Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 12/7/21: NYC Mandate, Chris Cuomo vs CNN, Conservative Media, Ukraine, Latinx, Huma Abedin, Tesla & China, Teamsters Election, and More!

Episode Date: December 7, 2021

Krystal and Saagar talk about the new NYC covid mandate, Chris Cuomo's legal battle with CNN, conservative media's growth, Ukraine tensions, Dems failing with latinos, Huma Abedin's time in Clinton world, Elon Musk caving to China, Teamsters for a Democratic Union, and more!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Support TDU: https://www.tdu.org/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. of dollars doing it. To help support our mission of making all of us hate each other less, hate the corrupt ruling class more, support the show. Become a Breaking Points premium member today, where you get to watch and listen to the entire show ad-free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to breakingpoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the show, everybody. Happy Tuesday.

We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed we do. Lots of interesting developments we are tracking this morning. So CNN and Chris Cuomo lawyering up. Cuomo looks like he's ready to fight for the remaining $20 million on his contract, which it's disgusting that that's what he was being paid. But anyway, we'll give you all those details. Also, the SEC is investigating Trump's new social media company, and there are some other

big moves in the conservative media landscape that are kind of interesting and kind of telling. A lot of saber rattling going on right now with regards to Russia and Ukraine. Biden has a big phone call with Putin today. A lot of eyes on that. Let's see what is going to happen with our relationship there and if the hawks are going to get their way. Also, a new study reveals just how dramatically unpopular the term Latinx is. Not only do Latino people not use it, a significant portion find it actively offensive. And they should.

Really cool that Democrats have been embracing that kind of terminology. Very effective for them. I'm also really excited about our guest today. He was a lead organizer for Teamsters for a Democratic Union. They just won a big election, changing leadership at that very significant union as they look forward to trying to organize Amazon and big contract negotiations with UPS. So we're going to talk to them about their more militant stance with regards to their workers. But we wanted to start with what is going on in New York City vis-a-vis Omicron. Yeah, that's right. So New York City Mayor, Mayor de Blasio, made a bid announcement yesterday about a brand new vaccine

mandate, which does not necessarily just apply to people who want to dine in restaurants, indoor dining and elsewhere, but to all employees in the five boroughs of New York City. Here's the announcement. Let's take a listen. We in New York City have decided to use a preemptive strike to really do something bold to stop the further growth of COVID and the dangers it's causing to all of us. So as of today, we're going to announce a first in the nation measure. Our health commissioner will announce a vaccine mandate for private sector employers across the board. All private sector employers in New York City will be covered by this vaccine mandate as of December 27th.

We're going to have some other measures as well to really focus on maximizing vaccination quickly so we can get ahead of Omicron and all the other challenges we're facing right now. Mayor de Blasio, they're announcing a big program, obviously. It's going to go into effect on December 27th in the city of New York. It's going to apply to 184,000 businesses in the five boroughs. Remote workers will not be required to get the vaccine, but critically, there is no testing option as an alternative. Put that tear sheet, please, up there on the screen, because what they point to here within this is that there is no actual justification on the immediate basis, Crystal. This is simply what de Blasio is describing as a, quote, preemptive strike, as he said there in the statement.

But if we correlate with the rise in cases, yes, there has been a slight increase in cases, but it's nowhere near the very top. And as de Blasio and the city of New York admit themselves, some 90% of New Yorkers in the city of New York have had at least one dose of the vaccine, which is what's required to get into a restaurant. So we're 90% of the population already being vaccinated, not a significant increase necessarily in the number of cases and a zero testing alternative. I mean, this is just about as, look, this is as far as we have seen a public measure in a major city in the United States,

basically setting up potentially what tens of thousands of people from being fired from their jobs as a result of this. Yeah, that is absolutely right. And, you know, I think we kind of consider ourselves like COVID centrist here. You're a. Yes, that's what I call it. You're a little more on the right. I'm a little more on the left. But in general, we have kind of like a moderate stance on this. This is too far. Without a testing option, this is far too draconian.

It doesn't just, we're not just talking about the vaccine mandate. They're also increasing the rules for things like dining and entertainment where now kids ages 5 to 11 also have to be – have at least one dose in order to go into restaurants. Listen, I got – you know, I'm getting my kids vaccinated. I think that the risks outweigh the benefits in terms of – the benefits outweigh the risks in terms of getting your kids vaccinated. But this is incredibly stringent given how low risk kids ultimately are at with regards to coronavirus. So they're also increasing the number of doses that you have to have had as an adult in order to get into restaurants. So they used to say, okay, if you have one dose, you can go and eat out or go to the show or whatever.

Now you have to have two doses. So taking very draconian steps here. In terms of the COVID numbers in New York City right now, look, they have had an increase. Let's put the chart up on the screen that we have here. Cases are up about 26% over the past two weeks. Deaths and hospitalizations, though, while up some, are up much, much less, which makes a lot of sense because you have a highly vaccinated population. And what have we seen?

We've seen that, yes, breakthrough infections are real, and there are some indications that there may be even more breakthrough infections with Omicron. But the early indications are, number one, that Omicron results in relatively mild disease. Again, these are early indicators, nothing definitive yet. And that we know, since this population is vaccinated, that no matter what variant they're facing, they are much less likely to end up hospitalized or dead, which are the key metrics that we are concerned about. So look, I support, I think the Biden's vaccine or test option makes sense. I think it strikes the right balance. I think this is way too far.

No, I mean, look, they have only had like 100 and something deaths, 136 coronavirus deaths in the last two weeks. It's a city of what? Millions and millions of people. And we continue to say, look, the case number is irrespective of the actual hospitalization and death figure. When you have a 90-something percent

vaccinated population, well, that's just going to have it so that, yes, there may be numbers of cases, but as long as the deaths and the hospitalizations don't, let's say, rise all the way up to the level of overwhelming the entire city's hospitalization infrastructure, which has say, rise all the way up to the level of overwhelming the entire city's hospitalization infrastructure, which has not really been in the cards since when, like March of 2020? They have never even crept up to the 100%, you figure. So you put all that together, and you're seeing very much what I consider, I think you as well, to be a dramatic overreaction to Omicron, at the very same time that we continue to get evidence and information from South Africa that the Omicron variant is more transmissible and that it is, at least for now,

less severe or at the very case, not more severe than Delta or the normal strain of COVID. Here's the thing, and I will put a major caveat on this. South Africa is a lot less old and fat than we are. And so there is a consideration there that hitting the U.S. population, that this could be manifesting itself pretty much in the same way that we've seen with Delta and with normal COVID strain, which is that because we have such a fat and unhealthy population that they suffer disproportionately whenever it comes to COVID. That being said, you look at the national stats, including in New York City, if you're unvaccinated and especially if you're overweight and you're not healthy, you are far, far more likely to end up in the hospital or to die from COVID if you don't have the vaccine. And if you do, you can significantly reduce your risk of hospitalization and death. There's been some more confirmation studies out, Crystal, which, you know,

this is the one that people who don't have the vaccine always want to vehemently deny. But the truth is, is that it does reduce population-wide spread, which is that by getting vaccinated, you're not only, yes, you know, look, if you're a young person, I'm not going to lie, you're probably never at risk of dying from COVID period. But if you do get the vaccine, it does, once again, on a population-wide basis, reduce the overall transmissibility of COVID to the general population, which does, of course, protect the seniors, the immunocompromised, et cetera. So you put those two things together. Personally, I think it's not necessarily a no-brainer, especially two doses of whatever the vaccine

is, booster conversation, all aside. And you see that this, you know, I think just very much goes too far. And what I actually do think is what I'm afraid of is that New York City has been a very leading indicator in these types of policies. They were the first to bring a very big vaccine mandate on a population wide basis for a large city. Oregon and some other places follow them. Not Oregon having a vaccine mandate statewide. I'm saying what it did is that it created public sector incentives in a lot of different states and all of those were to follow. So what I would worry about is that very, very blue cities, LA, Chicago, and more may follow in these footsteps.

And I mean, look at the science and look at the cases. It's just not justified whatsoever. So that, I think, is the concern. I don't think you're going to see these sorts of overly aggressive measures taken at the federal level. I think the Biden administration has already shown their hand. They want to eventually get into place the test or vaccine mandate. They've actually pushed that out to give employers more time to comply. I think they've sort of set the course for as far as they're going to go. Not to say you couldn't have, like, for example, they've now extended the mask mandate in public buildings and on trains and stuff like that. So you could see some measures like this. But these extreme, more draconian measures like what New York City is pioneering here. I do think you could see, you know, places like San Francisco,

places like L.A. You could see sort of liberal blue cities in particular taking up some of these more stringent measures. So that's more likely to be the direction that we ultimately go in. The last thing on this is it's actually unclear whether New York City will really end up going forward with this mandate. Because remember, Bill de Blasio is only going to be mayor for like three more minutes. Eric Adams won the mayoralty. He ran on, you know, kind of a moderate COVID stance. He hasn't made his position super clear on how he feels about mask mandates and vaccine mandates and all of these things. And in fact, we can throw this tweet up on the screen. He was asked, or a spokesperson for him was asked, because he's, I think, out of the country on vacation right now, whether he's

going to go forward with this mandate. And they declined to commit to enforcing it. So this goes into effect on December 27th. Eric Adams is going to be sworn in very shortly after that, literally days after that. So is he going to proceed with these measures or not? Too soon to say. And they're not giving us any information on that. So even with all of this, there's a big caveat of whether even in New York City, it's actually going to happen. Yeah. Very important point. Where the current mayoral elect stands on all this stuff, who knows?

He's on vacation all the time. Honestly, since he got elected, he's been kind of checked out. Oh, yeah. He's been partying. I mean, he's been going to all these nightclubs. I think he was in Puerto Rico. I think he was also in Ghana. I think he's in Ghana right now.

I mean, look, respect. Living it up before the hammer drops, I guess. I will say, I do actually respect his sartorial influences. He has a very sparkly jacket a lot of the time.

Yeah, which is even, which is frankly even cooler than mine. So, Mr. Mayor-elect, if you drop me a line, let me know where you got it because I'd love to get that jacket. It's a good point.

That sparkly jacket is very controversial. It is very controversial. Glenn Greenwald hates it. very controversial Glenn Greenwald hates it sorry Glenn Glenn hates it so much that he messaged me to tell Sager

to stop wearing it it's never gonna happen alright I love that thing look in all seriousness Eric Adams has not told us

where he stands if I were to guess he's gonna be on a very different side on the mask or on a vaccine mandate I don't think he would probably

roll it back but this one it could just be about soft implementation it could just be about soft implementation. It could be about letting it expire, all of the things. We have no idea. That being said, if you live in New York City, I would not be very happy about this. And I do see it as much more of a leading indicator. There's not a lot of Eric Adamses in LA, Chicago, in Philly, or in San Francisco. So still could end up being policy for millions of Americans,

and we'll continue to track that closely. I agree with your guess about Eric Adams and what he will do, both because he is very close with the business interests in New York who were caught off guard by this and not necessarily supportive, and because, you know, he's trying to represent himself as this sort of populist figure. And we know that to the extent that there are still people who are totally unvaccinated in New York City, this will fall disproportionately on the poor who happen to disproportionately be black and brown. So I would think that his political instincts would be to go back to a more moderate stance, but we will wait and see.

Who knows? All right, we've got some, a little more information behind the scenes in what is going on between CNN and their former star anchor, Chris Cuomo, as we covered yesterday, of course. CNN actually fired Cuomo after their own, of course, Letitia James put out a bunch of text messages that looked really terrible for him. They hired a law firm to investigate whether he had violated their policies, which I don't think you really need a law firm to tell you that. But anyway, they decided to bring one in. Within a day, the law

firm was like, yeah, definitely. And there's an additional MeToo allegation against Chris Cuomo. So all of these things piled up. Zucker ultimately decides to fire him. Wall Street Journal has some of the behind the scenes details that we can put up on the screen. So according, so there's two sides here. Zucker is saying we were totally taken by surprise by the attorney general's report, felt Mr. Cuomo misled him, according to people familiar with the situation. And on Saturday, he completed a total U-turn after basically standing by Chris Cuomo. He called him and fired him.

So Cuomo's spokespeople are saying in a text message to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Cuomo has the highest level of admiration and respect for Mr. Zucker. You know a butt is coming. They were widely known to be extremely close and in regular contact, including about the details of Mr. Cuomo's support for his brother. There were no secrets about this

as other individuals besides Mr. Cuomo can attest. So Cuomo's box saying, Zucker knew everything. They were close and Chris Cuomo was keeping him in the loop about the extent of his help for his brother. So that's their side of the story. And then CNN responded. They said in a written statement that they're disappointed with Mr. Cuomo's characterization of events. Quote, he has made a number of accusations that are patently false. This reinforces why he was terminated for violating our standards and practices, as well as his lack of candor. So pretty interesting little back and forth here that sets up the next phase of the Cuomo-CNN conflict,

which is that everybody's getting lawyered up. Let's put this New York Post tear sheet up on the screen. Chris Cuomo prepping to sue CNN for more than $18 million over his contract. Apparently, that is the amount that was left on his multi-year contract. It's reportedly worth $6 million annually, leaving between $18 and $20 million, disgusting, that he would be owed, according to sources. I think it's unlikely that this would ultimately succeed because, as they point out in this piece, CNN has a standard morality clause in their contract that says if the employee does anything of disrepute, they can be immediately fired. And of course, that can be interpreted

broadly. I mean, having been under some of these TV contracts myself, I can tell you they are not favorable to the talent. They give the network total control over you and give them all sorts of wiggle room. So if you do anything that they don't like, they can frame that as doing something of disrepute and you're out the door without another word. So I think it's unlikely that he will prevail. But just this morning, you sent this to me.

The lawyer that Cuomo actually has brought on was the one who handled Megyn Kelly's exit. So this is someone who is, you know, well-known and very familiar in the industry, relatively high-powered people. I think this is still very important because what it's going to reveal and why I think that Chris Cuomo is suing and ultimately will get some sort of large settlement is the last thing that they want is to have to go through some discovery process and have people get deposed under oath as to what they knew and when they knew it. I think that CNN and Discovery—

Zucker's not going to come out looking good out of that. Exactly. Discovery and their new company. And once again, we've showed you their shareholder has said—one of their top shareholders said on CNBC, I want to see them return to news. Leaks constantly coming out of David Zaslav's office. I think that's how I say his name. Apologies. The new CEO of Discovery, who is the head and the boss of Jeff Zucker now. He is coming out saying that unsatisfied with the current state of the network, considering turning over much of the talent even before all of this. The very last thing that they need is some sort of deposition where they interview, and as they interview not only Jeff Zucker,

what did Chris Cuomo allude to? Other people can attest to that. And so depose other top CNN executives, other people who are in the room whenever Chris Cuomo said what he had did or not, having all that in the record, as long as CNN's emails and more. I mean, it was tremendously embarrassing for NBC

when they had to pay out Megyn Kelly's contract in full. And a lot of the stuff that was coming out on that made them look terrible. Same thing has happened a million times. You know, every time one of these Fox people departs and they have to lawyer up and then people start getting deposed and who knew what and Roger Ailes and all this stuff. It's a total nightmare. The reason I think, once again, all of this matters is that whenever you point to the highest levels of the news networks like this, these people have such a disproportionate impact on American politics, on the politicians that they interview. Look at Chris Cuomo's own network of people that he used to try and dig up dirt on the people who were going after his brother, on The stuff that they choose to cover sets the tone of Democratic and Republican Party politics. In a way, they've probably never had more influence than they've had today.

And I know it can seem very converse, but the fact is that because the most diehards remain on cable news, those are the people who vote the most. Those are the people whose tastes and all that, they respond to the politicians the most because everybody else is kind of checked out. So in a way, like it's a disservice that has been happened to us in the way our partisan politics works, but it makes it so that when we have to cover the ins and outs of these networks and more, the reason why is because their impact, I don't think, can be overstated on the state of the country. It's very unfortunate, but the reality is twofold. Number one, they're elite tastemakers. And I always talk about this. Morning Joe really understood this and pioneered this model. They don't get the highest ratings they never have, but everybody here in D.C. watches it. It's like their own little clubby breakfast show

where they know their Republican or Democratic colleagues are going to be on there. And so they get very high advertising dollar rates because the advertisers know that it's an elite audience that is watching the show. So financially, it's a very successful model. And also influence-wise, it's a very successful model. And also influence-wise, it's a very successful model. Then you add to that this sort of agenda setting

for the hardest core of the Democratic and the Republican bases with Fox News. You put those two things together. And even as their ratings plummet, and we would all like them to fade into irrelevancy because of the damage that they've done to the country, they continue to be extraordinarily influential. So that's why we cover them as much as we do, because as much as we would like for them to not matter, that's not reality. And just look at what happened in the Democratic primary with Joe Biden to understand. Dude was about to lose. I mean, he had pathetic performance in Iowa, pathetic performance in New Hampshire, pretty pathetic performance in Nevada as well. And yet the moment that tastemakers

on MSNBC and CNN said, this is the guy, this is who we have to get behind to beat Bernie Sanders and then beat Trump, it all fell in line in states, even places that Joe Biden had never even visited before. Didn't have an operation at all. I mean, this guy was running out of money. So that shows you how powerful, unfortunately, they continue to be. I think your legal analysis is probably spot on. Listen, if they actually came down to it and they went to trial and whatever, would Chris Cuomo prevail in this? Probably not. Does CNN want to go through the process and all that would be uncovered through discovery of just how much did they know and what did their messages with Chris

look like and all of that? No, I don't think so. Because even if, and I actually believe that Zucker genuinely felt misled and caught off guard by some of the revelations, but he probably knew more than he was letting on. Yeah, exactly. And so they would end up with a lot of egg on their face if all of that internal sausage making was to be brought out into the public eye. So I think you're right that probably they will look to settle just to avoid that because, listen, as much money as millions of dollars is to, you know, all of us, for them, it's really nothing to avoid having an ugly sort of PR situation. Almost certainly that's what's going to happen.

We'll see. On the flip side, some conservative media news here. So you guys remember Trump partnering up with this existing social media startup to launch his own social media channel. Apparently, they've raised a billion dollars. So, so far, financially, it looks like it's been very successful for him. But there are some questions here. So let's go ahead and throw this tweet up on the screen. Apparently, the SEC and other regulators are actually investigating the financing for Trump's new media company. It's not really worth reading the fine print there because it doesn't really say anything. And the fact that they're investigating doesn't mean

inherently that anything, that there was any wrongdoing. Yes. It just means they have some questions. And I read into this a little bit, and without getting into the nitty-gritty details of the financing here, you'll remember the way that this was executed was through one of these SPACs, which is basically, they call them blank check companies, where it's a vehicle that investors put money into, and then they go around looking for deals. It's like a backdoor IPO is a way to think about it without having to disclose too much on the upfront. Effectively, like Paul Ryan did one of these and people invest in the leadership of the SPAC thinking like, oh, they've got special

knowledge in whatever it is, tech or finance, et cetera, and they'll find a good deal. And we believe in their leadership and we think that they're going to find a good deal. But in order to use that mechanism, there can't have been foresight or meetings that took place beforehand with potential deals. It has to truly be like a blank check where investors really don't know what deal they're going to ultimately end up in. And it appears that there were some meetings. They're probing that merger because there were some meetings with Trump and the SPAC leadership before the SPAC raised money. So that's where the questions are coming in of whether it actually followed the rules of what SPACs are supposed to do. Putting that aside, it's interesting right now there's this movement in among conservatives to sort of establish their own ecosystem of social media companies. Cloud can be server computing, cryptocurrencies, even different apps.

We can throw this Axios tweet up on the screen. So they say conservatives are building their own apps, phones, cryptocurrencies and publishing houses to circumvent the mainstream tech and media ecosystems. You can see this chart here, which shows, you know, these places like One America News Network, Newsmax, Rumble, all these places. They're doing okay. They're not doing, like, amazingly well. There was a big spike back around November. Now they've kind of faded off. But clearly there's a movement with among conservatives where they feel like, listen, we don't run any of these

institutions that have a lot of control over the public dialogue and the public square. So we're going to start our own. Now, the problem with that is then you sort of silo yourself in a certain sense. So we've seen, I mean, Trump is a perfect example of this, right? He gets kicked off of Twitter and suddenly he is a lot less relevant in the elite conversation, which frankly has been kind of nice. But for him and in terms of us caring about censorship and having a parody of viewpoints, it's been a very bad thing. So if a lot of conservatives move on to these alternative platforms, are they really doing themselves any favors or are they increasingly just talking to themselves? Well, that's the funny part, right? Which is that the criticism of this, as you see from

Brian Stelton, it's terrifying. They're building their own thing. And it's like, yeah, but the criticism was also, if you don't like it, then build your own thing. So which is it? Right. I agree with you though, which is that you're not criticizing it as like, it's a scary development. What you're actually pointing to, and this has always been my criticism of these kind of niche platforms is why would I want to be somewhere where only other like-minded people are? The whole point of a social network is everybody's on the social network. I mean, yes, some niche communities and others, it's not a bad idea.

It goes all the way back to subreddits and boards on 4chan having niche places where people can talk about a like-minded topic. But to have the ability to go from one subreddit to another, to another, to another, and then to the entire thing aggregated together, that's kind of what Twitter together. That's kind of what Twitter was. That's kind of what Facebook was. Anything that leverages the entire social

network. So I would critique it more from a limiting perspective of if you're making your entire market just the American right, and then even with the American right, you're stripping it all down for parts, the Daily Wire, more libertarian, Ben Shapiro type audience here on this app, the Trump MAGA faithful appear here on this app, One America News, Newsmax type people, and you break it all across. That's not that many people. I mean, look, yes, you can sustain a business in the millions and theillion-dollar figure, but you're not going to be a multibillion-dollar company like a Twitter or a Facebook. So from that perspective, you're actually kind of making it – you're making yourself less relevant in a mainstream context. But look, for some people, that's worth the tradeoff.

This is the question with Trump. How does this all work out? Because let's put this on the screen here. Devin Nunes, Congressman Devin Nunes, is going to retire from Congress. He was literally in line to be the Ways and Means Chairman in the House Republican majority. So in 2022, he would be literally the most powerful chairman in the all of Congress with head and say over taxes. People spend decades trying to get that. And he is going to be stepping down to become the CEO of the Trump media group. And I guess, you know, if I cannot think of a better example of where does the power actually lie in today's

society, it's not in the actual policy. It really is in terms of media influence and social media technology. So for Devin Nunes to be doing this, giving up the most powerful chairmanship in all of Washington to go and become CEO of the Trump media group, he sees what he probably is making the correct decision in terms of having more influence broadly. But again, it just goes to show what is the actual impact of this Trump social media service going to be? Without network effects, Crystal, is it really just PR? I mean, it's just a way for Trump

to converse with his followers. The basics of that technology has been around for decades with email lists and now and more. So is this just a glorified Twitter functionality and the ability for Trump to just put out his PR statements? And for Trump to make a bunch of money. Right. I mean, also, how exactly is it going to get monetized?

I mean, look, they are his followers, so if he wants to monetize them, it's not like he hasn't been doing it for a long time with his super PACs and all of that, which have no restrictions in terms of what he wants to spend his money on. But in terms of a money-making operation and in terms of also the actual influence of this thing, I just think it caps out amongst, what, like 16, 17 percent of the U.S. population. Well, the other thing is, and also, I mean, they have an older base who are going to be slower to pick up on some of these technologies. But, you know, the other thing is one thing that we witnessed during the 2020 presidential campaign for Trump was that part of the problem for them and part of why they lost is because they were way too online. You know, they were elevating all the—what were their names? The McCloskeys or whatever, those people in Missouri, right?

Is that their name? Yes, the McCloskeys. Something like that. Anyway, they were all, I mean, you would listen to some of the speeches at the RNC, and you'd like, I don't even know what you're talking about right now. And I follow politics pretty closely. I had to translate for you sometimes. Yeah, you would be like, my decoder rate.

I'm like, what? What are they even, what point are they making? So they had already sort of siloed themselves in this way that you had to be following all the ins and outs of every John Solomon column to understand exactly what was going on with these speeches and the language that they were using. So it wasn't connecting the way that it should because they were already in their own bubble. So listen, we're about to talk, you know, in a little bit in the show about the way that the left can silo themselves and use this like specialized language that you have to be on in the inner, inner circle of left activist politics to understand to the point that even Bernie Sanders is like out of step with where the language has gone. But there's a similar danger on the right where, you know,

anybody who sort of silos themselves off too far and gets too disconnected from what mainstream political conversation looks like and sounds like is going to end up in that place where the language that they're using, the topics that they're talking about don't necessarily connect with a broader audience.

And so we've already seen some of that happening. And I would think that this would just continue to push in that direction. I remember the first or the second debate with Trump and Biden where he was talking about some arcane part of Russiagate, which I did know because I followed it ins and outs. And I remember being like, dude, nobody knows what you're talking about. Right. Like, I have to follow this stuff day in, day out. I've had tangential sense of some remark he was making about Russiagate or Ukrainegate. I forget even which one it was. And I was like, listen, just be normal.

Talk about the stuff that people actually cared about. Why did Trump almost come this close to winning the presidential election in 2020? People were fed up with COVID and they hate political correctness. That's it. It's simple. All he has to do is talk about that over and over and over again. With Biden, it had nothing to do with, oh, this fake Atlantic story about how Trump said some whatever at the World War I graves, called them suckers and losers. That's obviously BS. What it was, was Biden was like, listen, things are crazy right now. And if you elect me, I'll make it not crazy. Yeah. I mean, didn't work out, but that was his pitch. That's why a lot of people voted for him. And actually,

so basic the way that people think. Actually, that was one of Biden's strengths was that they were not online. They were terminally not online. And, you know, I mean, Joe Biden probably doesn't even really understand what Twitter is. You know, has like, I'm sure, never logged into Twitter himself. And so the fact that they were out of the loop with those super specialized

elite activist conversations happening on the left, that was a major asset. It was a huge asset. Major asset for Biden, both in the primary and ultimately in the general election. So, yeah, I don't see the rise of like, you know, there's a megacoin cryptocurrency. There's a freedom phone. I mean, some of these also are just like blatant grifting.

Right. Just buy Bitcoin, people. Some are. I understand the genuine desire like the cloud storage called RightForge after Parler was shut down because all of these established institutions pulled their cloud computing support. So I understand some of the desire to build out the infrastructure. And I also understand that, listen, part of the big conflict in American politics right now is that liberals and those broadly on the left feel like they're being shut out of political power as evidenced by what's going on at the Supreme Court

right now. With gerrymandering, with the nature of the way that the Senate is set up, they feel like they're losing power in political institutions., they feel like they're losing power in political institutions. Conservatives feel like they have no power in cultural institutions. So there's this instinct of like, hey, let's set up our own cultural institutions. Let's set up our own universities and social media apps and cloud computing and all of this stuff. But ultimately, I don't think it leads you where you want to go because elites are not going to follow you there. Some of these apps and social media networks that they mention, I think, would bulk at being labeled as right wing or conservative or Trump aligned. And I was actually going to push back on the idea that Rumble would fall easily in that category because what they seem to have really wanted to put forward and people that we know and like,

including Glenn Greenwald are on that platform, is the idea of this is a place where we're going to have true free speech. We're not going to have these censorship conversations and this instinct to just push people out because we don't happen to like their viewpoints. But they did just sign a deal with Trump's social media company,

which is about to be led by Devin Nunes. So anyway, that's the direction that that seems to be going. That's the direction. And I think it's actually sad for the direction of any app or platform which is going to call itself free speech to allow yourself to get. And look, at least in the media, to be tagged as pro-Trump, that's probably the worst thing that could ever happen to free speech to allow yourself to get, and look, at least in the media, to be tagged as pro-Trump, that's probably the worst thing that could ever happen to a free speech movement. Yeah, and I know Rumble has made concerted- If you want to be actually free speech, that's not what you want. Right, they've made concerted efforts to reach out to people across the political spectrum.

But yeah, certainly in terms of a media perception, it's going to be hard to combat the notion that they're just Trump-aligned media when they have a deal with the Trump social media company. That's going to be an issue. And I think that that ultimately will probably play against their favor. And of course, that will leverage the ultimate excuse for anybody at the very top or, you know, for censorious purposes in order to go after them or go after any of these platforms, which is exactly the opposite of what you want for an actual thriving conversation online. All right, let's move on to Ukraine. So this is something which we have been following, and it actually could be an incredibly important development. So there have been movements out in Ukraine between Russia, tensions. This is long, simmering stuff, obviously, with the Civil War and

the color revolutions and all the stuff that broke out back in the 2010s under Barack Obama, simmering debates here in Washington, should we arm the Ukrainians or not, issue warnings against Putin. It goes to the very heart of the original NATO conversations, expanding NATO out into the eastern and the Balkan blocs, the former Soviet states, and then even inviting Ukraine, but ultimately not accepting them fully into the Eastern and the Balkan blocs, the former Soviet states, and then even inviting Ukraine, but ultimately not accepting them fully into the bridge of NATO. With increased tension, this has now come to the fore. There have been reports, and you always have to parse whether stuff is real or not, because there's a lot of disinformation, frankly, on both sides about whether there's actual troops or whatever coming and amassing in Ukraine. But what we do know is this. President Biden is talking with Putin today.

So let's put that up there on the screen. Biden is expected to, quote, offer warnings and alternatives in a call with Putin. So the fear on the U.S. side, how true it is we don't actually know, is that they believe that Putin and the Russians are about to make some sort of incursion into Ukraine. We don't know if it's all of Ukraine, eastern Ukraine, the more Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine, etc. But what Biden is set to say there is that they are trying to persuade Putin that they will have swift economic responses and more, quote, consequences if Russia were to invade Ukraine. They said Western allies may move to cut Russia off from the international financial system

and seek direct sanctions on Mr. Putin's closest associates, is what administration officials said. Now, obviously, that would be a massive blow to Russia. Russia is tremendously dependent on the international and global financial system, their deals with Europe, their previous Ukraine incursion had big problems for them in terms of Nord Stream and international relations on the continent of Europe itself. Probably set them back by four or five years there before things got semi-normalized. Obviously, they were kicked out, I think it was like the G7 or the G8 or whatever until Trump eventually became president. But what this points to is that there is a simmering tension that is coming to fore. And what Putin, and this is from more Russian-aligned sources, is said to demand from Biden is a pledge,

Crystal, that NATO will not expand, an actual pledge from Biden publicly, that NATO is not going to continue to expand eastward, as in Georgia, Ukraine, Transnistria, or whatever, and some of the other former Soviet states that aren't already within the NATO alliance. And so it just goes to show you, I think some of my most critics will be surprised to say this, I think one of the biggest mistakes the US ever made was letting in Latvia and Lithuania and Estonia into the NATO alliance because we literally promised the Russians in the 90s for, you know, denuclearization or, you know, in Ukraine and, you know, lessening of arms and allowing in some Western, you know, business interests and more that we weren't going to encircle them, which is their like literal centuries long fear. And then we literally did

it by, you know, providing Article 5 protections right up until the Russian border in what is historically contested territory. So I do think this is a big thorn in the side, obviously, of the Russians. It goes to the original language inside of Putin's brain as to why he has such a defensive attitude towards the West. He kind of sees us as liars and tricksters who have tricked Russia when they were down in circles. Yeah, I mean, listen, if I were them, I'd probably feel the same way, especially given that the czars and all these people have always seen defense in depth as part of one of the most important parts of what was the Soviet Union and previously the Russian Empire. If you're not following really what it is, is this.

This is a longstanding tension here in D.C. over whether we should extend collective defense in Article 5 protections or even military force to defending former Soviet states from potential military action on the Russians. And that's really what the policy that is coming to fore right now in this is. And this is what D.C. is focused on right now more than anything else from an international security situation. Yes. And listen, I don't pretend to be an expert on Ukrainian or Russian history. But this is partly a strategic defense question for Putin. And it is partly a historical cultural question for Putin and for Russians in general who believe, and Putin has written, that Ukraine and Russia are one country. There's a lot of shared cultural history in terms of the origin of both the Ukrainian state and the Russian state. So there's not, it goes beyond just sort of a tactical strategic defense

question for Putin to a more sort of visceral, emotional, cultural question, which makes it extra fraught here. And this is one of the areas where, you know, you see neocons and war hawks on both sides joining hands together. This is very bipartisan. Yes, very bipartisan in terms of, you know, now there's a lot of beating of the drums, a lot of desire to amp up tension with Russia, a lot of bipartisan desire to send more lethal aid to the Ukrainians and that sort of direction. We took note of Chris Murphy, who is, you know, well, an influential figure in terms of the Democratic Party, especially on issues of defense and what he said about pushing to provide lethal aid. Let's take a listen to that. Well, right now we have an amendment on the floor of the Senate that would dramatically increase

the amount of lethal aid. I support it. Republicans right now in the Senate are blocking that amendment from being considered. In addition, Republicans are blocking our ambassadors from being confirmed, in particular to the EU, where a lot of this work will be done to try to bring our allies together. So we've got to get our Republican colleagues to understand this is the threat that many of us believe it to be. So again, calling it a threat and more. One of the most influential essays that I ever read was actually in graduate school by Stephen Walt, and it's called, Would You Die for That Country? Why the United States Needs to Think Twice Before Calling Ukraine an Ally. And he points to what the real implication of Article 5 means, which is that if that country gets invaded,

are you willing to fight, die, and spill American blood for that soil? And if you compare U.S. commitment to Ukraine, historical ties, and Russian, I think I know what wins out. Listen, if you're Ukrainian and you're listening to this and you're upset, I get it. Honestly, I'm sorry, especially because you find yourself as a pawn between these two large geopolitical, not necessarily superpower anymore on Russia's part, but whatever, larger than life kind of state that punches relatively above its economic power and weight because of its nuclear capacity. But that is the reality when it comes to the question of whether

the United States should commit military resources to defending Ukraine. To be clear, that's not necessarily what Biden is putting on the table. But to declare basically all-out economic warfare on Russia in response to this, perhaps it's on par, but it could actually have a converse effect in hardening Putin both in what he thinks, perhaps that's already the case, but really what it could be is it could mark the end of any real diplomatic ties between the two nations, given how much Putin and his oligarchs need access to the international financial system. The other thing that they have to balance is that they're desperate to try and get back into the Iran deal. And the Russians have a lot of influence over Iran and were part, obviously, of the JCPOA. So if they don't have any incentive in order to work towards the U.S. and try and push it towards there, they can make life difficult for us is more what I'm saying in many other respects.

They are still a large power in Eastern Europe. And, of course, they have massive business interests with Germany and many of our other so-called allies. Would they really be willing to push the button when it came to this? All I'm saying is that this just opens up a lot of very sore wounds of U.S. policy with NATO. And I think, I personally will always think the original sin was expanding outside of the original NATO alliance, including the Balkan states, or sorry, including the Baltic states like Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. I understand, I've been to those countries, they're beautiful places, but extending Article 5 protection to them, in my opinion, was a much, a bridge too far and actually put us on the road to the type of confrontation we're at right now. There's a couple of other pieces there. It's not

just the Iran nuclear deal, as you alluded to, but also the U.S. really wants to work with Russia on climate change, which I certainly consider to be a top priority. And Russia has lots of oil and natural gas. They're a petro-state. Yeah right. So this is, you know, this is very significant, getting them to play ball on climate change. There's another thing that's kind of interesting that I was reading about, which is that Putin's very aggressive and militaristic posture towards Ukraine has really, in a sense, backfired for him as well, because the number, support for joining NATO among Ukrainians rose from 14% in 2012 to a majority, 54% now. So his position in posturing and annexing of Crimea, that has also backfired in terms of public sentiment, whereas before they were like, no, we're good without NATO.

Now there's a majority of the population that does, in fact, want to join NATO. The last thing we can put here is in terms of the sort of saber rattling and the escalating tensions. There are reports that Russia has. We can put this tear sheet up on the screen. This is from the Military Times. Reports that Russia has more than 92,000 troops amassed around Ukraine's borders. There are estimates from the U.S. intelligence that it could go up to as much as 175,000 by January. And Ukraine believes Russia is preparing to attack them

by late January. That's at least what they're putting out there publicly. I think, you know, I mean, in part, that could very much be to sort of amp up the pressure. I think they're trying to pressure here in Washington. Yeah, they're trying to pressure the U.S. to send that lethal aid and have their back and all of those things. So that's the sort of posturing that's going on, very high stakes call today between Biden and Putin, and we'll see what comes of it. Yeah, certainly. But I think everybody should be aware of this. These types of things can simmer below the surface and then they can explode all at once. And things can move very, very quickly in terms of military conflict,

fallout in the global financial system, fallout in the global financial system, fallout in the European continent and to how that all would affect. Remember, the Russians have a tremendous impact on gas prices and natural gas as well. So this could be a conflagration geopolitically, and we should all watch it very closely. I'm hoping that the Biden administration and them use their diplomatic process in order to lower tensions out there in Ukraine and see and actually hear what's happening, not succumb to the chest beating here in D.C. over Ukraine and NATO and all that other stuff. So we'll see. Okay, let's move on to our fun segment, one of my particular favorites, a new survey confirming what we already know. Democrats fall flat with Latinx language. Put this up there from Politico. So, as Democrats

seek to reach out to Latino voters in a more gender-neutral way, they've increasingly begun using the words Latinx, a term that first began to get traction among academic and activists on the left. This is from Politico. But that very effort could be counterproductive in courting those of Latin American descent, a new nationwide poll of Hispanic voters showed. Let's put this next tweet up there because it actually summarizes it quite well. Only 2% of those polled refer to themselves as Latinx. 68% call themselves Hispanic. 21% actually favor

Latino or Latina to describe their ethnic background, according to a Democratic firm specializing in Latino outreach, which polled a huge cross-section of the entire country. And what they point to is the numbers suggests that using Latinx is actually a violation of a political Hippocratic oath, which is first, do no electoral harm. Why are we using a word that is preferred only by 2% but offends as many as 40% of the voters that we want to win?

And it's amazing because these terms, they come out of nowhere. We were talking about this yesterday. I did a little research after we talked. I was like, where did this come from? And no one really knows. There's some theories. It's like BIPOC. Where the hell did this shit come from? That you can actually trace back to particular intellectuals. Latinx, it first appeared online in, I think, 2004, but no one really used it.

It just, like, had one mention. And then some other people say, no, no, it originated in chat rooms in the 90s, but it didn't really gain traction until the 2010s. And, yeah, so there was no sort of, like, gathering of the minds and consensus around this. And so what this is, look, this is not the reason, the reason why Democrats have been losing ground with Latinos. But I think it is symbolic of a larger sense among working class Latinos that this is like the Democratic Party is full of elites who are culturally out of touch with them and enforcing on them language that they themselves don't like.

Don't use, want, understand. In fact, find it offensive. Yes. And that there's this sort of, you know, the same, look, it's the same dynamic that the white working class in some instances has had with the Democratic Party where they feel a sense of sneering contempt. And so even people who may be aligned on certain issues, both economically and in some instances culturally, feel like there's no place for them in the Democratic Party that's just looking down their nose and enforcing activist language on them. So that's the real

problem. It's not the issue for Democrats. It is symbolic of a larger problem for Democrats, I would say. Maybe I always understood this because I grew up in Texas, where there are, you know, generations of people who are, you know, Mexican-American, but, or, you know, who are Hispanic, but a fourth, maybe fifth generation, they consider themselves, you know, yes, Hispanic, and they have very, very, like, set traditions. But it's in, like, a Tejano kind of – there's a Tejano way about it where it's not necessarily Mexican. It's not like white Texan either. It's its own unique identity. And those people who I know have always been very offended by the idea that they only care about illegal immigration or DACA or something like that when they themselves have maybe the same concerns on immigration, or a lot of them are just working class and just want like a better job and a life

and don't really see themselves in this prevailing international or national narrative around where, you know, how they feel in respect to one thing or the other. You know, we saw a lot of this with Puerto Rico, right? Like the hurricane in Puerto Rico, where you actually saw in Florida that Rick Scott, the senator there, won big with Puerto Ricans in the 2020 Senate election. And one of the reasons why

is because he ran against Trump's response to the hurricane, but also there was polling that Puerto Rican aid for the hurricane also didn't poll that well necessarily with other Hispanic groups. And so it was, you know, once again, the perfect example of talking to people as if they're a single group. There are Dominican Americans. There are Puerto Ricans who have been living in New York for like over 100 years, much longer than my family has been in the U.S., who have their own traditions. I mean, there are just so many different Venezuelan Americans, Colombian Americans, Brazilian Americans. They don't even speak Spanish necessarily. So it's like you have all these different groups, especially, I think you see this down in Florida. the way that that then manifests itself, even in the difference most people want that crosses all races and all demographics

rather than using these ridiculous terms. Like we were talking BIPOC. Another one was women with an X, and I just looked at it like W-M-X-N. I think that's just a joke, isn't it? I don't think so. I mean, look, it has its own Wikipedia page. So you take that for what it means. I think part—it's actually a very interesting conversation because I think part of the problem for the Democratic Party is that almost all, with the exception of like Chuck Rocha, and that's literally it, of their consultant class come from middle class or upper middle class backgrounds, went to fancy schools.

And so it may not be that they don't know any black people or don't know any Latino people, but that the people that they have met are of a similar class status to them by and large. And so there's a lack of connectivity to that broader conversation and all the complexities of those communities. Instead, everybody gets lumped into something called the black community, which there's more of a sort of shared historical roots there. You could kind of make that one make sense. Maybe, even though we know within the African-American community, there is a massive diversity of views and positions and ideologies.

But then it makes even less sense when you try to combine this, wrap your arms around this thing and call it the Latino community. When you have incredibly varied histories and backgrounds and geography and class status and all of those things, it makes no sense.

And so it's actually, I mean, look, Latinx is, again, it's a symbol of the problem, but it's actually offensive and racist to assume that this entire group of people is going to respond to just your view of what their interests should be, of your like identity-based view of what their narrow interest should be. And so that's the pitfall that Democrats have really fallen into, especially with the Latino community. But you also see a little bit of erosion with the black community as well, where there's a similar sort of mono view of what those people would want in their politics that doesn't reflect the you know, the actual diversity

of viewpoints and just, you know, the fact that they're trying to live their lives and have a job and future for their kids, just like literally everybody else. No, you're right. I think we saw this among young black men in particular, I think it was like 18 something percent or whoever voted for Trump. Doesn't sound like a lot, but that's like double what it was for the elder demographic. And you saw again, that there's a lot less actually party loyalty amongst young black Americans in general towards their faithful view of the Democratic Party, very much, again, in dispute whenever you look at older black voters. best way in order to communicate with any racial group is to try and speak to what every racial group has to worry about, which is what's going on with your job? Do you have the ability to provide a better life for your children? And do you have the at least hope of being more prosperous than the people who came before you? It's actually really not complicated. And by diving and making it all into these cross sections and trying to speak and even homogenize an entire group, which are very different, it's very offensive and it's politically counterintuitive.

So like you said, this is just the tip of the iceberg of what the real problem is. And you know what? Language does really matter. It matters a lot. So I get why activists think a lot about language. But instead of trying to adopt language that would be broadly appealing and try to make the case for your positions to the broadest possible audience, which is the goal when you want to have coalitions and win power, that should ultimately be the goal. Instead, there's this fetishizing of a sort of like faux radicalism where you want to use the in-group language to signal your own sort of status and moral purity rather than wanting to build these broader coalitions. There's more clout to be gained. There's more positions to advance if you lean in that direction, which is ultimately kind of, you know, kind of

isolating. So as I said before, we had a discussion about conservative media and the dangers of siloing there and the sort of conversations and rabbit holes that can be disconnected from what most people are thinking about. Same danger exists on both sides of the political spectrum. And I think it's particularly a danger now in, you know, the social media age where it's very easy to find those groups of affinity and narrow yourself down and narrow yourself down and narrow yourself down until you're literally just talking to a set of like a thousand activists online. Very true. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? So, friends, over the past couple of days, I've been listening to the Huma Abedin memoir. It's called Both And, A Life in Many Worlds.

I'd already watched Wiener, the documentary about her husband's aborted attempt at a comeback when he got caught yet again sexting a bunch of random internet ladies, including a 15-year-old girl. I'd already read the pre-released excerpts from Huma's book detailing where she was and how it rocked her when these repeated betrayals became front-page news. So I wasn't actually all that interested in the Anthony Weiner part of the Huma Abedin story. What I was really after was a glimpse behind the curtain of Clinton power. After all, as I argued last week, few people have helped to architect our present political moment as directly as Bill and Hillary Clinton. From Bill's cementing of the Democratic Party as a thoroughly neoliberal

organ, shipping jobs overseas, undercutting unions, and embracing white-collar professionals, to Hillary pushing an elaborate Russian hoax in order to distract from her own painful political losses, we live in the political world that the Clintons birthed. Huma, she was there for all of it. She started as an intern in the First Lady's office during the first Clinton term. She was there for all of it. She started as an intern in the First Lady's office during the first Clinton term. She was there for the Lewinsky scandal, for Hillary's decision to stay with Bill, for Hillary's Senate run, her terrible Iraq war vote, her loss to Obama. Huma was by HRC's side as she flew around the globe meeting with world leaders as her family foundation raised money from some of the very same global elites

whose lives and fortunes could be impacted by State Department policy. She was there for Benghazi and the private server and the DNC rigging and WikiLeaks and Pokemon Go to the polls and the devastating loss to Trump. She was there for all of it. Surely her memoir would contain some shred of honesty, however accidental, about the Clintons and their lifelong quest for power and elite status. Nope, not at all. Instead, Huma offers a Disney storybook version of her many years serving the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular. It is a whitewashing so thorough and so brazen, one actually has to marvel at it. The closest that Huma comes to even the whiff of a criticism of HRC, was recounting how one time as a young

staffer, she was gruffly and angrily rebuked by Hillary because Huma had committed the sin of failing to fill up Hillary's plate at a fundraiser dinner. But only a few hours later, Hillary apologized to Huma, turning this potentially negative story into a parable about how even when exhausted and frustrated, Hillary always ultimately does the right thing. And that's it. The rest of the book is nothing but wonder and awe at Hillary Rodham Clinton. Any failings were the fault of other people, or the press, or even the fault of Huma and her fellow aides. In Huma's telling, Hillary could never fail, only be failed. To give you a feel, let me just walk you through some of how Huma spins Hillary's loss to Obama back in 2008. So you will recall that in HRC's primary versus Obama, while the youthful change candidate was

easily lapping up money online from young voters energized by his message, Hillary was stuck working the old Democratic elite donor circuits, raising dollars one bad chicken dinner at a time. So here's the spin that Huma put on this particular predicament. online fundraising was beginning to gain steam, and Obama in particular was beginning to benefit greatly, with HRC, we found that supporters wanted to see her, touch her, talk to her. Uh, no. HRC didn't fail at online fundraising because her supporters were somehow more tactile than Obama's. It's because they were all part of the established donor class. They had a transactional expectation of an ass-kissing phone call and a photo with the candidate that they could use to show off to their rich friends.

Others wanted White House access for directly corrupt and transactional reasons. Meanwhile, young voters who were giving online were sick of Hillary and Bill and the whole Clinton operation and picking Obama instead. Hillary's catastrophic third-place finish behind Obama and John Edwards in Iowa was given a similarly hazy treatment. In the real world, Clinton's disastrous Iraq war vote, combined with campaign arrogance and an electorate desperate for new leaders after the terrible Bush years, that led to this disastrous outcome. In Huma's memoir, however, she instead grouses that voters were too distracted by the flashy antics of her rivals to focus on learning about the policies that would be in their best interest. Quote,

Though Hillary's proposals were as thought-out, considered, comprehensive, detailed, precise, and polished as she was, at times it felt as if she was trying to get the kids to focus on their homework while everyone else was setting off dazzling fireworks. And in the end, according to Huma, it wasn't Hillary who failed and lost Iowa, but her staffers. After allowing that, possibly there was just no way to beat Obama at that time in that year, Huma concludes, quote, in this very moment, it was clear that we as a team had failed her. What had worked so well in the Senate was our lean operation, laser focused on very specific results. In contrast, our presidential campaign had felt like an ocean liner from the start. Expensive, expansive,

slow to turn, and now it had sprung a leak. Our bloated campaign was sinking. Of course, back in the real world, the size and nature of a candidate's campaign is the primary responsibility of that candidate. But not in this book. Instead, Hillary's loss was the fault of Obama's fireworks, easily distracted voters, and campaign staffers. In Huma Abedin's world, Hillary Clinton is always, always blameless. And it's like this throughout the entire book. Huma justifies Hillary's Iraq War vote, a vote which Huma herself personally objected to, by complaining about the press and the public failing to understand the nuance of Hillary's rationalizations for that vote. The corrupt misdeeds of the Clinton Foundation, they aren't mentioned at all. Huma even pushes back at the idea that Hillary used her New York Senate seat

as a stepping stone for her presidential ambitions, insisting at key moments all throughout Hillary's career, political plotting that Hillary was just called to serve, and that weight of public service responsibility forced her reluctantly to seek the White House twice. She lost to Bernie because of sexism, and because she had to spend so much time on her hair and makeup. She lost to Trump because of, and Huma's telling, one word, Comey. The rationalization and justifications would be hilarious if they were not also so sad. I actually nearly spit out my coffee when I heard Huma describe Hillaryland, though. Hillaryland is the name for the professional cult which had stolen Huma's life, demanding so much devotion that she had never even dated a

single man until Anthony Weiner forced himself on her at age 33, and that she had routinely missed births, deaths, and weddings in her close-knit Muslim family. Of this nest of parasites and hangers-on, Huma said, quote, Hillary Land is all about, what do you need? And let's get this fixed. Hillary Land is, how's your mom feeling? And you should talk to my allergist. Hillary Land is, happy birthday, an amazing job, and get some rest. Hillary Land is all of those things because Hillary Clinton is all of those things. Talk about Stockholm syndrome. But for all its spin and obfuscation, Huma's memoir is also revealing because there's an entire generation of young people who started on

ambitious, yes, but also idealistic, who are persuaded that the best way to do good was to prop up the status quo through power centers like Silicon Valley, well-connected think tanks, and establishment figures like Hillary Clinton, who made themselves feel good and progressive through cheap girl power slogans and the kind of hollow identity politics that leaves everything regressive in place so long as it has a multicultural sheen. Those young people are grown-ups now, and they run the country. And just like Huma's book and the Clintons themselves, it sucks. And Sagar, there was a perfect through line at the end of the book that said it all. Huma was like, yes. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. All right, Sagar, what are you looking at?

Well, of all the billionaires out there, the one that I probably respect the most is Elon Musk. Not just because he's actually funny on Twitter and he embodies a true IDGaf attitude, but also because he actually built two genuinely transformative companies, Tesla and SpaceX. The field of electric cars would be a decade behind if it wasn't for him. And as far as private space endeavors, it was almost fully captured by the military-industrial complex before he came along. I give him a tremendous amount of credit. But that doesn't mean that he's above scrutiny. And it's why I paid particular attention in the last several months to Musk's business

relationship with China. And it's come to the head over weekend with a new Wall Street Journal investigation into just how deep the richest man in the world is with the CCP and just how much leverage that they have over him right now. Per the Wall Street Journal, China rewrote domestic auto manufacturing rules to allow Tesla to build its factory in Shanghai. They, quote, showered him with cheap land, low-interest loans, and tax incentives, expecting in return that Tesla would groom local suppliers and bolster lagging Chinese electric vehicle players. This was win-win for China and Tesla. Tesla now produces half of all of its vehicles in China, where their production there was key to becoming profitable in 2020. All of that is great, until the bill comes due for Tesla,

and that comes in the form of total fealty to the Chinese Communist Party. China's domestic regulations require all businesses to retain all digital records that it gathers from Chinese customers inside of the country. And critically, Tesla must seek approval from the Chinese government before it's allowed to update its own cars. Now, you wouldn't want all that self-driving tech and cameras falling into the wrong hands now, would we? The world might see something that it shouldn't. Now, if the U.S. government required that, I would guarantee you we would see a hilarious Elon tweet

telling them to basically shove it. But because we have due process, and at the end of the day, they can't do that much to him here. When it comes to China, though, Elon behaves very differently. Musk paradoxically praised the new Chinese data laws, saying, quote, data security is the key to the success of intelligent and connected vehicles. He also happened to make those comments at the Chinese World Internet Conference. Hmm, okay. And it also just so happened after Jack Ma was disappeared and another Chinese tech company was destroyed by the government for appearing too

powerful. Here's the thing. In the long run, Musk will still probably lose. That's what makes all of his kowtowing so gross. From the Wall Street Journal, the only reason China even let Tesla in the first place was so that Tesla could create the domestic supply chain for electric vehicles. Tesla could do all the hard work of growing the supplier base, creating the downstream supply chain, and then the Chinese domestic manufacturers could compete. And by compete, I mean the government can rig the system in their favor, and then eventually, they can write off of all the hard work of Elon Musk. Sure enough, that has actually worked. Per Tesla's own admission, 90% of Shanghai factory inputs are domestically sourced. That is the Chinese dream.

For now, they continue to allow Tesla to operate there, build up its supply chain, all while its domestic companies continue to get going. This is for two purposes. Number one is to have domestic capacity. Number two is to destroy any foreign competition in the future. You rig the market and you create a monopoly. That way, when the say the same company, Tesla, wants to make its cars in the US, they now are asking our government right now for permission to import graphite from China. Not because China is the only place with graphite, but because they claim it's the only place they can get it manufactured and cost effective. To be fair, they're not the only ones. It's not like the rest of the car companies in Detroit are any less

guilty of this. When you chase the cheapest dollar, this is how you get hooked forever. And that's the problem. Musk, now obvious in deep reliance on China seemingly forever, explains a lot of his recent weird behavior. Let's not forget his July 30th tweet this year that says, quote, The economic prosperity that China has achieved is truly amazing, especially in infrastructure. I encourage people to visit and see for themselves. Here's the worst part.

That was literally in response to an official Chinese state media source quoting Xi Jinping. This is the pattern that has repeated itself now time and time again. The Chinese throw incentives at greedy American businessmen. They take and they book the short-term shareholder profit. A few years later, the real cost is shown. Fealty to the CCP politically or adherence to rules which are clearly in place to protect them and shield their internal corruption

from a free and American press. The Americans always play ball or they bow because they need it, especially Tesla, which relies on their Shanghai plant to deliver all its vehicles to Europe and it produces more than they do at their plant in Fremont, California. A shutdown would be genuinely catastrophic to their bottom line, so they have to keep playing ball. And so the cycle goes. I say this, once again, as a fan of Musk, but as a fan of America above anybody else. Right now, the U.S. relies on Elon

Musk to shoot our people into space, and he is probably our best hope at reaching Mars. Do you really want one of our citizens who is so beholden to the China behind such a program of monumental importance? Here's the thing. I have always maintained it is not fair to even force these people to make the choice. At the end of the day, their job is to increase share price and sell cars. It's not to worry about geopolitics. That's our job and the government's job. It's why we should be making the choice for Musk and any American businessman.

If you want to do business in China, that's fine, but you're not going to kowtow to their domestic political goals at the expense of ours and still do business here in the United States. You're not going to be actively contributing to the hobbling of American and other allied industry for a major strategic goal of the Chinese state, period. You remove the option, you remove the conflict. Until we do, even the good ones like Elon, they're going to be sold out. And it just

comes back to shareholder value, Crystal. It's just the original sin of all this. Everything he's doing makes complete business. And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. So joining us now, we have David Levin. He is the lead organizer for Teamsters for Democratic Union. Great to have you, David. Oh, thanks for having me. Yeah, our pleasure. So congratulations on the victory, first and foremost. Just help our audience understand what you've won and why it's significant. Well, it's a really exciting time in the Teamsters Union. This is a union of 1.3 million members and North America's most powerful union.

You know, for decades, the Teamsters and really the entire labor movement workers in general have been on the defensive. And we see this as an opportunity to go on the offense with a union that has real power. And David, what are the some of the things that you ran on in the election? What were some of the issues and what would you like to do with your new position? Well, I think one way to look at the election is that this was really the kind of part of a growing revolt by essential workers that you're seeing all across the country against two-tier, against excessive overtime. You've seen the strikes at John Deere, the vote no movement at Vovotrux, Nabisco, Kellogg's. And this was that movement coming to the ballot box and winning power in a big, powerful international union.

And it wasn't because there's been a grassroots movement in the Teamsters union, Teamsters for a Democratic Union, we've had a head start on this revolt by essential workers. There was a whole series of campaigns over the last decade, really, where rank and file workers fought back against contract givebacks, healthcare cuts, the imposition of two-tier in the UPS contract. And they were taking on both the international union leadership and their employers at the same time. One of the really significant things about this victory is that we've now elected new leadership that stands behind these vote no movements and these kinds of campaigns and will take the fight to importance. So to that point, Fred Zuckerman is the new secretary treasurer, and he spoke a little bit about this new direction and some of the leadership that he hopes to bring.

Let's take a listen to that. There is only one clear choice here. There's a choice of whether you're going to stand with the membership or you're going to stand with the companies. Over here, that's what they do. They stand with the companies. It's a busy, business-friendly union. Get along, go along, whatever the company wants. We'll go sell it. That's fine. Over here, you're going to get a fight. That's what you're going to get. You want business-friendly?

Go to that side, because that's not what the Teamsters union want. And this is an issue that we've seen, not just with the Teamsters, also with UAW and some other unions, where the leadership, at least in the eyes of the membership, gets a little too cozy with the businesses that they're negotiating contracts with. Talk about a little bit of the history here, especially with regards to that UPS contract, which is incredibly significant for the Teamsters, where you represent many, many workers under that UPS contract, and the past of that and also what the future looks like there. So you just have to love Fred Zuckerman. He is not a guy who minces his words. And that was in a debate with the opposing side. And it was a really clear choice in this election between a side that was openly denouncing grassroots movements to reject contract givebacks at UPS. The other candidate called it the vote no movement a farce. And then you had Fred in that debate speaking so clearly to what

members wanted and winning overwhelmingly two to one in this election. Going to that UPS contract, in 2018, contract negotiations were headed by the now general president, Sean O'Brien, initially. And then he wanted to reach out and build a coalition and bring in other leaders who hadn't backed Hoffa, like Fred Zuckerman, and include them on the negotiating committee. And for that reason, he was fired. And Hoffa brought in someone to negotiate the national UPS contract who was a very go-long, get-along guy. He imposed what we called an information brownout where members had no idea what was happening in contract negotiations and negotiated a two-tier agreement at UPS where new drivers would have to work Tuesday to Saturday, get a lower rate of pay, and have no protections against excessive overtime. Teamster members understand solidarity. Even before any of these drivers had been hired, the majority

of UPS Teamsters voted no to reject this deal. And the international union imposed it anyway. They used a loophole in the Teamster constitution to impose the contract. And this just added fuel to the fire of what was already a growing revolt. In 2016, five years ago in the last election, Fred Zuckerman got 49% of the vote. An overwhelming majority of UPS workers voted for him then. And after the 2018 sellout and imposition of the contract, the sort of Hoffa's political fate was sealed. He lined up a replacement to run and carry his banner forward. That candidate was rejected by a two to one vote. In many, many cities, UPS workers voted by 90 percent margins for Teamsters United. And so what you're seeing is a real surge of militancy at the grassroots level that's tied to leadership that also wants to take the union in a militant direction. Wow. David, tell us a little bit about some of the union drives that we can expect across the nation,

especially in the midst of this rising labor movement. Well, so, I mean, everybody wants to talk about Amazon, and they've talked very much about beefing up organizing at Amazon. I don't think we can expect that to happen, say, by Christmas. We'd all love that present, but this is going to be a long-term campaign. It's going to require strategic partnerships. It's going to require much more than just one union. The team just can't do it alone. We could be a big part of it, but we're going to have to partner with others in labor. We're going to have to partner with community allies and social movements. But I think one thing that Sean O'Brien made very clear during the course of the campaign that I think was really, really important is that

if you want to inspire workers to join your union, then you need to be a fighting union. Workers want to join a labor movement, will be attracted to a labor movement that's fighting back against the boss and winning. And so one of the number one things that the Teamsters Union can do to jumpstart organizing at Amazon is to have a very militant and very public contract campaign to reverse the givebacks at UPS. And if that takes a strike, so be it. And that's the position that the Teamsters United leadership took during the campaign, and we agree with it 100%. It's just, if you want to, it's very difficult to organize new members when you're selling out the ones you already have, and that era is over in the team's machine. Got it. What you just said is really important that the new leadership ran directly on will strike UPS if necessary. My understanding is that contract

is up, what, in two years. If there was a strike, of course, nothing is inevitable and strikes are, you know, very difficult on the workers that are involved. But if that were to happen, what would that mean for the country? Obviously, as we've all moved to online shopping, UPS and other carriers are extraordinarily integral to our national economy. So what could that look like? Well, and I think that that's one of the things that makes this such an important opportunity, not just for working Teamsters, but for all of labor. Unlike other unions that have really been weakened by globalization, Teamsters jobs cannot be outsourced. You can't outsource package delivery or garbage collection or freight or rail. Those jobs by food distribution, those jobs by definition have to be done here. The Teamsters is a logistics union. And so it is right at the heart of the American economy.

And it has the power, potentially, both to move the U is that essential workers have come to see and feel the power that they have in ways that are really, really important. And they're pretty tired of being told that they're essential and treated like they're disposable. And I think that that's fueling some of the anger we're seeing. I think that's absolutely right. Well, we really appreciate you joining us to update us. Thanks very much. Congrats, David. Come back and keep us updated.

Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Absolutely. Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it. We just, you know, appreciate all of your support. I just checked right before this,

and it looks like, Crystal, that Chris Cuomo segment that we did yesterday was going ahead and not suitable for all advertisers, which is just kind of amazing. Can't report on CNN literally firing Chris Cuomo because of what they claim is their, you know, me too policy. But as I pointed to, how are we supposed to cover the news, you know, and have an incentive to do so? The way is, the way we have an incentive is because we rely on you guys for the primary source of our revenue, not on YouTube. So if you can't help us out, premium link is there in description.

Of course you get all sorts of benefits, but that's really what you're helping us fight against. We give you the best show possible, regardless of whether we're going to make money on it on YouTube or not. Yeah. It's insane that you can't even mention Me Too, either with regard to allegations or talking about something that has been an incredibly important social movement in America, no matter what you think of it. Totally insane. That's why we love you guys. Thank you so much for your support, and we will see you again soon. See you soon. Thank you. Terima kasih telah menonton! Thank you. this is an iHeart podcast