led this iconic Kellogg strike, I think in 2021, in Nebraska, where they saved an enormous number of jobs, went out on strike, captivated the attention of the Nebraska public. He then ends up running as an independent for Senate. The Democrats decide not even to run a candidate, which was a smart move on their part because they weren't going to beat Dan Osborne, who's a veteran. He'd worked in the plant for 20 years. He'd been a registered independent his entire life, or at least since he had registered as an adult to vote when he was 18 or so. He ended up overperforming

basically every other Democrat in the country, but it wasn't enough to win. He still lost 53-47 to Republican incumbent Deb Fischer. My colleague over at Dropsite News, Jessica Burbank, who lives in Iowa, drove over to Nebraska and sat down with Dan Osborne to get his reflections on the race. And we're going to play that just in a moment. And one thing, just a thank you to everyone here who watches this show, who has supported Dropsite News. Something like 10% of our paid subscribers come from the kind of breaking points world. And that has enabled us to expand what the reporting that we're able to do to bring Jessica Burbank on. You guys might know as she filled in for a while as Brianna's replacement over at Rising.

She quit that to join us, which we're proud of. Yes, and so thank you guys for that. So here is, and so the reporting that we're able to do at Dropsite then helps us over here. And Dan Osborne. Builds our capacity. As we reported about a month ago, Dan Osborne had the National Republican Senatorial Committee,

led by Mitch McConnell at the time, very nervous towards the end of the election. They spent millions and millions of dollars calling him Democrat Dan. Right. Calling him a Bernie bro. Because they didn't realize what was happening. They didn't trust the polling that was coming out until way too late. You're getting to a month before the election and there are polls that are really close coming out. They just didn't trust it until that point.

And it caught them off guard, which is really cool. And Democrats, for their own part, completely botched the entire thing. They didn't help Osborne. The National Democrats didn't help Osborne basically at all. He was on his own. And at the very end, you had Chuck Schumer telling people, like tweeting, like, hey, everybody go vote for Dan Osborne to help Democrats save the Senate. And it's like, wait a minute. You're not helping him at all. No. Like he's not a Democrat. He's never even said he's going to caucus with you. Right. The number one attack on him is that he's a Democrat in disguise. You're doing nothing to help him, but you're publicly saying that he's going to help you when he comes to Washington. Yeah. Are you trying to stop him? And it's like,

are you actually trying to stop him because it it's like, are you actually trying to stop him? Because him winning would actually be a threat to the Democratic Party in every rural area? Because it would show that actually the path to election is not through the Democratic Party. He had a hell of a run. Did you actually tank him on purpose? It's an amazing campaign. Because those Schumer quotes were used in ads against him then. Yeah, of course. Anyway, so check out this great interview by Jessica Burbank with Dan Osborne. Here you go. We're back again. Did one of the first interviews.

Now we're doing the last. Dan Osborne was in a campaign that outperformed every single Democrat that ran in a state that was supposed to go Republican, either narrowly or by a large margin. And out of all of these states, you can compare yourself, you outperformed every single one. How'd you do that? Well, that's fascinating. I haven't dug into numbers yet. Still licking my wounds. there's anything I could have done differently. I think at the end of the day, lies won. You know, all the lies, $10 million came in against me in the last two weeks, and it was all about lies.

And, you know, people read enough of it. I guess they believed it when they went to the voting booth. But I did it because also, I was just being myself, just a guy who's punched a clock and knows what it's like to put Christmas on a credit card. And I focused on the issues. I would tell people, I don't think Republicans and Democrats are enemies here. We're all Americans at the end of the day. And let's just talk about issues. Let's talk about what matters to the people in the room that I was talking to. So when we did that, everybody's head started nodding together.

And neighbors became neighbors again. And if nothing else I accomplished, I would drive around Nebraska and I would see my sign next to a Trump sign and I would see my sign next to a Harris sign in the same neighborhood. So I brought neighbors together and it makes me feel good. Something you said on the campaign trail was along the lines of Congress and people in politics are a lot of millionaires that work for billionaires. How much of your campaign success do you think is people that are just sick of that? Yeah, I think the bulk of it, for sure. And I don't think enough people are getting that message. The millionaires that work for billionaires are not going to work for people

like me. They're just simply not. They're going to take care of themselves. I did an event with Sean Fain, one in Omaha and one in Lincoln. We did rallies together. And he tells a story in his speech about a society of mice that they're just like us. They go to work, they send their kids to school and they vote in elections every four years. But the kicker is, is they vote for cats. And, you know, a different set of cat comes in every four years and tries to tell them that their life's going to be better. And finally, one day, you know, they elect all kinds of different cats, but eventually they wake up and they realize that we're mice. And the problem is, is we're being ruled by cats. And I think that's what we got going on here. But I think more people are starting to wake up to that fact every single day that, you know, the millionaire and the billionaire class are not

going to be have a worker's agenda. They're going to take care of each other and the cats are going to take care of the cats. Something that's going on right now in the media a lot is people trying to figure this out. A lot of Democrats trying to figure out what we did wrong. Why aren't people voting with us? And you hear a lot of different reasons for it. But the phrase economic populism is starting to come up as a part of that conversation. What do those words mean to you, economic populism? They don't mean anything to me. I'm not a political analyst or anything like that.

I'm, you know, I'm going back to work. And right now my priority is taking care of my family and, you know, my debt collectors, they don't care that I ran the closest Senate race in the country. They need their money. So I'm back to work. But economic populism, I don't know what that means. All I know is I held almost 200 public events and we focused on issues and we just talked about what mattered to people who and every policy and issue that I formed an opinion on or drafted even a policy on was based off of those people that I talked to every day, not based off of a party boss telling me what issues I should think in a certain way. So I think that was part of the success, was just listening to people and what it is that they need. It's just listening. You ran your campaign differently than I've seen a campaign run.

I went to one of your events where it turned into a town hall, right? People were bringing stuff up. You were responding to it. How much did your campaign change or your speeches even change from beginning to end based on what people said to you? Yeah, I would say a lot of it changed. You know, for example, student debt relief, student loan relief. When I first heard of that, I was like, oh no,

I don't like that. Because I worked, I paid my own way through life, and I think people should do the same for the most part. But I was speaking to a teacher, and she was a teacher for over 10 years. And she said that she didn't qualify for it because she hadn't been in the business long enough of teaching. So it's not like they just, I just figured they'd start A to Z and start handing out money. It's not like that. What it really is like is nurses and teachers in really important fields like that, that are taking care of us and taking care of our kids, like farming, teaching, and nursing. We have to take care of those people because if we don't have those people,

I don't have to tell you what happens next. So it was really about learning what these things actually meant. And I changed my mind on that because I was like, yeah, if you've been teaching for 10 years or over 10 years and you still have $50,000 in debt because in order to make more money teaching, you have to go back to school. So you have to go further in debt. And so these professions are so important. We've got to take care of them. And so I definitely was able to change my mind on a few things like that. And my speech didn't really change other than I suppose things got added. So by the time I was finished, my speech was probably too long. You're like, and another thing, and another thing.

You've got too many things to get in here. Yeah, I think there's not a lot of listening going on now. Maybe that's it, listening populism. Listening populism. They should try it because- We just coined it right here, right now. I think it's good. The people you hear from are, like you said, the people who run the country. They keep it moving. And for some reason, in our politics and in our economy, they're not treated as the most important members, much less than that.

They're treated as almost expendable in many ways. And what I've heard is when people talk about economic populism is, okay, so you're saying the Democrats need to focus on welfare, on social security, on entitlements. And I'm curious what you make of that. And I will say, I think a lot of people in the labor movement, if these Democrats were listening, when they talk about reducing economic inequality, they talk about earning better wages, earning what you've already worked for. We're already paid way less than we put in as working people. And so that's very different from a sort of structure where the money goes to the company, it's taxed by the government, and then we get to decide how it's spent and how it gets to you. It's still robbing working people of their agency in some way. What do you make of this conversation about, oh, economic populism. So if Democrats want to win, they need to do more welfare.

No. The vast majority, well, the vast majority of people that I've talked to, they're not looking for handouts. I'm not looking for a handout. People just want to know, plain and simple, simply as I could put it, they just want to know if they work hard in this country, that their paycheck matters, that they're not going to get taxed to death, and that they're going to be able to afford a house, be able to afford groceries, be able to pay their bills, and have a car or two, set money aside all year for Christmas and some for college. That's it. That's what they want to know. And what they're seeing is too big a government and too many handouts. Do handouts need to be had? Yes, of course. There's people that need it that

can't work, right? Those are the folks that we got to take care of. And most people that I came in contact with are fine with that. But I think they just feel like it's just gotten too far. But most people aren't looking for a handout. Most people just want to know that their paycheck is going to be protected. Paycheck populism. Paycheck populism. I just coined another one. Yeah.

Are the lights turning out on us? Yeah, they're motion detected. Do we have to get up and run around? Yeah. Scrappy. Shout out to Grunwald for housing us. Thank you, Grunwald. Yeah.

So I sent you an op-ed, I don't know, a couple days ago. I don't think I mentioned, but this is where I first saw it. Did you know Bernie Sanders tweeted that out? No. Yeah. So the op-ed was about your campaign, what you contributed, the need to center working class people, working class voices, and working class candidates. Interesting. I spent a tremendous amount of time. Oh, my family looks good. A tremendous amount of time. You know, they called me Bernie bro, Democrat in sheep's clothing. What else? I don't know. Democrat Dan, you know, all the name calling, you know, because, again, lies to try to win an election. I've been a registered independent from the time I could vote. I've never really understood why, you know, to join a party, you have to be on this side of every issue and reject all of this.

And I don't really get that. So, but no, I did not know about this. It's interesting. Yeah. He also wrote this email that a lot of people are speculating what it could possibly mean. I'll give you a copy of it, but a lot of people think that, I don't know, he's going in the direction of starting his own party, starting his own thing. It's a lot about how the Democratic Party has failed working people in some ways. I did read this, yeah. Yeah.

This came across my ex. And this happened around the same time he posted this tweet of an op-ed about your campaign. So in a path forward after this election, it seems like people are looking to you as a roadmap, what to do next. How does it feel to be in that position? Well, you know, it feels good because it's what I believe. It's what I stand for. And, you know, I'm back to work now. I started a PAC fund, Working Class Heroes dot fund. People can go there and they can actually nominate candidates who they think might fit the bill that want to run in their prospective areas, and we can help them. That's what I want to do. I want to take this to a national level, what we did here in Nebraska, because, again, as simply as I can put it, Congress needs to look like us, right? It needs to look like this building right here. It has enough business

execs and lawyers, which we need those too, but we need people who are going to approach issues based off of their life experiences on working 60 to 70 to 80 hours a week, punching a clock. I'm not saying that's a qualifier. It certainly isn't. But we have to have those people that are qualified to do that, that are going to be able to. Now I'm sounding ridiculous. You're qualified, but you're not qualified. You know what I mean though. Just because you're a working person doesn't mean you're qualified to be a leader, certainly. But there are people that can do it, that we need to

do it, that will have the worker agenda. So when they approach social security, they'll approach social security like they need it someday because they do. That's the difference, I think, between somebody who comes from a background like mine and a background owning their own law firm in New York City. Let's talk about this for a second because I know so many people who have never set foot on a college campus that are a lot smarter than people who have. And I think there seems to be an expectation or maybe it's a belief that has been pushed on us that to be a member of Congress, you have to be a lawyer, be a policy expert, be a businessman. What would you say to people who still think that way? Oh, I would say they're wrong. Because I would agree with some of the smartest,

and I know plenty of people with fancy degrees. I've met a lot of them recently. And some of the smartest people I know are in the trades or even auto mechanics. They just chose a different path in their life. And it seems to be, again, the millionaires working for billionaires, it seems to be this ruling class agenda. It seems to be this elitist mentality, if you will. For example, you mentioned in the very first video, less than 2% of our elected officials in the House and Senate come from the working class. And actually veterans, less than 2% of veterans

who run actually come from the enlisted ranks. It's all officers. So there does seem to be this mentality in order to be in a leadership role, you have to have gone to a fancy school or been an officer at West Point and things like that. So, but like for me, I just took a different path in my life. You know, my wife got pregnant. I had to go get a job. So I dropped out of school. My degree wouldn't have gotten me, I don't believe, anywhere anyway. I like working with my hands. So that's how I ended up here right now. But, you know, that's our path that we choose. It's not so much that we're saying working people are valued above people who are lawyers, right? It's maybe we should see everyone

as equals. And the fact that we have to fight for that is interesting. Do you feel like that's changing, that people are, after the pandemic, maybe realizing essential workers really are important and essential? Yeah, yeah. And, you know, I kind of bag on lawyers too often. I feel like I pick on them too much. So if you're a lawyer out there, I'm sorry, because they're obvious. I know a lot of very good people that are lawyers. And, you know, they make good money. That's great.

That's capitalism at its finest. And I think, again, everybody wants to know that they want to have the opportunity to get ahead in this country. And I feel like that's dwindling away. Or at least the belief that people can get ahead for some folks is dwindling away because of the cost of housing and groceries and everything else. It's becoming more and more difficult every day to just stay even, let alone get ahead. But yeah, again, lawyers, business execs, folks like that have their place in government. But again, Congress needs to reflect its people. And right now, it just simply doesn't. Do you feel like the media understood this message that was so central

in your campaign? Yeah, I don't know. The media in general. I think people did understand that. I mean, we saw one of the biggest red waves in history, and I believe they used what populist, what'd you call that? Economic populism. Economic populism. Yeah. As their root, their base of their campaign, if I'm not mistaken. Yeah. The Trump campaign did. Yeah. See, the difference is, is he never, you know, did anything like this. He didn't put in a 16 hour day outside or with his, you know, coming home with knees and backs and hips and elbows and wrists hurting. So, yeah, I don't really understand that, why people buy that hook, line, and sinker from somebody who's never really done it. And that experience, just being a working

person in America, putting the time in, you feel gives you experience to be an economic populist or a listening populist? Sure, because I've walked the walk. You know, that's the big difference. Nobody can understand anything like somebody who's been there and done that. You know, you could read about it in books, but to actually experience it day in and day out for 20 years, that's a big difference. And do you feel like the coverage of your campaign understood that? Yeah, I would say so. Because I've heard when folks talk about the outcome of this election, they talk about you, they talk about how you were a leader with Kellogg's.

And as someone who grew up working class, I hear it, and it almost sounds like, well, this is something that can be replicated with anyone if we just have this message. But is there something to having the experience of growing up working class? Yeah, yeah, definitely growing up. You know, my dad was a railroader, and we grew up very modest. I'd say comfortable. I never felt like I went hungry as a kid or anything like that. Definitely didn't people, somebody, sometimes people ask me the question, they'll say, what do you want people to know about you that they don't know already? And I would say it was, well, people know me for the strike at Kellogg's originally and my fight against corporations. But what they don't know is for 20 years, I worked dang near seven days a week, 350 some days a year. And I worked hard. You know, when it went a line as a mechanic, when a line was down at my plant, it costs the company $100,000 an hour when that line was down. So I went out there and I got really good at my job and I would

fix it. And I took pride in what I did. And when the company asked for volunteers for grassroots committees to try to, you know, make the plant better and make the company better, I volunteered for every one because I knew if they did good, I did good. So that's what people don't know about me. And that's what it means when I say walking the walk. I've lived it. I've done it.

And I understand it at a deeper level, more so than somebody born with a silver spoon could possibly ever. So work for a living means something in America. It does. It should. Do you think that's a part of why Congress has not done a good job addressing economic inequality? Absolutely. Yeah. Because they simply can't understand it. They're inoculated from the very laws that they enact because it doesn't affect them. Do you see some of these folks who are voting for Trump as just being upset about that and seeing him as an outsider? There's people.

There's people, again, they just want to go to work and provide for their family. Most people get their politics from their commute to and from work, and they don't pay attention to it the rest of the time. And during the election cycle, we get the mailers and we get the commercials. And that's for a lot of people, you know, that type of voter who isn't super plugged in and does a lot of research, that's how they get their information. And I think that's how I lost was they were just, I guess you'd call it an uninformed voter. Oh, here we go. Something that certainly hasn't changed after this election is the way I've noticed the media,

especially liberals, talk about Trump voters. They say a lot about Trump. They criticize what he says. That's good and fine. But I think a lot of assessments have just been tacked on to his base. And maybe uninformed voters, like you said, are working people who can't possibly have the time to understand every single politician's statements and policies. Sure. How do you see this sort of information asymmetry of what people know and what they're expected to know contributing to people's feelings of you're an elitist and you're looking down on me? Do you see that as shaping our politics? Did you notice it on the campaign trail with people you talk to? Yeah. You know, A lot of the people that were conservative-minded, again, one of their biggest problems was they were getting talked down to by Democrats. And then you would talk to somebody who leaned progressive, and they would feel like

they got lied to by the Republicans. We live in an age where there's so much information. It is so difficult to decipher all of the information we get. I feel sorry for my kids, like my 16-year-old daughter, and the constant bombardment of information that they receive on a daily basis. I don't think the human mind is equipped to deal with that right now. We haven't evolved fast enough. And so as a consumer of information, how do we find the truth in all of it? For example, I was on the road, I think I was in

Norfolk, Nebraska campaigning when Trump got convicted of 39 felonies. And I had crossed a time zone the night before, so I didn't realize I had another hour before my first event. So I stayed in my hotel room and I turned on the news and I watched 30 minutes of Fox News. And when I got done, I was like, wow, this guy is getting a raw deal. There's just people coming after him. He may be guilty of a few things, but for the most part, this is a political, you know, scam. And then I watched 30 minutes of MSNBC and I was like, dang, this guy needs to go to jail. You know, which is it?

Are they coming after him and lying about him or is he guilty? And so the answer is, I mean, I would have to have all the information in front of me to decipher it myself on like a jury, if you will. But we don't have access to that information. So it's so hard and I don't have an answer for it other than it sucks. You know, and but the uninformed voter, that I believe is one of the key ingredients to winning a successful election is, you know, and, you know, again, Deb Fischer spent $10 million in the last two weeks on mailers and ads painting me out to be somebody I'm not. And they just believed it because that's the information that they received. How do you how do you reach that? How do you change that? I don't know. And it's a tough state. There's 90 Republican counties. The two that are Democrat have about 46 percent of voters.

But this is a state that the Democrats didn't run a candidate in for the Senate race. How much of this picture of our politics today is painted by the Democrats sort of leaving certain parts of the country behind and not investing in them? Yeah, you know, especially, I mean, I can only speak to Nebraska, but, you know, I've traveled the state and all of the radio stations are owned by Mike Flood, who's a congressman in Congressional District 1. The newspapers are owned by Republicans. So the information that they receive is certainly going to be biased. You know, every radio show you listen to in greater Nebraska is conservative. So they don't even get another side of the story unless they're, you know, plugged into the Internet,

which most people probably aren't, you know, scrolling politics on the internet in rural Nebraska, I can't imagine. But so, you know, that's where I think they've given up. And, you know, if you want to be successful in rural Nebraska, you have to at least have your message out there for people to hear. And there couldn't be two candidates further on the political spectrum when you talk about elites running our economy and government than you and Deb Fischer. This is someone who has served in the Senate, who has taken a ton of money from railroad lobbyists. While North Platte, the largest railroad in the world, is here in Nebraska, and she's

enacted legislation to essentially allow these huge companies to regulate themselves, compromise safety. Do you think running against Deb Fischer helped you make this case to people who, were they aware of what she was doing? No, most people aren't. Most people aren't aware of right to repair. Most people aren't aware of what she has done, always sided on the corporate side of almost everything because that's her big donor base and that's how they keep winning elections. Working people can't afford to buy senators. Multinational corporations do or can, and they do. So that's the uphill battle that working people have is we don't have the money. That's what I'm hoping this fund will do is somewhat level the playing field so people do have a resource that they could go to and not have to take corporate money and just fall right in line with and do their bidding.

Do you see the PAC as ever being a path towards a third party? I've never thought about it that way. I mean, I would certainly consider thinking about a third party. You know, I just mostly think about just getting a seat at the table, first of all, for, you know, people like me, nurses, teachers, plumbers, carpenters don't know how you can, you can't live off that. So you either have to be retired, personally wealthy, or have a spouse that can take care of things. So, or have a business, you know, be a successful business person. So those are the only people that we're tending to get. That's a problem. Again, our state legislature doesn't represent, you know, the full array of the people in the state.

So it's the same on the federal. So hopefully this is something that we'll be able to minimize that. I like how you brush it off. Like, oh, I never thought I would ever need a party because you outperformed these candidates with a huge party backing them. Yeah. And I think some people maybe are searching for a political home. So how can people around the country get involved with the PAC? You know, it would start by going to the website, workingclassheroes.fund and learning about it. And, you know, they can

solicit to it as far as wanting help from it or donating to it would be a good way. You know, my average donation on the campaign was $40. So I believe my campaign was truly powered by the people, the way the framers of the Constitution intended this country to be, a government by and for the people. And hopefully that's what this PAC does as well. So, you know, people think, oh, if I gave five bucks, that doesn't matter. Well, that definitely does matter, you know, if enough people do it. So it's going to be working people helping out working people. Because if enough working people donate five, 10, $15, you know, and we can help get three people elected, well, that's worth it right there. And then it's only

going to grow from there. It seems that coming out of this election, the Democrats aren't doing much listening. A lot of the pundits I've listened to have said that a focus on social issues is what cost us the election, which I don't know that everyone has that takeaway. A lot of people say maybe we should have focused on economic populism. We should have focused on bread and butter issues. But it seems that nevertheless, that's not something that it seems that they're taking away as a lesson or going to focus on in the future, which kind of creates a lane for something like your PAC to eventually turn into a party. So are you open to it? Yeah. Yeah. I'm open. I'm open. You

know, I'm, I'm leaving everything on the table as of right now. Uh, you know, again, right now I'm focused on getting back to work and getting into that groove. Uh, but also, you know, in 2026, there's quite a few seats coming open in Nebraska. I'm leaving all those on the table, everything. I'm not ruling anything out. I'm going to see where the wind takes us with our sail up here. That's good. The fight's not over, it sounds like.

It is not over. Thanks for talking to me, Dan. Yeah, yeah. I'm giving you all this homework. You can keep it if you want. Oh, yeah, yeah. You want to keep it? Hang it on the fridge. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results.

Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all

episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need

to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are

actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops, and 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. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. One of the largest and most influential investigative journalism outlets around the world that you've probably never heard of is called OCCRP. That's short for Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. Now, OCCRP has been instrumental in some of the biggest kind of global scoops that you probably have heard of.

Some of those are called Swiss leaks, Panama Papers, Pandora papers. These are collaborative journalistic projects that involve news organizations like Le Monde, the Der Spiegel, the Washington Post, the Guardian, like the biggest names around the world. But the muscle for a lot of these projects has been the organization OCCRP, which has more than 200 journalists around the world operating in at least 60 countries. They're the ones that really put the meat behind these stories that then get published in major papers around the country. We have a new investigation up at Dropsite News, which we can put up on the screen here, which reveals for the first time that more than 50% of the funding for OCCRP comes from the United States government, and the bulk of that

coming from USAID. The first important grant that went to OCCRP was from a law enforcement agency within the State Department. Now, we will put the full link to the full story here at the notes of this article. We'll put it down in the comments. And always, of course, if you're not getting our emails yet over at DropSite News, go to DropSiteNews.com, sign up to get those. We can put up this next element. We worked in collaboration with three independent news outlets over in Europe, And you can read more about them in the article that we have linked down here. And in order to find the details of this funding, we didn't actually need anybody to leak this or to blow a whistle. What we had to do is find the audit reports that are on file, that are available publicly, and cross-referenced them

with federal budget documents. And it was a rather painstaking process, but the result is what you see here. Our calculation was that more than 50% of the money ended up coming from the United States government. Now, when we went to OCCRP for comment, one quibble they had with our methodology is they said that you should not actually count federal government money that is given to OCCRP that OCCRP then sends on to sub-grantees. Okay, I kind of think you should count that. But if you exclude that money, you are still left with 46% of the funding coming from the United States government. Now, that also sets aside the fact that the UK and other major Western powers in Europe also contribute money to OCCRP, something like roughly $15 million over the last 10 years on top of what the US is already sending. So why does this matter? Well, from the one hand, Emily, I'm curious for your take on this. You

can say, look, it's very difficult to fund investigative journalism, and investigative journalism is important. And the argument that OCCRP makes is that there are no kind of serious strings attached to this money because the United States stands for freedom and democracy and the free press. And it is in America's interest for there to be investigative journalism around the world. And so they fund it with a clean hands, hands-off approach. And you can just, you know, any product of that is going to be beneficial to the world because investigative journalism is good, corruption is bad, and the U.S. supports, you know, the U.S. supports that entire process. Now, one detail counter-argument to that is that when the federal government gives money to an organization, it does actually come with strings. Some of them are silly, like, not silly, but trivial, like the journalists have to fly American Airlines.

Not American Airlines itself, but an American airline if it's possible. Okay, that's kind of funny. But that's not actually harming the journalism. The other string that comes attached is that the U.S. government can veto the top hires of the organization, which is a pretty significant one. And then on the other hand, there's the kind of the atmospheric, where you don't have to directly let an organization know

what America's interest is in a particular country. Everybody already knows. And people know, like, if we're investigating, let's say, America's adversaries, that's going to be looked on fondly. If we're invested, if we're not, if we're going after America's friends, that, you know, that might come with consequences. Might not, but it might. And I'm sure that's in the back of people's minds. I'm curious for your take on broadly what it means that this giant of journalism is actually majority funded by the U.S. government. I mean, I think their excuse or their justification or their rationalization where they say, actually, if you crunch the numbers, it's only 46 percent of our funding is laughable.

Because to any person, if you explain that they are quietly half funded by the United States government, at the very least, 46, you know, necessarily, you're pretty close to halfway funded at that point. Even getting a significant chunk of your funding from the United States government is meaningful when you are primarily chasing stories on foreign targets. And that's really important because to your point, Ryan, you wrote in the story, it was a very fair and helpful story. They have gone after the United States government in certain reports. They have done things that may be unfavorable to the United States government. But if we're using taxpayer resources to intentionally muckrake on foreign adversaries, that's very worth knowing when you're considering the source of the reporting.

And their denial-ish reminded me a little bit of what they said when, I know you remember this, the Cuban Twitter fiasco of like 2014 when USAID tried to create a quote Cuban spring with like a Twitter in Cuba. They said, this is USAID, this is a comment to Time Magazine. They said, working to improve platforms of communication is a core part of what USAID works This is a comment to Time Magazine. They said, working to improve platforms of communication is a core part of what USAID works to do. It's inaccurate to say that the program goes beyond that. So their defense is really similar. What they're doing is just improving communication. They're just furthering democracy via the free press. With a bunch of bots in Cuba. Yeah, and the history is, I think,

really important, and we go into it in detail in the story. But it goes back, interestingly, to the Philippines, where there was a nationalist leader there, Josefa Estrada, who had a standoffish relationship with the United States. Because anybody who is a nationalist and is not just completely in the pocket of the United States is by definition going to have a standoffish relationship. And there was a non-profit investigative outfit there in the Philippines that broke some significant corruption news around Estrada. That outlet has taken money from the National Endowment for Democracy,

which was created in the 1980s to move the CIA's kind of underground clandestine funding of civil society. In Europe, for instance, post-World War II, the CIA was funding Paris Review. And basically any cultural project in Europe was getting money from the CIA. That was exposed in the 1970s. It was embarrassing. So in the 1980s, they created NED, which is legally a nonprofit, but is almost exclusively funded by the U.S. government for these national security interest purposes. And we've said as much.

Yeah, this is not a conspiracy theory. Well, I mean, it's a conspiracy. But it's not a theory. It's done out in the open, and it's part of our foreign policy. Right. And it operates hand in glove with USAID. USAID was making the grants to NED, and NED would then send them to OCCRP and other places. And so this Philippine organization broke this news. It created an impeachment inquiry, which did not succeed in impeaching him, but it also created street protests. And the street protests eventually led to his ouster in a coup. Michael Henning was a State Department official who our consortium of news organizations interviewed for this article, in particular NDR, which is a German public broadcaster, interviewed him. And he said that when he was stationed in the

Philippines, he saw the effectiveness of the pen being mightier than the sword. That being able to wield that investigative journalism against a geopolitical adversary was extremely powerful. And also, you know, it gives the U.S. a deniability there. These are just the Philippine people standing up for the corruption that they have witnessed and they want to clean it out. Henning then gets sent over to Bosnia where he serves in the embassy over there and he was instrumental in getting the initial funding and helping to set up OCCRP, he said that he Eastern Europe from a more

kind of Soviet-leaning, Russia-friendly, state-centric type of economy to a neoliberal, Western-friendly, market-oriented, free of corruption economy was central to the spread of journalism in that region. So nobody really is denying at all that the mission here is the pursuit of U.S. national interest. It's not novel. I mean, there's that quote that was given to David Ignatius in 1991 about how the NED, a lot of what they're doing overtly was done covertly by the CIA years ago. It's from like Alan Weinstein, right?

Yeah. It was, I mean, that's the government said it openly. So it's not novel that the U.S. government would do this, which is why some of the denials are sort of funny. It's like this is a practice of the United States for a long time, and that's where I thought your story hit on something really interesting about how the impeachment or the whistleblower, and this gets to Ukraine. So if you're on the right and you're not sort of like a dyed-in-the-wool adversary of the NED, which was supported by Reagan-era sort of Cold Warriors and all those things, I mean, in all seriousness, the problem with practices like this are pretty clear when you think about how in the whistleblower letter that led to the impeachment was used as part of the predicate for the impeachment of Donald Trump. The impeachment of Donald Trump, it immediately cited the report, a report from the OCCRP. Yeah, the OCCRP. And you start to put the, that doesn't

mean that what was in the report was wrong, but it does mean. There's a real wait a minute quality to it where you're like, wait a minute. Yeah. The whistleblower letter to Congress. Right. About Donald Trump. Yeah. Cited in its footnotes, OCCRP reporting four times and OCCRP is half funded by the federal government. And then the CIA, there were CIA email addresses used in the organization of the letter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop reporting, right? The CIA is not friendly to Donald Trump. The FBI is not friendly to Donald Trump. There have obviously been, the FBI was talking about a quote unquote insurance policy against Donald Trump in 2016. And then the CIA, there's email addresses used by the CIA to organize the letter suggesting that the laptop was disinformation leading to its suppression in the

media. You put those pieces together and you think, huh, what is the CIA potentially planting with friendly sources? And one of the things I thought your story was really helpful in elucidating was how these casual connections at USAID and reporters, you know, even though they say we're not getting top-down directions about what's being planted or propaganda or what we need to write, it's just sort of like you're hired because you're on the same wavelength. Right. Yeah. And also... And we don't know. It's just sort of like you're hired because you're on the same wavelength. Right. Yeah, and also... And we don't know. We don't know what's being talked about. Right, and OCCRP, to its credit, I will say, does disclose their list of funders.

They will say we do get money from the State Department. You can find that on their website. They've never said we get half our money from the State Department, but they have disclosed that they do get some money from the State. But when you're reading an article in the Washington Post or the Guardian, that was actually, you know, that the meat of the reporting was done by OCCRP. As a reader, you don't know that this is heavily funded by the U.S. government because you're reading it in the Washington Post or the Guardian. So it's a way to launder it back through. And we talk at the very end of the story about the obvious counterexample to the idea that the U.S. just loves global investigative

reporting, which people watching this have probably in their mind, they're going, wait a minute, hold on. The U.S. loves global investigative reporting. They love leaks. Yes. Love it. They just love that. What about WikiLeaks? Love it so much. Do they really? So WikiLeaks, which exposed enormous amounts of corruption in the Middle East and helped to spark the Arab Spring, was on the rise at a similar time as OCCRP. And the reaction and the posture of the United States government towards WikiLeaks. Now, obviously, there's some differences. The, you know, WikiLeaks also deals much more often in classified information. OCCRP is almost, very rarely deals in classified information. They deal in huge caches of bank documents or other offshore financial operations. The massive amounts of data will be leaked on that and exposing financial corruption, often of oligarchs and other U.S. adversaries.

So there are differences between Wikiileaks and OCCRP, but Wikileaks exposed massive corruption in the Middle East, helped lead to the Arab Spring. The response of the United States was relentless prosecution and persecution and attempts to extradite publisher Julian Assange and ultimately convicting him of publishing classified information in this plea deal that let him go back to Australia. So completely different approaches. And if I'm misremembering this, you'll know better. But if I'm remembering correctly, in a similar way that there are conspicuous questions about Julian Assange and Russia, like were there things unfavorable to Russia that didn't come out in WikiLeaks?

There are sort of similar questions about Pandora and Panama Papers, right? It's sort of complicated, multilayered. A lot of people are like, well, wait a minute. What about the stuff? Where's the good stuff on our oligarchs? Yeah, it was heavy on the Russian oligarchs.

Which is not journalism, by the way, if you have all of the information. If you have the information on all of the oligarchs in the data, and you're only publishing on the Russians. Right. But they may have only had the information on the Russians. Right. We don't know. Where the heck did they get this stuff? Yeah. Right. But we don't know. Even though it's potentially being funded by our money.

Their sources just never seem to get exposed either. Crazy stuff. Why can't the CIA find their sources? It's a great story. Interesting. It's a great story. And you managed to, I think, break through on the right too. Oh good. I'm glad people are reading it. Yeah, so check it out.

We'll put a link down there but you can find it over at DropSiteNews.com or you can find it at MediaPart which is the French independent news organization. I forget the name of the Italian one. It's very Italian. It's Reporters United,

which is a Greek paper that we worked on. So we'll put links to all of them because it was a real thrill and privilege to work with all of these journalists. Stefania Morizzi, you may know, was the Italian journalist who worked on this, has done a lot of work on WikiLeaks. And hopefully we'll do more kind of collaborations with them and grow the network of independent news organizations around the world that are willing to take on these kinds of stories.

Maybe you'll get some money from the government. I don't think so. I don't think so. I think we might have bitten that hand a little bit too hard. Well, there's also the fact that you're already working for the CIA. That's right. Never forget. Never forget.

Well, Ryan, great reporting. Great to be back here on the festive winter set. As we discussed all kinds of terrible things, it's nice to have the charming snowflakes behind us. And we will have a CounterPoints Friday. So come back on Friday. Crazy one. Very interesting Friday. Crazy one. Very interesting one. Crazy one.

Yeah, looking forward to that. And the merch is back, by the way. It is? The holiday merch is back. So if you want our faces on stuff, pick it up. BreakYourPoints.com See you later. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children.

Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait.

Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process.

Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. 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.