Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 1/4/22: Meatpacking, Omicron Update, WaPo, Epstein News, Robert Malone, Elizabeth Holmes, White House Press, Austerity, Defense Contractors, and More!

Episode Date: January 4, 2022

Krystal and Saagar talk about the potential bipartisan effort to fight meatpacking consolidation, updates on Omicron statistics, unemployment for the unvaccinated, new details about Prince Andrew's ties to Epstein, Dr. Robert Malone's appearance on Joe Rogan, Elizabeth Holmes trial verdict, how the White House Correspondent's Association rigs the game, the return of austerity politics, the broken fundamentals of US foreign policy with Richard Hanania, 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/Richard Hanania’s Work: https://richardhanania.substack.com/ Richard Hanania’s Book: https://www.amazon.com/Public-Choice-Theory-Illusion-Strategy-ebook/dp/B09L9Y2W7S/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2HV58NTBD0E96&keywords=Richard+hanania&qid=1640717052&sprefix=richard+hanani%2Caps%2C161&sr=8-1  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. voices, and the perspectives that matter 24-7 because our stories deserve to be heard. Listen to the BIN News This Hour podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I think everything that might have dropped in 95 has been labeled the golden years of hip-hop. It's Black Music Month, and we need to talk is tapping in. I'm Nyla Simone, breaking down lyrics, amplifying voices, and digging into the culture

that shaped the soundtrack of our lives. Like, that's what's really important and that's what stands out, is that our music changes people's lives for the better. Let's talk about the music that moves us. To hear this and more on how music and culture collide, listen to We Need to Talk from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. What up, y'all? This your main man Memphis Bleak right here, host of Rock Solid Podcast. June is Black Music Month, so what better way to celebrate than listening to my exclusive conversation with my bro, Ja Rule. The one thing that can't stop you

or take away from you is knowledge. So whatever I went through while I was down in prison for two years, through that process, learn, learn from it. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. Hey guys, thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar. We're going to be totally upfront with you.

We took a big risk going independent. To make this work, we need your support to beat the corporate media. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, they are ripping this country apart. They are making millions of dollars doing it. To help support our mission of making all of us hate each other less, hate the corrupt ruling class more, support the show.

Become a Breaking Points premium member today where you get to watch and listen to the entire show ad-free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to BreakingPoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the show, guys. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.

What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do a lot of interesting stories for you this morning. So we've got an update on Omicron, getting some new numbers in, just helping us understand who needs to be concerned about this disease, where it's cropping up, and what the public official's response has been to that. Pretty stunning editorial from the Washington Post saying that unvaccinated people should not get unemployment insurance. I mean, this is just, to me, completely abhorrent. So we'll dig into that. Some updates with regards to Jeffrey Epstein. Some new documents have been revealed.

We're going to look for the first time at one of the deals that he cut to avoid his accomplices being prosecuted. So we'll talk about that. Also, a controversial doctor who did an interview with Joe Rogan. That interview, all the clips from it have been taken down from YouTube. So we'll tell you about that as well. Also, guys, apparently we are very committed to this show. Yes, from the top. People need to know how much we love you and this show.

It's pandemonium here in Washington. It truly is. I mean, we, listen, I'm sure other parts of the country get hit with this much snow, and it's no big deal. But here, it was complete meltdown. And this was a bad storm.

Where I live in King George County was kind of like the epicenter. So I got stuck here in D.C. Almost the entire county is without power, including my kids. It dropped down to below 20 degrees, like 15 to 20 degrees last night. They're all doing fine. They're with our amazing sitter.

The roads are insane. There's trees down everywhere. And I don't know if you guys have seen this on the news because, shockingly, there's not that much coverage of it. But there's like 50 to 60 miles of backup on I-95 northbound, the major interstate in the region, going all the way back from, if you guys know the area, before Fredericksburg, all the way into the city. People have been trapped there. For like 20 hours in cars. Yeah, for like 13 to 20 hours in this extremely cold weather. So what is it? The Postal Service is like, neither snow nor rain or whatever can stop us from doing this

show, apparently. I really think, I mean, yeah. First of all, God bless the crew. And, you know, it was, you know, we did our best to trek in here. But really, this is a big failure of local government in Virginia. And a lot of people need to have answers. Part of the things I want to highlight, which is that, look,

we knew about the storm the night before. What were you doing? You know, why were people trapped out there? I'm talking about little kids in the cars. Yes, we're freezing. I was showing you a story of people in electric cars who had to turn their cars off and sleep with blankets because they were worried about losing power

and powering their car all night. That is, by the way, a strike against electric cars now that I think about it. Probably not the best idea to drive. Really what it is, this is a huge, massive governmental failure of I-95, the state of Virginia. People were literally backed up for miles and miles, as you said. Still are. Southbound traffic this morning, actually, on I-95 still had not moved. We're filming this.

It's like 7 a.m. here on the East Coast, and I had heard from the, I had heard this morning on the radio that only northbound traffic was beginning to move. We're talking about, you know, almost 90 miles of backup. So, wanted to highlight it a little bit. It's totally insane. And, I mean, and the other piece is like, I mean, this is also an infrastructure story, right? The fact that the power lines aren't buried means that when you have even, you know, a significant, but not totally insane, I mean, this isn't unprecedented that we have a foot of snow in the D.C. region. But people are completely without power for days on end because the infrastructure is so vulnerable. I mean, it is an absolute mess here. You know, yesterday morning, we were trying to make the call of whether or not to do the show in studio or to do it remotely.

And it was one of those things where it hit at exactly the wrong time. Because when we were leaving our houses to come here. Yeah, it was fine. It was fine. It had been almost 60 degrees the day before. So the ground was really warm. So it didn't stick for a long time. So we looked down our windows and talked to, you know, Eric, who runs our crew, and we're like, it looks fine.

It looks like we can go, no problem. And then we start doing the show, and we asked James, our producer, to go take a look outside, and he's like, oh, it's bad out there. So yeah. So anyway, we're thinking a lot about the people who are stuck in their cars still on 95, people who are without power when it is extremely cold out there and just absolutely hoping that everybody stays safe. No, that's all we really care about, especially kids. Yes. All right. So all of that being said, the story we wanted to start with this morning is President Biden and his administration making some moves to address the monopoly in meatpacking. We wanted to lead with this because it's an important issue. It's also something we've been following here. I don't know if you guys checked out.

We're going to play a little bit of our interview with Bill Bullard, who has been an incredible advocate for ranchers, pointing out that, listen, prices for beef have gotten extraordinarily high for consumers, for meat in general. And that high price is not at all being passed on to the people who are all actually raising and producing those animals, in particular cattle. So you might recall that previously the Biden administration, they sort of like put out a talking point sheet about this and said, oh, we're probably going to do something about this. Well, now they are taking some action. It is winning some bipartisan praise and also some bipartisan criticism. So we'll take you into the specifics here. Let's go ahead and throw this first tear sheet up on the screen. This is from Bloomberg News. It says Biden will launch plan to fight meatpacking giants on inflation. He joined

Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack and Attorney General Merrick Garland to meet virtually with ranchers and farmers to hear their complaints about consolidation in the industry. A newly launched portal is going to allow them to report unfair trade practices by meatpackers. And they're also going to highlight initiatives that they're taking to counter meatpackers' economic power. And the big piece that they're doing here, the thing that was sort of most significant, is they're doing here, the thing that was sort of most significant, is they're providing a billion dollars in federal aid to help with the expansion of independent processors and new competition regulations are also under consideration. So that

billion dollars that they're effectively providing to incentivize new meatpackers to start or to prop up and expand existing operations is the big thing. And the reason that they're focused on this is because at this point, and this is a new dynamic, by the way, just in the past several decades, four large meatpacking giants control more than 80% of U.S. beef processing capacity. By the way, and of course, Matt Stoller, we can put his chart that he tweeted there up on the screen. This actually came from the White House data, but it's a good chart. It shows the red line is how much wholesale beef value is going up, while cattle value is basically staying flat. So what that means is that the people who are

selling it at the end are making massive profit because the price is going up and up. But again, the people who are actually the ranchers, who are actually raising the cattle, are getting totally screwed. Bill Bullard told us they're dropping like flies. They can't stay in business because for them, the price is so low. Even to you, the price is so high. It matters for that. It also matters because we saw during the pandemic how fragile it made our processing system. Because when you have such consolidation, one chain has an issue and bam, that massively impacts your supply of meat.

And as we know, these meat processing plants ended up being hotbeds of coronavirus spread, especially at the beginning before we had vaccines when we had, you know, it's very dangerous strain. So that's another reason why this is important. So I'll pause there and then we can talk about some of the bipartisan response. Yeah, but I think the bipartisan response is actually really heartening. I mean, it's very, very difficult to find anything that can unify anyone. On this side, we have both anti-monopolists and also people who represent large farm districts. So, you know, even the libertarian Thomas Massey, let's put this up there on the screen. He says, Threat, the Biden administration is over the target. Four companies control the majority of meat process

in the United States. This quadopoly of corporate middlemen have driven up prices in stores while depressing prices paid to struggling farmers. This is, again, a very important, you know, way in order to foster at least some sort of bipartisan cooperation. We'd also pointed out and asked Bill Bullard whenever he was on the show,

Chuck Grassley, another senator from the Midwest, let's put that up there on the screen. He, again, actually tweeted some of his praise there, especially regarding the bipartisan bill for currently addressing the cattle market. Now, look, Bill- Grassley has a special way of communicating on Twitter, by the way. He's a great follow if you aren't already. If you speak septuagenarian, you should be able to decipher it. I personally do not. I'm doing my best in order to translate for everyone. However, I do think that this once again shows that because we do have a crisis in terms of the price of food undeniably going up, cattle input price risen slightly.

And we've gone into some of the reasons why, also because of drought, all of that. But with the vast majority of the price increase being hiked up by the meatpackers themselves, yesterday we revealed to all of you that 60% nearly of the current inflation price of cost is actually going directly to corporate profits. Not small businessmen, but Fortune 500 companies who are using input prices as an excuse to jack up the price higher than the necessary commensurate increase in the actual price. They're using it, and they're actually bragging about it to a lot of their shareholders. Remember Bill Bullard?

He was one of the guests that we posted while we were off for the holidays. He works for, was it RCAF? Yeah. It's an organization dedicated to protecting small ranchers and going after the meatpacking kind of oligarchy who are basically destroying the American ranching way of life. And when we talked to him about it, wanted to highlight part of that interview. Let's take a listen. Just take us into some of the reasons why beef prices have gone up so much. Well, the reason is, is the marketplace is fundamentally broken. You have four packers

controlling 85% of the fed cattle market. They have control over the marketplace. We filed an antitrust lawsuit against the big four packers, alleging that they have conspired to artificially depress prices to cattle producers, while at the same time inflating prices to consumers. So for the past six years, we've seen consumer beef prices rising and we've seen cattle prices falling. In fact, they're moving in the opposite directions. And this is a great concern

because the only ingredient in beef is cattle. And so there should be a harmonious relationship between the two price points, but that's not occurred. And since 2017, we've seen beef prices skyrocketing So there should be a harmonious relationship between the two price points. But that's not occurred. And since 2017, we've seen beef prices skyrocketing that consumers are paying at the grocery store. And at the same time, we have cattle producers who are being forced out of business because they cannot receive their cost of production from the broken marketplace. We have two problems. We have a lack of competition in the entire live cattle marketing

structure, and then we have globalization. There you go. I mean, he lays it all out there. The meat industry is so broken. Bill is the first person who ever highlighted me to it. I had no idea, Crystal, about that country of origin labeling, how you can say product of the USA, and you're from Uruguay. I mean, people who are consumers think, and I did, thought I was supporting American ranchers. You're not. They've literally rigged the labeling standards from the USDA. They've rigged the laws. They've rigged the marketplace. And now people like Bill, his families, people out there in the West, I mean, this is part of the American identity, the American way of life being completely destroyed by these corporate monopolies. So for once, Biden doing something good,

but you found a very prescient criticism, which we do have to highlight. Yeah, I mean, so here's what I would say. I think this is directionally right. I think that he's focused in the right direction because I do think, listen, there's a lot of reasons that we've gotten into here about what's causing the spike in prices,

but one of the issues is corporate greed. One of the issues is consolidation. Stoller has done a better job than anyone of breaking down exactly what the numbers are and exactly what's happening here. And by the way, these folks are admitting it on their earnings call. I mean, they're telling their show like, oh, inflation, like this is actually great for us. We're able to, I'm paraphrasing, but we're able to increase our prices and way beyond what they're, and they expect that even when the inflation dies down, they're going to be able to keep their prices high because people have gotten used to this new standard and they can get away with it. The meatpacking industry is one of the most egregious examples because you see how they are reaping record profits, how some of the highest price spikes are in meat at the

grocery store when you're trying to feed your family. And meanwhile, on the other end, the ranchers are getting completely screwed. So I'm glad that they are talking about this and focusing on this, but the actual plan itself here, wildly you know i i dug in because this isn't my specific area of expertise to see what people who are advocates and our experts are saying and basically every single one is saying thanks but this is not really going to do anything um i saw one person on twitter saying that you know imagine that your idea for how to deal with Google was like, oh, we're going to help prop up Ask Jeeves. Yeah, that's right. Right?

Wait, what? That's not going to work because you haven't dealt with the larger structural issues. And then what's going to happen? Google's going to buy Ask Jeeves for pennies on the dollar. So you actually only ultimately could be fueling making the big guys even bigger by propping up weak competitors who ultimately they're just going to be able to acquire. So it's really ultimately extremely insufficient. It ends up because of that just being kind of a virtue signal of them being able to go out and say, hey, we're doing something and look at this problem, which is a real problem. I think the only

reason why they're even paying attention to this is because of some of the good people like Lena Kahn that the antitrust movement has been able to put into positions of power. So it shows that their organization, the fact that they had people and personnel ready to go into the pipeline has made a difference. But ultimately, let's put this criticism up on the screen. This is from another rancher, an advocate, similarly positioned as Bill Bullard, but this guy's name is Mike Calicrate. And he just says, listen, if you aren't strengthening antitrust law enforcement, if you don't have truth in labeling, something that Bill Bullard talks a lot about, if you don't stop subsidizing industrial agriculture, and if you don't stop favoring large plants over small processors, then you're ultimately not

really addressing the issue here. And so, look, that's the problem. If you actually want to deal with market consolidation, you have to deal with getting a lot of hate, a lot of anger, going directly head to head against a very powerful industry. And so far, there has been no willingness from the Biden administration ultimately to do that. Well, this is why Washington is so broken. They can say $1 billion for a tiny little fund. Ultimately, that's all that's really within the executive's purview. They have to work with Congress. Congress is broken. They're working on Build Back Better, if that's even such a thing. Now they're focused on voting rights. I mean, look, you can think those are important. I think there are much bigger problems that we could focus on right now. Meat is obviously one of the biggest ones. There's no endorsement of the bill. And look,

let's also be honest. Would this actually get a bunch of Republican votes in the Senate, a filibuster-approved majority? I don't know. I can't tell you the answer to that. It was telling, too. We put the Thomas Massey libertarian tweet out there, which, by the way, he himself has like 50 head of cattle or something like that. So he has a little bit of a financial interest in this as well, which I think it's important to disclose. But his initial tweet was like, they're over the target. And then he's like, but what we really need is deregulation. So when it gets down to the brass tacks of what you're going to do, then, you know, he's not as much into, OK, let's break them up. Let's move in the direction of antitrust. Let's

prop up the small processors and things like that. So when you get down to the solution, it gets a little more complicated. But I actually disagree that there's not anything the Biden administration could do. In the past, when you've had presidents, people like FDR, who would even, you know, indicate that their administration was going to go after these big monopolies, it actually constrained their behavior. Because the biggest check on a monopoly in terms of their pricing power is public outrage. And so by just calling attention to it and creating public outrage and having a credible threat that you're going to do something serious about it, you're going to break them up.

That can in and of itself actually constrain their behavior and drop prices. I completely agree with you. The problem is the Biden administration is historically unpopular. You know, if you're meatpackers, you're like, why should I care what you have to say? You're one of the most historically unpopular presidents in modern history. You're barely alive. I mean, like whenever you give a speech, has he actually even given a speech on this? I don't think so. I mean, they've called it out maybe once or twice from the podium. The public's energy is all directed towards Omicron to have to back up and have that ability. You have to be popular. Well, you have to, you not just have to be popular. You have to have a credible threat. And so far, there's no credible threat that they're really going to be willing to, you know, invoke their hatred and go after them and try to break them up.

So anyway, we wanted to be a little bit positive here and give them a little bit of credit for at least saying something that is directionally correct, but as is often the case with the Biden administration, I mean, the beginning of his administration, we track this routinely where you do an executive order where you're like, well, that sounds good, but I dug into the details and it doesn't actually really do a whole lot. This is another case in point of that direction. And this is what we always try to do here. Trump, you know, same thing. Everybody will be like, oh, we're going after so-and-so. And then we dig into the plan. we're like, no, you're not. Yeah. He said it. He said the nice thing, but then he didn't actually do it. So this is what we try to parse. You know, at least he's talking about the right stuff. If anything, spread the word. This is why your meat

prices are high. All it can really do, you know, people like Bill Bullard and others, you know, there's a lot of people who are really suffering out there and it affects all of us. This is an American identity, what you eat and also the people who produce it. We have to protect them. Yep. Very well said. All right. Let's move on to Omicron. I wanted to try and just highlight the pieces of good news that I don't think are being really propagated by the media. So Miami Hospital, to be clear, just hospital data, COVID data, all of this has been so frustrating to deal with, Crystal. In terms of parsing positivity rates, obviously, we have a test bias.

If you test more, then you're obviously going to see which tests hit, when. Hospitalization, the same thing. We have a policy generally almost every single hospital. A patient enters, they get swabbed for COVID, so are they because of something else with COVID or not? Now, a new hospital in the city of Miami is actually releasing some of their COVID data, but they're breaking it down from people with COVID and then also those who are because of COVID. So let's put this up there on the screen.

Now, 50% of recent COVID, quote unquote, hospitalizations in this Miami-era hospital network are actually people with COVID. Now, of the 22% of all COVID hospitalizations, incidental and non-incidental, so that means with and because of COVID, they are vaccinated. Sorry, yeah, are vaccinated. 48% of vaccinated COVID patients themselves are immunocompromised transplant patients. So it just goes to show you that of the people who are vaccinated because of COVID, obviously vaccination dramatically reduces your likelihood of being in the hospital in the first place.

And then even those who are there who are vaccinated, those people are severely immunocompromised transplant patients. I don't want to minimize their experience. It's terrible. But those types of people are disproportionately always likely to end up in the hospital with the flu, a cold. I mean, when you're on those immunocompromising drugs or whatever and are trying to accept some organs, I mean, it's a bad state. Same with chemo patients and more. They always say people who are

deep in chemo, they're like, hey, you got to keep these people away from, flu can kill you whenever you're in that level of an immunocompromised state. I am not whitewashing their experience. I feel terrible for them. I'm just giving you an example of when we're trying to craft public health and we're trying to have an honest conversation around the hospitalizations and who are the people who are actually in the hospital. This is some of the clearest data that we have yet. New York City is said to be following in due course. They're going to be breaking apart this data. I do have to say I think it's taken, I don't know why it took two years in order for this to be the case.

To get this kind of information. It's very good in order to see this. I think we should celebrate. Vaccines work. They work incredibly well at reducing the risk of hospitalization and death. During the Robert Malone segment, we have another chart actually in order to show you in terms of vaccination status versus unvaccination status in hospitalization. We are talking about almost a tenfold in terms of the difference across all different age groups. It's really consistent. That was that was the part that was really striking in those particular graphs that Derek Thompson tweeted out, is it's really consistent.

No matter what age range you are, you are 10 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID if you are unvaccinated. I mean, that's really the thing for people to understand. I think it is also important to say, like, the fact that you do have a significant amount of the population that has things like, you know, that cause them to be immunocompromised, that is also part of the case for why it is a public responsibility to get vaccinated to help to try to stop the spread, because there are people who, you know, the vaccine is going to be less effective for. And even if they get it and even if they get boosted, it's just not going to work as well. And it's COVID is going to continue to be extraordinarily dangerous for them. But the bottom line here is really simple. It's what we've been saying all along, especially with Omicron being a less severe disease. If you're vaccinated, you're very, very likely to be fine, especially if you're young, especially if you're healthy. Then your

risk with Omicron is extraordinarily low. It's minuscule. And so, yeah, we need to make sure that public policy, especially given the fact that at this point, everybody has had universal access to vaccines for quite a while now. So public policy should reflect that landscape that exists today. Same thing on the Omicron wave, so to speak, regionally, at least here on the East Coast. Things in real time actually seem to be okay. So let's put this up there on the Omicron wave, so to speak, regionally, at least here on the East Coast.

Things in real time actually seem to be okay. So let's put this up there on the screen. So the decline in Google searches for COVID symptoms in the New York metro area over the last week has actually had a pretty significant drop off. And while the test positivity rate continues to be reported, something you guys should all remember is that test results during the Omicron shortage were taking up to like a week or more in order to be reported. Something you guys should all remember is that test results during the Omicron shortage were taking up to like a week or more in order to be reported. So it's actually very possible that it's older results that are being positive and they're being reported in terms of positivity. And also what we're seeing too is that a vast majority of rapid tests and more cases don't ever get reported. Actually, now that I think about it, I never reported my case, you know, because I got a rapid test, you know, because I got

a rapid test, you know, why should I? And so that is something which, again, it's difficult in order to try and get a hold of that. The reason that we look at Google real-time search data is if you look, and this is connecting some of our LabLeak stuff, Lab, you know, if you go and you look at, not Google, I think it's Baidu searches for like diarrhea and cough in Wuhan. It skyrocketed in like the month of October. Wasn't it like October?

In the month of October. It's one of the things that was put together by those Harvard University researchers in terms of open source data where you can pinpoint the exact timeline of the virus when it may, again, may have escaped from the lab and then spread through the Wuhan population. I just am pointing to these types of metrics you may not hear from others. They just take, you know, and painting a very different picture. But sadly, and this is one which I just think is awful, is that Omicron is just really, really closing

a lot of public schools across the country right now. Let's put that up there from the New York Times, which is that schools nationwide confronting the chaos of Omicron. Here in the DMV area, you have a lot of schools that have gone ahead and gone virtual. Even worse though is all of these universities. I mean, universities with literal booster mandates going virtual for what they say is the month of January, but everybody knows is going to continue. And, you know, they're even saying that they won't be coming back in some of these cases. I hear from many of these students and they're like, well, they say until the peak of Omicron is over.

What does that mean? I mean, you know, once again, who decides what the peak is? How long is it to stay? Is it two weeks after? Is it three weeks after what the peak is? Nobody knows. It's just up to these like COVID bureaucrats who are in these places. Who are clearly just making it up as they go along.

Oh, yeah, 100%. Even then, somebody sent me yesterday like the COVID, the head of COVID whatever policy at Georgetown University was like out at a concert with a mascot. But fine. I don't care. Go attend your concert. Attend your show. But you're literally locking down students in their dorms and telling them to like hold meetings outside in the frigid cold while you're not abiding by the same thing. One interesting note, though, of the blue state officials, new mayor Eric Adams sitting down

yesterday and declaring emphatically those schools are not going to close despite Omicron. Let's take a listen to what he said. The safest place for our children is in a school building. And we are going to keep our schools open and ensure that our children are safe in a safe environment. Our children were exposed to an environment of crime and of uncertainty. It really traumatized parents that did not have child care. The remote learning aspect of it was terrible for poorer communities, particularly those children that lived in homeless shelters or that lived or were housing insecure. The food aspect, schools provide primary meals for many students in this city. And then the socialization, we saw increase in suicide, attempted suicides. We're not sending an unclear message of what is going to happen day to day.

I'm going to tell you what's going to happen day to day. We are staying open. Very interesting. I mean, one of the only officials really is just coming out and declaring it forcefully. I think personally, very much on the right side of public opinion and of New York City parents. Kind of public. I mean, I mean, frankly much on the right side of public opinion and of New York City parents, Crystal. And of public policy. I mean, it's just the right decision. The science.

Period. Yeah, I mean, listen, you guys, I'm not a big Mayor Adams fan. I think he is very, you know, too closely tied to corporate interests in New York, especially real estate developers. But on this issue, he's 100% correct. It's going to be extremely popular. And I think he is going to be a very formidable politician, period. Ross Barkin has been tracking him closely. I would recommend to you his latest piece on Mayor Adams and how he now has this coalition of the business community, labor, and working class

African Americans in the city. Which is like unheard of. And, you know, this sort of very clear direction, I think, is what has been lacking a lot on the Democratic side. Another politician I'm not a big fan of is Governor of Colorado, Jared Polis. Yes. Who has taken kind of a similar approach of basically like, look, if you're vaccinated, you're good.

If you're not vaccinated, that's your own damn fault. And we're moving forward. You know, I mean, and he's been very clear about it. And his approval rating in Colorado is way higher than Joe Biden's. 20 points higher. And again, I'm not a big fan of Jared Polis either, who is also another Democratic corporate tool. But in terms of COVID policy, this very clear and

defiant message, I think, is extraordinarily politically smart and potent. And on schools, it's just completely clear to me, based on the data, that it's the right direction. I mean, I understand that in a lot of these districts where they're experiencing, you know, a lot of teachers and staff who have Omicron right now, and it makes it very logistically difficult even to have school because of the number of grownups who are sick and out with this thing. But you should be doing everything you possibly can to keep kids in school because we know they are at very low risk with regards to this disease, negligible risk with regards to this disease. And we know that they were profoundly hurt by virtual school, especially kids who are in the most vulnerable circumstances. So if we can, whatever we need to do to keep the schools open, you know, as a place of stability and as a place of safety and a place where kids get, you know, hot meals every day. We need to make sure that that's a priority.

So I think Mayor Adams is completely right. I couldn't agree with you more. I know some people are worried about child hospitalizations. I did my best to look into the data. The actual total number is really not clear. But from the doctors who are quoted in the Associated Press, more than two-thirds of the kids who end up in hospital have some sort of massive underlying health condition. And I'm not talking about just like being obese. People who are severely immunocompromised have epilepsy or have leukemia or something like that. These are children who

are much, much, much more likely to be affected by any, you know, not coronavirus, rhinovirus, flu, any of these types of diseases. I am not minimizing that. I cannot imagine what it is like in order to have a child in the hospital. But it's just important to have context whenever we're talking about population-wide controls. Right.

Well, the other reason why kids are a larger proportion of those who are hospitalized at this point in the pandemic is because fewer of them are vaccinated. I mean, that's the other piece of it. I actually looked into that, too, in terms of vaccination status and more with children. Yes, vaccination also, you know, in terms of the data, goes and reduces the risk dramatically, again, of hospitalization. But then children have an absolutely low risk in general also. By the way, I also looked into this, both for the show but also. I have kids, one of whom is four and is too young to be vaccinated. And what they're saying from the data is that this is not any more of a risk to kids than previous versions,

previous strains. So, you know, be at least a little bit comforted by that. That's right. All right, let's move on. Speaking of vaccination, unvaccination, we've just been covering this very disturbing trope and trend in high society of people who want to deny health care to people who are unvaccinated. Somebody actually contacted me. They were upset. So let me explain what I said yesterday. When I said it was a libertarian dream in order to deny health care to people, what I'm talking about is the institutional libertarians here in Washington have long been pushing a policy preferred by the insurance companies. You had a libertarian who was

upsetting you. But I think it actually bears explanation. Here's the thing. What they want is for the ability for insurance companies and hospitals to charge people dynamically based upon their health care. Now, that may make sense if you're the insurance company. But if you're the society and you say, no, people have a right to be treated pretty much no matter what, and when you include bias on those, you open up the door to all sorts of troubling conditions. For example, would a lot of these people who are saying unvaccinated should be denied health care, would you support that policy for obesity? Being obese is probably the single worst thing that you can do to your body for heart disease, cancer, all cause mortality, literally everything. Personally, I don't support that whatsoever. I think you should try to take care of yourself, but that doesn't mean that if you get sick, you should be denied health care. Or if you're a smoker or if you struggle with addiction. I mean, it's a never-ending list of, you know, better ways that we could live or things that you could potentially be judged on.

Right. We have 25 percent, I think, of the U.S. Maybe 20 percent of the U.S. population smokes. I think every single one of them should be taken care of, even if they get lung cancer. Yeah. You know, was it the smartest thing to do? No. But that's not the country that we live in and nor should it be one. And yet,

elite society, who once championed Barack Obama for removing the preconditioned bias of insurance companies, now want to bring it back not only in insurance, but in terms of economic policy as well. Put this up there on the screen, which is that the Washington Post editorial board, this is not a random columnist. I'm talking about the actual voice of the paper, says, quote, handing out unemployment aid to people who refuse to get vaccinated is silly. And they are pointing to specifically to different states which are going to provide unemployment insurance for people who may lose their job or, you know, if they can claim they lose their job because of vaccination status. Now, look, once again, nobody has been more supportive, you open up, you know, all of these things that they've railed against in the past. They are, what constitutionally makes this different? And I don't mean like in terms of the U.S. Constitution, like in terms of the character of this than like a work requirement, or going after people, welfare means testing, or going and

changing things on single mothers versus others. These are policies they've railed against whenever it comes to the SNAP program, welfare, it's denial, systemic bias, all of that. But then whenever it comes to just simple vaccination status, they want to go out and say that you want to deny people unemployment. This totally drives me crazy because it's, so what they're arguing here is that there are a few states,

a few red states that specifically passed provisions that said, if you get fired because you wouldn't get vaccinated, we're going to make sure we cover unemployment insurance. And they rightly point out that there's some hypocrisy there from those red states who were the first to pull unemployment insurance during the pandemic and have been very stingy with regards to unemployment benefits in general. However, they don't recognize their own hypocrisy, that they were on the other side of that issue. And they were right in that regard, saying that, listen, we got to make sure the economy is crazy,

that workers that get fired for whatever reason, whether they're gig workers or they're, you know, regular wage earners, that they are provided unemployment insurance. So this is the polar opposite of the direction of anyone who considers themselves liberal, left, progressive, whatever on that side of the spectrum, or just like a basically decent human being should be advocating for. We should be going in the opposite direction with unemployment insurance, where whatever reason you're unemployed, you should get support, period. Because what they're opening this up to is they say, well, since you were fired for cause, you're not eligible for unemployment insurance. That gives the employers a lot of leeway to say who deserves it and who

doesn't. And it can be hard to parse through the exact reason why someone ultimately was fired. Even with something that may seem clear cut, like vaccination status, sometimes employers also, they'll use something, like we saw with Chris Smalls, they'll use some minor breaking of some provision in order to justify firing you because you were a pain in the butt to them for some other reason, including sometimes labor organizing and things like that within the organization. They will be able to find whatever justification to fire you for cause, and those people should still get unemployment benefits. So this is moving the program in the direction of making it much worse. It will have zero effect in terms of ending the pandemic. And it reveals this punitive mindset of judgment and shaming and censorship that has become way too common and way too dominant within the liberal mindset.

So that's why it's so disturbing. They have this line in here in this editorial that I think is very revealing. They say, and I quote, it's telling that business groups, including many state chambers of commerce, are against giving unemployment aid to people refusing to get vaccinated. They fear the policy will result in higher taxes on companies to pay for these benefits. The bulk of unemployment funding comes from taxes on businesses, though the federal government typically kicks in additional money during recessions. They're right. It is telling that business groups are on their side here because they're worried about, they want to be able to kick as many people off of unemployment insurance as they possibly can. And this provides them a ready-made way to kick even more people out of the program. So yes,

it is telling just in the polar opposite of the way that you're ultimately indicating here. And I also think we should explain this. Who owns Washington Post? People don't actually understand this, which is that the editorial board is the voice of the owner. The voice of the, or so the Wall Street Journal editorial board reflects the views, the biases of Rupert Murdoch himself. The editorial board of the New York Times, that's the Salzberger family. People don't seem to understand that the editorial board traditionally is the outlet. This goes back all the way to the Hearst days in terms of pushing the editorials and using them in order to voice opinions held by the owners themselves. Well, who owns the Washington Post? You all know the answer. It's Jeff Bezos. And if you want to put side by side that op-ed trying to deny people unemployment whenever they've lost their job for a cause which you may not justify as just, but it's not really up to you to decide.

This is how Mr. Bezos spent his New Year's. I've been trying hard in order to work this photo into the show. Let's put it up there on the screen. So here he is, I think the second richest man in the world. Classy guy. Very classy. Bezos, for those who are just listening, is sitting here in a tight floral shirt,

very extremely tight white pants. The tight pants are what really make me with this girlfriend. This is a picture which was taken in St. Barts, which is where a bunch of rich people hang out, and they were hanging out on a yacht, which cost $42,000 a week in order to be on. Very relatable.

So here you have a man who's 57 years old, clearly blasting a ton of testosterone and HGH and all sorts of other peptides and things. I mean, this is— Going through a midlife crisis. Just screams midlife crisis. Yeah. Screams it. $275 billion, whose organ in our national politics is pumping out and advocating for a policy to deny unemployment to disproportionately black people,

to disproportionately poor white people as well. I don't think of a, I can't think of a better metaphor. I mean, just first of all, like have some dignity. I don't even know what to say whenever it comes to this. I was telling you, say what you will about the robber barons. They were never this way. They had some self-respect. They built libraries.

This guy, I mean, I don't even know what to say. Yeah, I guess the silver lining of that photo is that you can see even when you're like either the first or second richest man on the planet, you can still have deep insecurities and go through profound midlife crises as is very clearly evidenced in that photo. So anyway, that's the guy who wants fewer people to get unemployment benefits. Thank you, Mr. Bezos. Okay, speaking of the rich, lack of dignity, so much more. We follow this very closely. Things are coming to a head in the legal battle between Prince Andrew and Virginia Gouffre. Virginia Gouffre, for those who don't know, one of the most credible Epstein accusers

who accuses Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her whenever she was a young girl. Multiple times. Multiple girls at the direction of Jeffrey Epstein and more. Well, a new once confidential settlement agreement was revealed in court yesterday, which actually implicates Epstein, Prince Andrew, and validates a lot of what Virginia Gouffre has been saying. So let's put this up there from Law and Crime, which is that a 2009 settlement agreement was signed by Jeffrey Epstein is now figuring prominently in the Prince Andrew case that is being brought in a civil court in New York City. So what you can actually see in the settlement, it was $500,000 settlement deal between, quote, other potential defendants from an Epstein-related liability. Andrew is actually invoking this once-long-secret provision in trying to fend off the lawsuit by Virginia Gufray. Now, the reason why is that within the lawsuit, they basically

argue that he falls into an expressly identified categories and a release of liability from within this agreement. But really why it's important is that this $500,000 payment from Epstein to Virginia Gouffre, this is a secret, it's a 2009 settlement, actually shows you that there was not an admission necessarily, but a payment between the two. And that validates, again, Gouffre's own claims that she was victimized by Jeffrey Epstein. And it goes that he was so worried enough about her, he was willing to pay her off to the tune of half a million dollars, and that it is possible that Prince Andrew and the accusations and more were even included within that settlement agreement, Crystal. Yeah, I mean, first of all, listen, I'm not a lawyer.

This seems crazy to me that you can have this kind of language at a settlement that says, not only are we done here, but you can't go after anyone else, and these groups of people get a total pass indefinitely, not just on any sort of sexual assault charges, but anything that they might do to you ever. It seems crazy to me that that is, you know, allowable, but that's the language that's in this. They have a quote in this article from an attorney, Mitchell Epner, who's a former federal prosecutor who led intake on sex trafficking cases in New Jersey in 2003 and 2004, who marveled at the breadth of the agreement. He said this is an extraordinarily broad release that on its face releases any claims that Ms. Gouffray has against anyone she might have been able to sue as a result of sexual abuse by Epstein, it releases all claims she ever had or now has for upon,

for by any reason of any matter, whether known or unknown from the beginning of the world to the day of this release. So if Prince Andrew had run Virginia Giffray over in a hidden run, that would be released too. So just extraordinarily broad reaching. This is some of the language that Alan Dershowitz has also cited in saying that, hey, you can't do anything here because I also was party to this agreement. And, you know, the other one that was done down in Florida that he helped negotiate also had similar language of basically like you can't come after any of us at any time in the future either. It's just crazy. And to your point, sort of backs up her claims that there was a lot more going on here and it was a lot more than just Epstein. Because otherwise, why do you include all these other categories of people in this kind of settlement?

That's the key, which is that the settlement in 2009 was not just Epstein paying her off, but it included all this insane language within it to try and possibly head off events exactly like this one from Prince Andrew, from the powerful people. You should remember, I mean, Gouffre is accused, not just Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew is one of the people in there. I'm talking about like former prime minister of Israel. A lot of different folks were named by her. I mean, with this one, it's just so clear. There's literally a photo of him with his hand around her waist when she was an underage girl.

Like, you got him dead to rights. And, you know, he was like, I don't even know. What did he say in the interview? He's like, I don't even know if that's me. Or, you know, like, who knows? Well, yeah. Yeah, he's like. He was, and he was trying to say, like, oh, I have this condition that keeps me from sweating.

Right, yeah. That's right. He wouldn't even beat me. I can't sweat. Her lawyers, yeah, because, I have this condition that keeps me from sweating. Right, yeah. That wouldn't even be me. I can't sweat. Her lawyers, yeah, because she had said he was profusely sweating. Oh, I don't sweat. I have this condition. Her lawyers have been trying to get him to produce some sort of documentation of his alleged medical condition.

That has not been forthcoming yet. Yeah. The whole way that this has been handled is just so outrageous. And, look, none of this should be taken as evidence that there will ever be any justice here. Because we should remember, Prince Andrew is currently battling even the necessity of having to appear in court or even have his representatives be appearing here in a court in New York for civil court because they don't want any of this to come to trial. They have gone to extraordinary lengths. Remember, we told you

previously, they have gone to lengths to make sure he wasn't served with papers. They have argued that they don't even have jurisdiction over him because he lives in the UK. He has said that he will help US authorities. And the FBI has tried to interview him dozens of times. He refuses to schedule an interview. He's been retired from royal duties and completely in hiding ever since that disastrous BBC interview. He's a man with a lot to hide, and this secret settlement raises a lot of questions for him, Crystal. Indeed. There's also a weird side note to this one, which is that it just so happens that two of the judges who were involved in the release here are the very same judges who railroaded Steven Donziger and sent him to prison,

Lewis Kaplan and Judge Preska. Just a weird side note of the way that these worlds intersect. Just saying. Just strange. All right. Anyway, all right. Listen, a lot of you guys want us to cover this story,

and I do think it's really interesting and very significant. So we listened to the whole thing. Let's put that at the very top. Yes, so, okay. Both of us. Dr. Robert Malone, who has become very prominent, especially in those who we'll call vaccine hesitant and also anti-vaxxers, like outright anti-vaxxers.

He went on Joe Rogan's podcast for a lengthy interview. We both listened to all of it. The entire thing. So that we could be educated on who this individual was, what exactly he was saying, what arguments he was making. He also then afterwards went on InfoWars. Which Crystal listened to and I did not. Which I also listened to. And we'll get into a little bit more of the substance of what he's saying, et cetera.

But it was interesting to me that clearly with Rogan, he knows Rogan is smart. He can be skeptical and inquisitive. He has a lot of data to back it up. And so he brought the science-y version of himself to Rogan. On InfoWars, he was full in great reset, new world order, world economic forum. He really kind of let it all hang out there. So put that to the side, and we'll get to more of that in a moment. The reason that a lot of people are now talking about this and paying attention is because YouTube took down all of the clips of the interview that Malone did with Rogan.

This also, he did the interview, it was like a day after Twitter had banned his account. Permanently. So Twitter and YouTube both censoring what Robert Malone is ultimately saying. Let's go ahead and throw the Daily Mail tear sheet up on the screen here. They say YouTube and Twitter delete Joe Rogan interview with scientists who helped invent mRNA vaccines. Dr. Robert Malone claimed U.S. is now like Nazi Germany with society hypnotized to believe in vaccines and extreme pandemic measures. The quote that they're referring to there, which was part of, you know, part of what was very controversial about what he was saying on Rogan's podcast, as he said, quote, it was from basically European intellectual inquiry into what the heck happened

in Germany in the 20s and 30s, very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad. And how did that happen? The answer is mass formation psychosis. When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other and has free-floating anxiety in a sense that things don't make sense, we can't understand it. And then their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis, they literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere. Okay, so that was part of what was so controversial about what he was saying. And the clips specifically, which were taken off and censored. Yes. Very true. So let me start with the part that actually all of this to me is fairly straightforward, but we have a very clear stance on this show. I think, and I'm going to get into this more. I do think

that this individual is irresponsible. I think he only focuses exclusively on the risks. I think he cherry picks his evidence with regards to what he wants to say about the vaccine, does not focus at all on the benefits. In some areas, you know, he's very misleading in the claims that he makes, even as he's a very sophisticated person. But he shouldn't be censored. And this whole direction, we talked about this with Marjorie Taylor Greene yesterday. Do I like Marjorie Taylor Greene? No, I don't like Marjorie Taylor. I think she's been irresponsible with regard to coronavirus too. Do I think that the appropriate response to that, an effective response to that even, is to censor and de-platform and ban, et cetera? No.

And in some instances, as we've covered, de-platforming does actually work to suppress certain people and minimize them. In this instance, though, and I think with Marjorie Taylor Greene, too, it's having the polar opposite effect. Like, if you didn't want people to hear what this dude said, congratulations, I wasn't going to listen to what he said, but now I want to listen to all like freaking four hours of his interviews. You're making this guy into a star. It's the same thing with the way that they have this sort of like Ron DeSantis derangement syndrome. You're making him president.

You are making these people. Because you're validating what is part of Malone's message. It's, oh, this information is so dangerous to the staff. They don't want you to hear it. They want to censor this. They want to allow this conversation. And then you go out and validate exactly what he is saying in terms of like, oh, they're just so afraid of this information being out there. In a healthy society, if you are confident in the views that you hold, and I am very confident in my view that for most people, the risks of getting the vaccine are much less than the benefits that you'll derive. And we'll put up some charts in a moment. If you're confident in that position, be confident enough to go and have the conversation, have the debate.

Put your viewpoint out there like Sanjay Gupta did when he went on with Joe Rogan. Which was very useful. Yes, or like I was thinking too about the type of conversations that Breonna Joy Gray has been having on her podcast with people who are, you know, sometimes problematic or controversial. Where she's not afraid to engage with them and debate with them and expose where their views are silly sometimes or wrong. And that defangs it so much. You shouldn't be afraid of information. You shouldn't be afraid of having this debate. You shouldn't be afraid of things that are even wrong or misleading. If you're confident in your view, go out and have the debate and tell them why they are wrong.

I completely agree. And, you know, I listened to both Peter McCullough and to Robert Malone, and I learned some things from some of them. I actually believe some of what they were saying was correct, which was that there absolutely was a campaign in the early days to shut down discussion of therapeutic and to move people towards vaccination. On the substance of vaccination itself, and this actually gets to what also annoys me about Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone, look, the data is pretty clear. They like to talk about data. This one is clear as day. Let's put it up there. This is from Derek Thompson. I mean, look at this. We are talking about a risk of hospitalization across every single age group, which is dramatically reduced from vaccination. Now, that is a fact.

But look, it is true that there does seem to be a deep discomfort of people to acknowledge some basic facts, which is that from the beginning, yes, we were sold a message that COVID vaccines would prevent you from getting COVID for a variety of reasons around breakthrough, Delta, Omicron, and all that. That seems to be the effect of that has been reduced very much over time, certainly not with what the expectation was there. However, the hospitalization death one is certainly there. In terms of the adverse effects, simply right now in the data, there is

no reliable way to know. The VAERS system often is reported by healthcare workers and others. Some say it could be underreported as much as 1%. Some people say that it's not reliable. I have no idea. It's not my job from the FDA. The number one thing that I actually take away from this, Crystal, is that pharma is such a cancer upon our healthcare system that from now to the future, we have to abolish so much of their control because it actually makes it so that people have legitimate reason to be suspect. Another thing I did not know until listening to Dr. Peter McCullough and Robert Malone, and also I'm blanking on his name, the guy who did the sickening episode around Big Pharma. John Abramson. John Abramson, which was that, once again, I had no idea, was that whenever it comes to the actual data that is turned over for peer-reviewed journals, that data is actually owned by Big Pharma, who conduct conduct the trials themselves and that the quality control

over the actual raw data itself is not turned out, is not turned over, which means that they can try and screw with data in different ways that they've been caught doing so in court cases, for example, like Vioxx. That is something which is dramatically reducing public trust in all of this. So to me, my main takeaway is it is very clear that the vaccine works. It is very clear also that uncomfortable conversations are being dramatically censored off of YouTube, Twitter, and more, which is fueling a lot of people's conspiracy. And third, which is that the core of it to me is that the pharma control over the data and more has to end. It just has to in order to restore any confidence in our health system in the future.

Well, I mean, listen, if you, I agree with the problems of pharma, obviously, and the problems of profit within our medical system writ large, which has led to, for us in the U.S., some of the worst health outcomes in the developed world, the worst health outcomes in the developed world, the worst health outcomes at the highest cost. You are being price gouged to be kept sick and with chronic conditions.

Like that is what our system incentivizes. They make the most money when you are chronically ill. And so guess what? We have a population that at disproportionate levels is chronically ill. And so guess what? We have a population that at disproportionate levels is chronically ill. Those problems, very real problems of profit incentive corrupting the entire pharmaceutical industry and the entire healthcare industry, create also a hotbed for conspiracy theories and mistrust. So that is a big part. And if you agree with that, and I think that most of our audience does, you should be pushing for some sort of single payer health care, some

way to get the profit motive out of the center of our health care system. That's also part of my frustration with people like this guy. He wants to sow all this, you know, upset about what's going on in our system, but they never go that extra step of saying, like, here's why we need to reform our healthcare system in X and Y and Z way, in particular with something like Medicare for All or some sort of system that brings us closer to where the rest of the developed world ultimately is. But, you know, I want to bring this back to the substance of what he's saying, because I think this is really important. And again, I think that Dr. Malone is one of the more sophisticated actors in this zone of, you know, a lot of people really resist the sort of anti-vax label. But when the bulk of your argument, when

90 percent of your argument is about why the vaccine is dangerous and that's all that you focus on. I really don't care if you yourself are personally vaccinated. He says he is, but he also says he regrets getting it. The substance of the arguments that you're making, yeah, you are leading people to be way more skeptical of the vaccine than they should be. He says in the Rogan podcast, he says, I believe in informed consent. That means people knowing about both the cost and the risks, but also the benefits. But he only talks about the risks. And so he, now listen, what I've heard other people say, and I don't know if he would make this argument or not, it's like, yeah, but everybody else is talking about the benefits. So

let them talk about, I'm just going to focus on this part because it's being under-talked about, it's not being discussed enough. But the problem is when people really trust you, and there are a lot of people who really trust this guy and are really looking for his guidance and believe, especially because he did have a hand in development of mRNA technology, that this is someone who is incredibly credible and they're going to really take his word for what they should do with their body, if you are only yourself presenting the part on the risks, then a lot of people aren't going to believe the other part of the benefits even exists. So it's incumbent on you when you're in a position like him, where you have a lot of people who trust you and are looking to you for guidance to present yourself the complete picture of the risks, yes, which frankly, as far as we know, are relatively minimal and the benefits, which are very, very clear. At this point in the pandemic, we do have enough

data from enough places, not just here in the U.S. where our healthcare system is completely screwed up, but other countries around the world and the findings are remarkably consistent. If you are vaccinated, you receive significant protection. Your risk of being hospitalized at every demographic, no matter who you are, no matter where you are, no matter what country you're in, are about 10 times less being hospitalized if you are vaccinated. So ultimately, listen, if you listen to the podcast, it's three hours long. There's a lot of information there. It can feel like I'm getting overwhelmed with all of this data information and these stories in this country and that country and whatever. It's ultimately very simple. If you look at those charts that

we put up on the screen from Derek Thompson. The vaccines provide a lot of benefit against severe hospitalization and death. That is the most important piece of data. So don't get sort of snowed by all of the things that are thrown at you in those three hours. That's the most critical piece of information to understand. I agree. And this also comes down to, I think Rogan himself has discussed it. And he has the biggest platform. So he's probably the person who can make it happen.

I do think somebody should sit, somebody like Sanjay Gupta, somebody like the TV, Peter Hotez, or, you know, any of these virologists. Yeah, don't be afraid of this guy. He shouldn't be afraid. Go and talk with him, please. I am begging you in order to see exactly this, you know, the balance. Somebody put that chart up and be like, hey, what do you make of this then, right? I mean, this is the lack of discussion. And it also, the selective coverage, I think, on the media as well is very bad. And because you lead to people thinking like, oh,

well, nobody, you know, I saw CNN yesterday saying new study shows, you know, if you're obese, you're more likely to be from COVID. I'm like, new? Like, you've known this since April of 2020. Whenever things get ignored in order to, you know, propagate a single solution and then the people who are distrustful of that solution see that, you know, those things being ignored, it makes them feel correctly as if all the facts are not being presented to people. I also believe in informed consent. I wish that that doctor and Peter McCullough also would provide people with these charts and provide a balanced picture of what's happening. I accept the argument, oh, well, you hear it from everybody else. But whenever you're talking on both sides of this, you need to try and present that fullness. So that's what we think.

I think it's outrageous that the man should be taken off of Twitter and of YouTube, that he did ultimately invent the mRNA platform and some of the technology. I think he has a right to say everything that he has been. And I think that the debate around this is very needed. If these doctors are becoming world famous, you know, a lot of these guys are on MSNBC all of the time, do something useful and sit down with this guy or Peter McCullough and be like, no, this is why I think you're wrong. You would be so much more of that. The thing that, you know, that exchange between Sanjay Gupta and Rogan was one of the best conversations that we've seen in this regard because people have a lot of reasons to be skeptical and uncomfortable

that are legitimate. Our healthcare system does suck. People have had bad experiences with the medical system. You have been lied to. I mean, some of it, we just learned this week about these prenatal tests for the New York Times that, you know, I had when I was pregnant with my second, I think both of my, my second two that you're told, like, they're going to tell you whether you have these rare conditions and they're wildly inaccurate. Like 90% wrong. Like 90% of the positive instances end up being incorrect.

And there's very little disclosure about it. So bottom line is people have good reasons for feeling skeptical and nervous about the information that you're being provided. Trying to censor and kick off platforms and shut down and pull the clips and all this stuff, you are only adding fuel to the fire. You are only feeding their narrative that these views are uncomfortable and they don't want the truth to come out and all of these things. So much better to engage and debate and not be afraid of having the exchange. If you're confident in your views, don't be afraid of having the exchange. That is ultimately my bottom line here. That's right.

Let's not forget mini block. Oh, yeah. Yeah, because we wanted to make sure we updated everybody. It broke last night, so we didn't have the ability to slot it on the little bottom graphic. But Elizabeth Holmes has gone ahead and been convicted of four out of the 11 counts. Now, I looked into this and I said, what exactly is going on here? So here's what happened. Four of the counts of wire fraud specifically against investors were ones where Holmes was found guilty by the jury. On three of the counts of wire fraud, there was no verdict reached.

The jury was deadlocked on those. And then on four of the counts of also of wire fraud, but specifically towards bad marketing, she was found not guilty. Now, in terms of the actual charges of which she was found guilty, those four, specifically on wire fraud, of defrauding of her investors. Now, on those in particular, here's what they said. There is a maximum of 20 years on each count. So I guess technically she faces up to 80 years in prison. However, most people who are convicted of wire fraud like this, multiple counts specifically, usually serve them concurrently.

And then even then, I think the average time served is usually like two years for somebody of this charge. The government will probably bring a bigger case against Ms. Holmes for why she should spend more time in prison. But that's what happened. Personally, I don't know how the hell she even got found not guilty on four of these. On any of it. One of them was on defrauding patients.

Look, I wasn't on the jury. I trust the legal system generally, or at least juries much more than I trust other people. She was specifically not found guilty of defrauding patients. Yeah. If you read the book, Bad Blood, and all the cases here, people made real-time medical decisions with her bullshit tests. And that's actually, people were like, why do you care so much about defrauding rich people? Honestly, I don't in terms of those people.

I care about those people who had to make bad medical decisions based upon her BS blood tests. That has always been the number one way that she harmed, you know, normal folks who trusted her technology. Yeah, that is what stood out to me as well, as she was convicted, some of the charges she was convicted of all pertained to the investors.

And she was found not guilty on all the charges that pertained to the patients who were depending on these tests to make real-time health and medical decisions. So kind of a mixed bag in terms of an outcome, but she was found guilty and will serve probably some time in prison. So there is some justice here. I mean, the reason this case has been interesting is because it intersects with our culture.

It intersects with media. I mean, media really wanted to believe in this girl boss story. Oh, yeah. She very intentionally played up all of that, even like dressing like Steve Jobs, wanting to be portrayed as the female Steve Jobs, this young woman. I mean, they just were all in on the narrative of it. And very few journalists had the sort of technical background or expertise to actually dig into whether this worked. John Kerry Roo obviously was the person at The Wall Street Journal who blew this whole thing open and started digging. And ultimately that leads to finding out that, you know, what was supposed to be happening is you draw this little prick of blood and you're supposed to be able to do all.

They have these groundbreaking machines that are going to test for all these different things with this little vial of blood and you're supposed to be able to do all, they have these groundbreaking machines that are going to test for all these different things with this little vial of blood. Well, what they were really doing was that test only worked for a couple of different things. Everything else, they were just using existing machines from other companies. They're screwing up the results oftentimes because it was all done so sloppily. And not only that, but of course, wildly misleading their investors to believe that they're pushing this technology forward. They had a who's who, you know, very prominent people who are involved, who are on the board, who were supporting. And again, people wanted to believe the story. And she understood the way to play the media and make herself into a superstar. And then the

other piece is like the culture of Silicon Valley, which is this sort of like fake it till you make it, where there's a very thin line from being, you know, a bold and audacious world-changing entrepreneur and just being like a con man and a charlatan. To defend them, which I will rarely do, she was lying. You know, it's like she was a liar in terms of her machine. It didn't work. Like, at the end of the day, they knew it didn't work,

raised money for a machine that didn't work, sold a machine that didn't work to Walgreens that actual patients then ended up using, which had screwed up data. Unforgivable, in my opinion. I could care less about the rich folks, but they have rights to.

But when it comes to those people, and I read about them, who thought they had allergies or made bad medical decisions and themselves got screwed up because of her tech, screw her. So she deserves to spend a long time in prison. Yeah.

She really does. Yes, she does. All right, Tiger, what are you looking at? Well, once upon a time, I was a White House correspondent. Honestly, it was an awful job. You mostly chased the president around the White House grounds. You shout questions with very little hope of answers. And obviously, you are crammed into a room that hasn't been updated since 1980 with some characters, to put it nicely.

Although some, I assume, are good people. And while I mostly hated it, the job taught me a lot about how power works in this country. Most fundamentally, it revealed to me that the White House and the press are equal actors in a fake game, for ratings and for propaganda. That the structures in place are set and put into the place for mutual career benefit, and that the American people are mostly forgotten in that equation. Now, one of the ways that this is done is the seating chart in the White House press briefing room. Yeah, I know it sounds mundane, but please stick with me because what I'm about

to show you is exactly how the system is rigged. Worse, how the system is put into place to deny you the accountability you deserve of your White House and your press corps. The seating chart of the White House press briefing room is not up to the White House, contrary to popular opinion. They don't care where people sit. The seating chart is determined by the White House Correspondents Association, an organization I was once a card-carrying member of. Now, that organization is comprised of already existing news outlets that cover the White House, who then govern and set the rules within them as to who sits where. In general, getting called on in the White House press briefing room is a lot easier if you have a seat. The only way to get a

seat is to be a member of the WHCA. And even then, you have to have been in for years to petition to get one. You have to have been certified by them. It's a whole process. Who do you think gets the best seats? Why? CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, AP, The Washington Post, The New York Times. You're starting to get the idea. It's a guild. They protect their own. More importantly, they protect their proximity to power. This matters because the questions you get in the briefing room are basically the only time the administration is held accountable. So if you control the questions, you control the accountability. Now, with Omicron is a perfect excuse with getting even less accountability there used to be before. See, before COVID, the briefing room was still open. You could just walk in and stand up and

try to get called on. It's how I used to. Here's a photo of me doing just that in a tie that you might recognize. Here's the problem, though. During COVID, the White House briefing room was restricted, understandably, at least before vaccines. The WHCA accommodated people who used to stand like me with a rotating seat in the briefing room. Not perfect, but at least it was something that allowed reporters from nontraditional outlets to at least get a chance to ask a question every once in a while. Some of those questions from my friends have been great. They actually pushed the White House outside of whatever contrarian stuff that at least Fox News was pushing that day. But now, because of Omicron, you are witnessing how institutional power protects its own. The WHCA has now brought back restricted seating in the room,

which includes permanent spots for a representative brought back restricted seating in the room, which includes permanent spots for a representative from the TV, for the wires, rotational seats for everybody else. But here's the thing. The WHCA is literally 99% vaccinated, and they are already required masks. What are they protecting people from? A cold? And here's what's worse, as my friend Amber Anthony explains. Previously, when the WHCA limited attendance in the briefing room, there was one rotating seat that all members could qualify for. Now, the briefing room seats are limited only to outlets with previously assigned seats. This means that smaller and more independent outlets that used to stand, people like me, now cannot get the chance to attend a briefing to ask a question, which in practice means this. The only

people allowed in the briefing room right now are the people who work for the establishment media. This is the White House press briefing room we're talking about here. If you ask most Americans, they can recall it on TV or from a movie. It is a symbol of the free press. But now it's a symbol of what the media really does in this country. They protect access to power for themselves and they rig the system. I can assure you the people happiest about this are the Biden administration, who, you know, now don't have to ask, don't have to face shouted questions from pesky reporters from smaller independent outlets. People wonder how and why people who have huge platforms online are ignored by people in DC. This is the answer. The people and what they want do not matter. Only thing that does is the people already inside of

the guild who work with those in power to push the narrative. Now look, a lot of the people who work in the WHCA, they are good people. They really are. But they are trapped inside an already existing system. One of the most important parts of the landmark manufacturing consent was describing in detail how if you are somebody who wants to stir the pot or challenge the system, you will never even get the opportunity to do so. Someone as irreverent as me is not even allowed in the briefing room today if I wanted to ask a question. And here's the course, the real one.

When does this go away? Right now is a pivotal time for this country. Jen Psaki literally mocked us from the podium a couple of weeks ago. The president is one of the least approved presidents in modern history. Americans are pissed and they really do deserve answers from their government. But they're being robbed of that by their supposed representatives in the free press. And it shows you how hollow so much of what that rhetoric was during the Trump administration. When they say freedom the free press, and it shows you how hollow so much of what that rhetoric was during the Trump administration. When they say freedom of the press, they really mean freedom for them to continue spinning lies and to divide us. Most people know in their bones that this sucks,

that the media is awful, and they want better. I'm lucky at least enough to have been inside. So I've been inside the system, and I can explain to you that mechanisms, those that are in place which determine what you see and what you hear. And more and more, it is being revealed as fake. So spread the word, because the more of the legitimacy that they lose, the more ability there is in the future to change. I mean, Crystal, this is one of those tiny little

inside things. I mean, nobody would even know. And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagar's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, guys, something truly shocking happened during the pandemic. Some of the government relief programs instituted quickly to keep the nation from falling off a cliff. They actually worked really well. Mind you, it was far from perfect.

Workers would have been a lot less stressed if they'd been able to stay in their jobs. The unemployment system proved rickety and frustrating for a lot of people. Fed policies funneled trillions more in cash to the top than what was made available to the broader public. That fueled mass inequality. But certain things that were done, they actually worked and they really actually helped. The so-called unemployment super dole effectively replaced income not just for wage earners but also for gig workers. The direct checks that families received went out pretty efficiently and gave households a much-needed boost. The child tax credit checks seem to have also been a glowing success, dramatically reducing childhood poverty and also hunger.

The net result was that during a time when mass joblessness was the norm, poverty actually went down, and the amount in American savings accounts actually went up. What's more, in spite of being told for decades that giving people money would result in a bunch of lazy, indolent couch potatoes wasting their cash on booze and big screen televisions, people used the money quite responsibly. Personally, I don't really care what adults decide to do with their own money, but it turns out they used it to pay down bills, decisions, people use the money quite responsibly. Personally, I don't really care what adults decide to do with their own money, but it turns out they used it to pay down bills, invest in education, and do similar sorts of things that I think everyone would feel were basically good uses

of that extra cash. I thought that this whole situation, the government showing it can actually alleviate poverty and suffering when it wants to, the public demonstrating they aren't, in fact, just a bunch of impulsive children or lazy cows to be prodded, that all of this might actually change the game. I allowed myself to believe that perhaps the austerity politics that we have suffered through my entire life had suffered a fatal blow. I now believe that those hopes were ridiculously, foolishly naive. As soon as a bit of the immediate pandemic crisis had abated, an organized attack on every aspect of the social spending programs was mounted.

Taken together, it amounts to a war on the working class. First came the attacks on the unemployment program, which we were told confidently was the reason why the labor force participation rate remained stuck at a lower level. Those lazy workers would rather cash their super dole checks than get a job. Now, it made some sense, and it was echoed by the Biden administration. But when states moved to cut their programs, they found it made no difference at all. Data be damned, however, the federal government moved ahead with their own plans to allow all of those unemployment provisions to lapse. But the new attack on social spending and push for austerity has been far more successful

in persuading the public because it actually does have a grain of truth to it. Deficit hawks have been predicting inflation for years, actually for decades. This time, their predictions finally came true. And they have set about relentlessly making the case that social spending is the primary cause of that inflation. Now, the reason I say their arguments do have a grain of truth is because consumer spending has surged beyond pre-pandemic levels. People are buying more things. And since our fragile, globalized supply chain has broken down in key ways, that spending, combined with those supply chain issues, has contributed to increased prices. Then on top of that, as we've been discussing here, large corporations have seized on inflation

as an excuse to further raise their prices even more and fatten their profit margins, accounting for some 60% of the increase in inflation. But rather than deal with these supply chain issues or corporate greed issues, deficit hawks are coming after the meager benefits that have been provided to regular people. Imagine thinking that the biggest problem in the economy is working class people having a tiny bit of savings in their accounts. Now, Joe Manchin has been the greatest ally for those committed to social spending austerity in his decision to act as corporate America's tool and kill Build Back Better, he cited both inflation and also a new version of the old welfare queen lie. Manchin claimed, counter to all evidence, that parents were routinely using their child tax credit dollars to buy drugs.

In an interview with the New York Times, one of Manchin's own constituents, a mother named Anna Lara, she explained that she had used the extra child tax credit money, not for drugs, but to fix the brakes on her car, stock up on laundry detergent when it was on sale, and get a new car seat for her daughter. The end of that child tax credit program has made Lara extremely anxious. She says, quote, it's going to be hard next month. And just thinking about it, it really makes me want to bite my nails to the quick. Honestly, it's going to be scary. It's going to be hard going back to not having it. So now, instead of the pandemic crisis fueling an expansion of the social safety net that could bring us part of the way towards where the rest of the developed world is on issues like

family support and issues like paid leave, inflation is being weaponized to push us in exactly the opposite direction. Austerity politics are back, folks. 2022 will be the year when the final pandemic supports things like the student loan repayment deferral when those things are pulled. And the new child tax credit, which was supposed to be made into a permanent program, has already been smothered in the cradle. I would not at all be surprised if serious calls to make further social spending cuts are what comes next. And this return to austerity, it couldn't come at a worse time. For low-income

Americans, whatever little cushion they might have had has been spent down. The wild infectious spread of Omicron is hobbling the economy. Price increases are making life even more difficult. Large portions of the American public say they are worse off financially this year than they were last year. Austerity is not the cure to what ails us. Austerity is what ails us. For 40 years, we've seen how this mindset on social spending has led to poverty, led to inequality, led to a crumbling society and democracy. But from the perspective of elites, something even worse happened when we dabbled in actually supporting the public. Workers started to claim a modicum

of power. No wonder then that elites are pushing back, ushering back in austerity with a vengeance. They will not be satisfied until you've stopped all the strikes and all the resignations and the union efforts and been forced to comply with your role in the low-paid servant class. And it struck me, Sagar, and we talked about this a lot of how, especially the direct checks, the fact that the government... And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Joining us now, great friend of the show, Richard Hanania.

He is out with a new book, Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy. Richard's been a great source of this show, particularly during the Afghanistan debacle. There was one story he wanted to get his take on, but also to talk about his book. So let's put that up there on the screen. Who won in Afghanistan? Well, it's private contractors. It turns out netted trillions of dollars while they were over there. Richard, talk to us a little bit about that and tie it to your fantastic book,

which thank you very much, by the way, for sending it to us. Yeah, absolutely. So my book argues, you know, I've been studying international relations sort of as you guys are as just a consumer of the news, but also academically. And so I've read, you know, pretty much, you know, the all the important thinkers in international relations, the theories about what we're supposedly doing overseas. And I think I think that, you know, we just came to the conclusion that people are basically thinking about the whole thing wrong, whether they think the US should have a prominent role in world affairs, whether they believe in support this war or that war. I think that the problem is, you know, we think that there there's actually somebody in charge, that there is a grand strategy where sort of like wise men are sitting

around and sort of determining what the U.S. should be doing about Afghanistan, about Iraq, about the rise of China, about any number of things. And, you know, I don't think that that's actually what's happening. I think that we're, I think Afghanistan is such a good way to sort of introduce people to the rest of what foreign policy is like because the mistakes and the blunders and the sort of disastrous – how disastrous it is and the waste and everything else. I mean it's just so obvious and it's so clear. It's been like that for 20 years. So yeah, that money – I mean that money in Afghanistan, the war of Afghanistan just like just like the war in Iraq, the money runs into the spending runs into the trillions. A lot of it was government contractors and the government contractors would do everything from, you know, build girls girls schools to supply the U.S. bases to, you know, to provide security.

And these people got very, very wealthy. I mean, these people are one of the reasons why Washington, D.C. has now basically every single one of the wealthiest counties in the country are around Washington, D.C. This is these people who made money off of Afghanistan, who made money off Iraq. We left Afghanistan and the same people are in charge as they were when we originally went in. But yeah, I think foreign policy, I mean, I think it demonstrates that foreign policy is working. I mean, you can look at Iraq, too. You say, what did we gain out of Iraq?

Well, it didn't work. You know, there's no actual tangible benefit you can point to for the American people there. But go, you know, look up every single person who was involved in the Iraq war. What are they doing now? They're not in jail. They're not they jail. They haven't suffered any financial harm. Wolfowitz went on to lead the World Bank. Some of them are at the Hudson Institute, where people still tell us about what we should do on foreign policy next. So if you understand foreign policy this way, and this is a theme of my book, it's working the way's working the way, you know, the system is designed for certain interests and it's helping those interests and it's sort of working as designed. Well, if you

think in terms of national interest, you're going to be constantly confused by what we're doing overseas. Right. That's so well said. I mean, it seems to me that the people who get richest in Washington are the people who are willing to do the sketchiest stuff. So whether it's like war profiteering or selling yourself to the sketchiest possible foreign governments, those are the people who are willing to do the sketchiest stuff. So whether it's like war profiteering or selling yourself to the sketchiest possible foreign governments, those are the people who get really rich in this area. I think we have the book jacket we can put up on the screen. It's called Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy, How Generals, Weapons Manufacturers, and Foreign Governments Shape American Foreign Policy. So Richard, take us through Afghanistan as a great case example here.

I mean, how were these decisions made? How's the decision initially made to go in? How's the decision made to just continue and stay the course and lie to people and continue in this direction that we know has been and ultimately was a complete failure? Yeah. So, I mean, when we ask the question, you know, how was the decision made? It implies that a decision was made. And really, it basically wasn't. I mean, you don't have to take my word for it. I mean, I go through Iraq and Afghanistan. I have quotes from people who were involved in these decisions. And they themselves will tell you, we never talked about it. What were we going to do in Afghanistan? You know, 9-11, you know, something, you know,

it happened. We wanted to go back. We wanted to get revenge. We wanted to bring the people to justice. So they went into Afghanistan and there was just no planning about what would happen after. They basically ended up drawing a constitution. It was done by people like the State Department and UN types who have these, you know, standard idea of what makes a good government. So they just sort of implemented that on Afghanistan. We went, we worked with the warlords. And then, you know, the U.S. troops were just basically walking around and not doing much. And, you know, there wasn't actually that violent

for the first few years. Bush administration attention switched over to Iraq. And then Iraq is an entire different story. But yeah, this is basically what happened. And then Obama comes in, you know, a decade later after this sort of drift, and he sort of is skeptical of the mission. The generals, they go and they basically do a full-on PR campaign. They're teaming up with Congress and saying, you know, this is going to be a big disaster for, you know, if Obama doesn't double down, this is going to be a disaster for the country. There's, you know, there's going to be the terrorist threats going to go up. And they're leaking things to the Washington Post and other papers. And Obama decides to stay. Trump, it's the exact same story. I mean, that's what's so fascinating. He comes in and he's skeptical. And they basically just, you know,

bully him and beat him down until he decides to continue on. And they tried to do the same thing with Biden. And, you know, you can see how the justification changes throughout the, you know, throughout the whole process. So first it was terrorism. Then you had, you can see how the justification changes throughout the, you know, throughout the whole process. So first it was terrorism. Then you had the Bush doctrine. It became sort of folded in with Iraq. The Bush doctrine, the idea that you need to democratize the world, or at least the Muslim countries, that started because they couldn't find the WMDs. Nobody talked about this before there was no WMD.

So Bush sort of needed a reason for Iraq to still make sense. Afghanistan sort of got caught up in that. And then basically, and then, you know, and then in 2020, we're talking about women's rights and China and, you know, whatever, they're just throwing it, whatever they can against the wall and seeing whatever sticks. So a lot of stuff works like this. Basically, you have these interests, they want a policy and they're reverse engineering, whatever arguments they want to make around the policy. And the policy is always keep doing what we're doing. If we have a commitment to a country or we're in a certain region of the world, we have to stay.

One of the things I point out in my book, and this is very interesting, that if you look at the countries that have the most U.S. troops right now, they're the same countries that had the most U.S. troops stationed there in 1950. So it's Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea. So the U.S. is still occupying the access powers and basically fighting the most U.S. troops stationed there in 1950. So it's Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea. So the U.S. is still occupying the excess powers and basically fighting the Korean War, right? And I think, you know, 50, 60 years from now, we could still be doing the exact same thing and everyone will have a reason why we need to be in Germany, Italy, Japan.

I mean, we have to think, when Crystal said, you know, the people willing to do sketchy things, I think they're people who, you know, I think it selects for that, yes, but also for people who are able to convince themselves, you know, what they need to believe. So I think a lot of these foreign policy people are sincere, but it's very easy to predict what their views are going to be because all you have to do is think, well, you know, whatever the U.S. is doing right now has to be kept being done. And you're usually going to be correct. You're usually going to be able to predict their views on any particular

issue. Well, that's that's actually what I wanted to follow up with is, is it just as simple as follow the money or is it follow the money and the power and the ideology? Like what are the interests actually at stake here? I think we I mean, I think we we really underplay the money because, you know, I don't think money is everything. I think power and the ideology is very important. But look, the money is absolutely huge. So when you have basically every three and four star general now when retiring going to work for a defense contractor, it's 100% or close to it in the last decade, decade

and a half. Basically, anytime you see a general, he's going to be going, he's near the end of his career, he's going to be working for a weapons manufacturer or some kind of government contractor soon. So in any other industry, we sort of look at this and we get suspicious. There was a post story I was involved in where they basically, they talked about this, that these people are, you know, they're on boards of, you know, Boeing or whatever corporation, and they're not being introduced by people telling them this is actually a corporate representative. Nikki Haley, when she was on Boeing, I think she left the board.

But when she was there, they'd say Nikki Haley's former UN ambassador. They wouldn't say Nikki Haley, current board member of Boeing. So the money is important. And the ideology works with it, because I think what the money does is it follows the people with the correct ideology. So it's both. So I think someone like, you know, John Bolton, it's funny when you read John Bolton's memoir, you know, he's talking about like how busy he is because all these corporate like consultants want him. And like, he's going to be on, he's on the phone and having to juggle like all these commitments just because he's like such a

head in business. I think John Bolton, you know, I think he believes, I think he believes in something. I, you know, he seems to love war more than, you know, even his self-interest would recommend. But it's people like that who are going to rise to the top because they have the right ideology to be supported with the people with the resources and power. So, you know, you can't say really it's either or. I think you need both to make for American foreign policy. It's so true. You know, I suffered through a master's program in American foreign policy, came up with a lot of these people. I've filtered through some of the institutions that you talk about, and you're exactly right, which is that the money and the success, what

happens is you just get elevated and helped and propelled and more if you happen to have this right ideology. It's like a thing that follows you all the way up to the top, and you get very comfortable. You don't want to question a lot of assumptions, and if you do change your mind, well, it's not very convenient for you to do so. Something that struck out to me that you wrote here, which I loved, is American foreign policy is better explained by assuming individuals within the system seek out their own personal gain rather than assuming actors work towards goals consistent with some conception of the national interest. Can you elaborate on that in terms of the deep state and how and why we get the terrible foreign policy outcomes that

we do get? Why is that selfish for them to do so? So, yeah, it's, so, you know, you have to think about what is the, what are the goals of the system? And the goals of the system doesn't mean someone designed the system this way, but, you know, you're thinking about the constituent parts and you're thinking about sort of, you thinking about what people's individual incentives are. So people are getting very, very wealthy off of American foreign policy. The Pentagon budget is 700 something billion a year. They might have reached 800 billion by now. And that's just for the budget.

When there's a war going on, it's much higher because we need to, you know, there's supplemental funding going to Iraq or Afghanistan. That money, you know, that money goes somewhere and that money goes into people's pockets. And, you know, it's not just, you should just, you know, sort of imply that it's just money. It's also prestige and status. I mean, these people like, you know, Stanley McChrystal and H.R. McMaster, you know, they become sort of celebrities and they're brought on MSNBC after they're retired and theyaster, you know, they become they become sort of celebrities and they're brought on MSNBC after they're retired. And they're, you know, they're, you know, they're talked to like they're wise men who have a lot to tell us about. They have a lot to tell us about, you know, the world and geopolitics. You know, I think there's the politicians and the voters, too.

I think that's another important part of the analysis. I think what happened with the war on terror is I think that the Bush administration understood very early on that keeping the war on terror going, people getting people scared was good for George Bush's political prospects. He was at 90% approval. I think if he said, you know, if he went into Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban and said, you know, this whole thing is over, he probably would have been ended up like his father who ended the Gulf War too early. You know, I think that if George H, H.W. Bush stayed in Iraq for a while. He could probably would have had a better chance of winning reelection. Right. People would have been moved on to something else. So I think that these, you know, sort of these instincts,

I think there's a you know, there's sort of a there's a you know, there's a psychology at sort of the mass level. I think Americans have been conditioned to think of every problem in the world as their own and to sort of, you know, see is it a little bit weird if politicians are not sort of policing the world at this point. And I think there's a lot of people in the media who who who are, you know, have an interest in pushing that view. I mean, the media itself, too. I mean, it's all access journalism. It's not like any other field of journalism. I mean, the entire entirety of national security reporting is basically you get ahead because people like you. Right. Exactly. Yeah. It's you know, a lot of it's classified information, getting the right leaks, getting the right in power like you. Exactly, yeah. A lot of it's classified information, getting the right leaks, getting the right access.

There was a woman named Robin Wright who just went over to the Middle East and was touring around with the generals in Iraq and Syria, and her views on Iran were basically representing their views. They're not going to give an anti-war person that kind of access. So, yeah, there's a system here. And I think that even people who are skeptical of foreign policy, they sort of elevate the foreign policy elite by saying they have a grand strategy, but it just happens to be wrong. I don't think that's the correct way of looking at it. I think the correct way of looking at it is, look, there's these interests and they're

trying to sell you something like a tobacco lobbyist. Right. And you just have to be cognizant of that. So true. So what do we do? Like what, how do we, how do we limit the influence in particular of the military industrial complex? Yeah. So, I mean, I have some, yeah, I have some recommendations on the, at the end of the book. So, you know, these people really do, you know, their secret is the status quo. So there's a lot of inertia built in the system. So if we have troops in a country or an area, you know, we're going to stay there. We're probably going to stay there for a while, right? If we're not there, you know, if like if the U.S. wasn't in Korea right now or wasn't in Germany, nobody would be sending them to Germany or Korea. So I think that I think that the, you know,

the best strategy is to have a president who basically just wants to rip off the bandaid. This is what Biden did in Afghanistan. I think it was probably good politics in the end, even though it hurt him. I mean, I think that we've moved beyond that now and he's not still dealing with Afghanistan. Right. Which which is what would be happening if he'd stayed. So I think that I think that the president has a lot of power here. I think, you know, Trump, you know, if you had someone with sort of Trump's instincts, but a little bit, you know, a little bit better ability to execute, you can fundamentally change American foreign policy. You can pull back on a lot of these commitments. And, you know, you could also, you know, there's also you could also think in terms of lobbying. I mean, you could have things like disclosure. You could have some kind of you could have rules about what know, rules about, you know, what you can do after you're, after, you know, after you're retired. But I think, I think, I mean, I think the point is, it's the system because it's, because it has so much inertia,

because basically we keep doing what we're doing. It means that if you can change it, if you can just find the opportunity to just sort of do something different, that tends to be sticky and it's hard for them to just go back to whatever the status quo was. So, you know, politics matters a lot. Leadership matters a lot. And I think that's where we have to look for change. Completely agree. Richard, we encourage everybody to go buy the Kindle version of the book, which is affordable.

We'll have a link down there in the description. Really appreciate it, man. Congratulations. It really is a fantastic read. It's been well-reviewed and all of that. And it's just a voice that we need more than ever in our discourse. So, man. Congratulations. It really is a fantastic read. It's been well-reviewed and all of that, and it's just a voice that we need more than ever in our discourse. So thanks. So little political coverage of foreign policy actually explains what's really going on.

So thank you for breaking all of that down. We really appreciate it. Thanks, man. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it.

If you could support us, it means the world. We literally walk through the snow for you, quite literally, in order to make sure to get it here. Wish me luck getting home today, guys. Yeah, seriously. Everybody, please wish Crystal luck. In all seriousness, we just want you guys to know that through the new year and looking back, we've got big plans here about what we're doing, talking about it yesterday. I don't know if I had officially announced this, but we did bring somebody on in order to post the show on YouTube. He's been doing a really great, I'm sorry, on Instagram.

He's been doing a really great job. It's Breaking Points YT is the handle. All the clips are up there by the end of the day. So you could share those with your family and friends if you want to. We both have our personal accounts there as well. We're reposting a little bit more. We want to grow the presence of the show, bring it to the people who may want it on different platforms.

And we're bringing people on to help spread the message. More importantly, though, give you guys more content, more value for what you provide us. So thank you for your support. Link is down there in the description. Yep. We love you guys. Have a wonderful day. And we'll see you back here on Thursday.

See you Thursday. hour podcast updated hourly to bring you the latest stories shaping the black community from breaking headlines to cultural milestones the black information network delivers the facts the voices and the perspectives that matter 24 7 because our stories deserve to be heard listen to the bin news this hour podcast on the iheart radio app apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. I think everything that might have dropped in 95 has been labeled the golden years of hip-hop. It's Black Music Month, and We Need to Talk is tapping in. I'm Nyla Simone, breaking down lyrics, amplifying voices, and digging into the culture that shaped the soundtrack of our lives.

Like, that's what's really important, and that's what stands out, is that our music changes people's lives for the better. Let's talk about the music that moves us. to hear this and more on how music and culture collide listen to we need to talk from the black effect podcast network on the iheart radio app apple podcast or wherever you get your podcast what up y'all this your main man memphis bleak right here host the rock solid podcast june is black music month so what better way to celebrate than listening to my exclusive conversation with my bro ja rule the one thing they can't stop you This is an iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. This is an iHeart Podcast.