Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 2/13/24: RFK Voters Sound Off On Israel And Ukraine, DNC Sues RFK In Ballot War, Kamala Ready To Serve If Biden Dies, Jon Stewart Triggers Liberals, SCOTUS Scorns CO Trump Ballot Removal

Episode Date: February 13, 2024

Krystal and Saagar discuss RFK Jr voters split on his Ukraine Israel views, DNC sues RFK Jr in ballot access war, Kamala 'ready to serve if Biden dies, Jon Stewart triggers liberals on Biden age, SCOTUS scorns Colorado case.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of star-studded a little bit, man.

We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The OGs of uncensored motherhood are back and badder than ever. I'm Erica. And I'm Mila. And we're the hosts of the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast, brought to you by the Black Effect Podcast Network every Wednesday. Yeah, we're moms. But not your mommy. Historically, men talk too much.

And women have quietly listened. And all that stops here. If you like witty women, then this is your tribe. Listen to the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday on the Black Effect Podcast Network, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you go to find your podcast.

Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. Lots to get to this morning, including

new footage from our RFK Junior focus group. You guys seem to really be interested in what they had to say yesterday. Today, they are tackling some of his more controversial positions with regard to Ukraine and also with regard to Israel. You definitely are going to want to see that. We also have Kamala Harris saying that she is ready to serve as this comes amid heightened concerns about Joe Biden's age, of course, and also the return of Jon Stewart to The Daily Show. We watched it this morning. We were both in bed by that point last night, but he had some comments about Biden's age as well, which I think you will want to take a look at. Donald Trump, meanwhile, has a big week in court.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about the possibility of kicking him off the ballot. That did not seem to go too well for those who do want to kick him off the ballot. But Trump has some difficulties facing him this week. So we'll break all of that down for you. Israel is saying that we should be the ones to pay to shelter Palestinians who they want to move and displace out of Rafah and begin this overwhelming offensive. So we'll tell you about that. We also have a Democratic senator. This was a big surprise. It's sort of just like standard run of the mill. Senator Van Hollen from Maryland actually saying Israel is committing war crimes, but it didn't change his vote on shipping billions in weapons to Israel.

So break all of that down for you. I'm also taking a look at a six-year-old who was killed by Israel in Gaza alongside her would-be rescuers. Breaking all of that down for you and also what it means for our participation in this war. So a lot to get to this morning before we jump into any of that, though. Thank you so much to all of those who helped to make this RFK Junior Focus group happen, because I think it has been really interesting and insightful to see their comments. Oh, absolutely. I found this group in particular to be very interesting. As you guys know, if you're signing up for our premium membership, BreakingPoints.com, you're supporting our ability to do these. They do cost quite a bit of money, but they're worth it. And we put a lot of production

value, the travel, all of our crew and everybody that has to be able to go there. So thank you so much for supporting that. And also for signing up yesterday to see a little bit of our takes on the Vladimir Putin interview. We're very, very grateful to that. It's something we'll continue to experiment here. So again, breakingpoints.com, you get the show an hour early, all of the benefits, you can go and look at the website. But the major one is you're helping support our work here to continue to actually bring things that apparently the mainstream media doesn't want to do, especially here with RFK. So we have, as Crystal alluded to, a clip that we can now show you of the RFK Jr. focus group sounding off on Israel and on Ukraine for both his positions, what they think about it, their reactions, some really interesting results. Let's take a listen.

Put your hand up if you think you've got a pretty good idea of what RFK Jr.'s views on Israel are. No idea. I haven't researched it. Halfway up. I think he's trying to straddle the fence. My mom used to call it straddling the fence. He's kind of playing both sides. He wants to very clearly distinguish his dislike for certain policies versus their need to defend themselves and making it very clear that in that region they're not just our best ally,

but they're the best place for the people who live in that region in terms of rights and democracy. So I think R.F.K. Jr. has been quite vocal in his support for Israel and for U.S. government support of Israel. What do people think about what's going on out there? What should the U.S.'s position be? I feel that the United States should concentrate as much on the United States. We have such a deficit here in the United States of helping our own people.

They keep going to war and it's like, what are they fighting for? Nobody knows what they really are fighting for, so why do we keep going to war? There's a militant faction in there that needs to be taken care of, but the innocent people always in war, they suffer. So it's a terrible thing. So should the U.S. be funding Israel on this issue or not? I think Israel gives back as much as it gets. I don't think that they're, I don't feel like it's, that they're takers. I mean, they've done so much for the military

intelligence. And they, you know, I think there's so much that they give back. We had Hurricane Katrina over here where they wiped out millions of people's homes and they didn't even help them. So how could you go help another country when you can't help your own? I just don't get it. I just don't. I don't know. I stand firm to that. If we are allocating money there, it should come with heavier stipulations on like, hey, maybe don't bomb residential areas just because you say that Hamas is hiding there, using them as hostage. You don't shoot through the hostage to kill the person

who's holding the hostage. Put your hand up if you do think Israel is acting too aggressively, to quote Devin, in this war. I understand they have to come and try to get the militants out, but do we need to level the entire area? And there's so many innocent people that are affected by that. What if this was happening here? I mean, these innocent people in these communities that they're going in and they're leveling cities that are no more. I think they need to take a step back and really evaluate their destruction. But just think about the people, the I think they need to take a step back and really evaluate their destruction. But just think about the people, the troops, that got to go over there that's getting killed.

It's the same thing for us. We're getting killed too. It's not just like they just going over there and they surviving. As I said earlier, you know, he's got a strong view on this. Put your hand up if that makes you less likely to vote for him.

And put your hand up if it makes no difference. I don't... I mean, the fact that he supports him... I'm going to put my hand up on that. I'm very for that. It would not persuade me not to vote for him because of his other amazing outlook

on the world. If he's 100% good in my mind, then he's now like 85 or 90 and that's miles above the rest What about in with the war in Ukraine Russia and Ukraine? Where is he on that if you've got a sense of his position there? He wants to negotiate and then they get peace and how do we feel about that war? That's also something that we're spending way too much money on when the Ukrainians are obviously losing when you take into account what happened in

Ohio and East Palestine and what happened in Lahaina, in Maui, that money could have gone to those places to help those people who are Americans. So hands up if you think the U.S. government should be sending money to Ukraine to help them in that war. And hands up if you want the U.S. government to send money to Israel to help them. I want them to help, but there's got to be a cutoff. Because we've got people starving here. We've got, you know, not wars, but we have, you know, some detrimental issues here.

What makes Ukraine different? Why no hands for Ukraine? They equate Israel as holy land. And so people seem to gravitate toward the help for Israel. Why do you think RFK Jr. is the mediator on Ukraine and Russia but supports Israel? He is acknowledging that Russia made a point that NATO should not expand into, like add Ukraine into NATO, because it's inherently an advantageous organization to Russia. It seems like a proxy war over there.

We've given a lot of aid already, so it's a long time span, and Israel's more recent. If somebody stood up tomorrow, politician, RFK Jr., or he became president, say, or anyone did, and turned around and said, you know, tomorrow, we're going to cut off that funding to Ukraine, how would it make you feel? It would make me feel much better. There's way too much money going there.

I think I would be okay with it as well. I think I would too. I think we need to support other countries with a cap. You know, there's only so much we can do. Like, you know, our parents have always said, you know, you got to help home first before you start going outside the house. I think they should cut it way back, and that would force them to come to the negotiation table. It's time.

So many innocent lives, you know, destruction, all of it. And they do have a vested stake in part of the Ukraine. The Russians do. You know, do I condone that or not? No. But I mean, it's the reality of the situation. Some very interesting results there. So what was my number?

Six out of seven say that they believe that the Israeli military operation is, quote, over the top, to borrow a phrase from our current president, not going to impact the votes for all of them. Makes sense. Something that our moderator James made yesterday is like these are people who are going to vote for him, right? Yeah. Is not necessarily. They're already in. Perspective. I do think you can see there, though, that there is definitely, you know, some mild incongruence. I think that's a polite way to say it between some of the arguments that he says between Israel and between Ukraine. But I think what it comes back to is the practicality for so many of these voters in the way that they feel about how much they hate Joe Biden and Donald

Trump, that for them, even though, you know, what would the guy say? He's like, look, if it was 100 percent for me now, it's like 85 percent. Yeah. But he's like, but I still trust him more than I trust the other two. And that's, you know, that's a very powerful, pragmatic way for people to look at voting and one that many Biden voters, many Trump voters will have in their calculus as well. So if anybody wants to denigrate them, just be honest. Like most people do that when you're in a blocked into a two party or in this case, a three candidate system. Yeah. I mean, there were a few things about this that were really fascinating. First of all, basically none of them really had a good grasp of what his Israel policy even is.

When at the beginning, and I love that James started out this way. And by the way, shout out to jail partners. They always do a fantastic job with these focus groups. But I love that he started out with just like, who even knows what RFK Jr.'s foreign policy position on Israel is? And you heard one lady, she was like, no idea. You did have two people who raised their hands who tried to articulate something. I didn't feel like either one of them really fully articulated what his actual position is. So there's clearly a lot of uncertainty there about what even is his position vis-a-vis Israel, which there's no judgment here. These are regular people living their lives, going about their business. They don't have time to follow all the ins and

outs of every single RFK Jr. comment, interview, etc. on the issue. I found that interesting. But then very clearly, with the exception of one woman who, I think it was pretty clear from yesterday's comments in the focus group as well. She tends to have more of this sort of like conservative positions. My suspicion, I'd be interested to check with James on this. My suspicion is she was probably a prior Trump voter. She seems to fit more consistently in that lane. She was the one who was most comfortable with Israel's response, who was most certain about, you know, shipping them more aid and more weapons, etc.

Everybody else was somewhere in the context of either, no, we shouldn't send them at all, or there should be a cap. They very much had the attitude of, listen, we got a lot of problems here. Yes. What are we doing in all these wars? And many of them brought up, hey, these innocent civilians are suffering greatly. Okay, I get it. Go and get Hamas.

There's an issue there, a militant group. But all of these innocent civilians, you have to wipe out the entire residential area. So clearly amongst this group, there was a lot of upset about what's going on, but they hadn't necessarily connected it to whatever RFK's very, very, very pro-Israel stance is. And also when asked about it, ultimately, it was not the, you know, a game changing issue for them, even after they learned more about what his stance is. Contrast that with, I felt like they had a lot more clarity about where he stands on Ukraine. Yeah. Well, he's been talking about it for years.

He's been talking about it longer. And, you know, so that may have been part of the appeal for them that he clearly stood out, especially from Joe Biden, with regards to how he talks about Ukraine and how he wants to move forward on Ukraine. His ideology and positioning there seem to be much more consistent with the instincts of this group overall. And so I thought that was really fascinating as well. But their logic, in a lot of ways, is actually more consistent than RFK Jr.'s logic of like all of these wars, all of this foreign funding for these countries. Listen, we feel bad for these people, but we also have to deal with problems here at home, seem to be the sort of overwhelming sentiment of all seven individuals in the group.

I mean, these people are all speaking my language because I think the way they can see through it very clearly. Tomorrow, counterpoints will break down the full Ukraine vote and all of that. But I would be remiss if I did not mention a line from Senator Romney last night, which really encapsulates this type of thinking. He said when he voted for the Ukraine aid package and the Israel package, quote,

this is the most important vote we will ever take as US senators. This is a United States senator who believes that shipping money to Ukraine and to Israel is the most important vote that he will ever take, you know, in his years in the body. Just think about that. Not, you know, anything to do with helping us, with our country. It's about shipping weapons into a protracted proxy conflict of which there is no hope of victory, especially in the case of the Ukrainian side. How can you possibly think that unless you have some warped, crazy idea that you think it's like September 1939? But as we've said

many times here on this show, not everything is Hitler. You know, we don't always have to default to the Munich conference and the subsequent things. Sometimes things are regional wars and the way that we handle those and the way that we approach our own conflicts and our own problems here at home maybe should have supremacy. And I think at the very least what I'm happy about with these voters and in general with the majority of the American public is that they see through a lot of this. Yeah. Even if they might have fallen for some of it in the initial days. Not everything is Hitler. Sometimes it's Yaroslav the Wise that contains the real lessons for us in unlocking the understanding of this conflict.

Now, I mean, what is fascinating to me also is this group, very diverse, diverse racially, gender, age wise. They, I'm sure, get their news from a variety of different outlets. I mean, this is a very ideologically diverse group in a lot of ways, because you have people who voted for Biden, you have people who voted for Trump, and you have people who voted third party. And now they're saying, you know what, I'm done with both of the two major parties. I'm all in for RFK Jr. because I'm just disgusted with what the other options are that are on the table. And yet, they have, even with their disparate news consumption, they have come to similar conclusions about what's going on. They've seen through a lot of the propaganda and a lot of the bullshit. And you just can't hide anymore. Like with regard to the, you know, Israel's war

in Gaza, you just can't hide anymore the images of the horror that is being inflicted upon these innocent civilians. They've seen it. Whether they're getting their news from us or from the New York Times or CNN or wherever, that has broken through and they've seen it and they've made their own judgments about it, separate and apart from whatever the political class wants them to believe. And you can see the same thing with Ukraine. They have made their own judgments, separate and apart from whatever it was the news media wanted them to take away and whatever the two parties want them to take away from that conflict. They've made their own judgments about what the priorities should be for this country.

And they don't, by and large, see that reflected in either one of the two parties right now. And so they're looking for an alternative. Now, clearly on Israel, RFK Jr.'s ideas and position, I mean, first of all, it's just basically the same as Donald Trump and Joe Biden. So you really have no choice in terms of policy vis-a-vis Israel amongst these three candidates. Clearly, there's a dissonance there, but they see enough in him as just an alternative vote, someone other than these terrible two choices that I have, that even though they're realizing there's some dissonance between

how they feel about that conflict and how he does, they're still sticking with him. And it is almost just a sort of default protest vote of these two suck, he's at least something different, let's give it a shot. You know, I think the point you just made is pretty good. If there's not that much daylight between the three of them, then you might as well pick the best one. I mean, that's one that makes sense for a lot of people, I think. So anyways, that's,

look, it's always best to hear it from the voters themselves about their priorities, about the way they're assessing. What I'm most heartened by is you've got people here all across age spectrum, news consumption, voting, et cetera. And you know what it is? They buy in the line of the mainstream media or of the political class. And to me, that is just such, such a victory to even be in a place where you could have something like that. Regardless, you know, we never, I don't want to tell anybody what to think. It's like, all we can do is to try and help give them the information that other people are not. That's really the most pernicious form of censorship. You know, you've covered it here

before on the Israeli military campaign. It'll be like 12,000 people died today. That's really the most pernicious form of censorship. Yeah. You know, you've covered it here before on the Israeli military campaign. It'll be like 12,000 people died today. It's like, yeah, how? Through what? Right. It just mysteriously dropped dead. Were they vaxxed, question mark? Yeah, right.

Vaxxed? Died suddenly? What happened here? Or it's like, were they murdered? How were they murdered? How did this happen? It's like, well, some people were treated some way and the others. It's like all most people want is fairness and equal treatment whenever they're looking at something.

And the blessing of the Internet is that in general, they can see through that for all of the you know, the for all of the rabbit holes and selective coverage and all that that exists there. I think we are in a better and more foreign place. Yeah. Last thing on this focus group, and this is going to be relevant to the something we're about to cover about the DNC coming for RFK and trying to make sure that he is unable to get ballot access. It's very clear to me, and it should be clear to absolutely everyone, that there is a huge appetite for just anyone other than Trump and Biden. Yes. I think that the Super Bowl ad from RFK Jr. was very smart. I thought it hit exactly the right notes. Putting forward the Kennedy name as just like, listen, you don't have to pick from these two dudes. There is another person out here.

He has a lot of money in the bank. I think one of the biggest obstacles for him is just going to be is he literally able to obtain ballot access because there is a huge appetite out there for an alternative. And I think that is reflected very much in the focus group participants. And thank you to them, by the way, for participating, because it really was interesting. It takes courage. I mean, it's not always fun. You know, you and I, it's not like it's always a picnic to voice your opinions in a day-to-day news cycle. These are just people living their lives. And to appear on camera, you know, be broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people to hear their views, it really does. You know, for not just

them, the Trump people, the Biden people as well. It's not always a good, easy position to take. So I really applaud them. And I encourage more people to participate in these types of things, especially the ones that we're going to be continuing to do in the future. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to

their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun?

Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission.

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

or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glod. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. We are back.

In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug ban is.

Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Cor vet. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them.

It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Let's move to the next part. As you referenced about that Super Bowl ad,

there is definitely a lot of consternation inside the Kennedy family after that RFK Jr. Super Bowl ad ran. Let's put this up there on the screen. This came, RFK tweeting almost immediately saying, quote, I'm so sorry if the Super Bowl advertisement caused any family pain. The ad was created and aired by the American Value Super PAC without any involvement or approval from my campaign. FEC rules prohibit Super PACs from consulting with me or my staff. I love you all. God bless you.

He still, though, however, does have the ad pinned to his profile. So sorry, not sorry, I guess. Yeah, I mean, I don't think he should be sorry. I mean, it's like, I'm sorry. Do you have a freaking monopoly on the Kennedy family name? There's like over, what, there's like 200 of you now at this point. Yeah. For example, like Bobby Shriver, who is the son, I believe, of huge, okay, Eunice Kennedy and Sergeant Shriver, who was, Eunice Kennedy was JFK's sister. Okay. He

tweets out, my cousin's Super Bowl ad used our uncle's faces and my mother's. We would be appalled by his deadly healthcare. She would be appalled by his deadly health care. She would be appalled by his deadly health care views. Respect for science, vaccines, et cetera, our equity were in her DNA. She strongly opposed that and supported my health care work at the one campaign and read, which he opposes. Where it's like, okay, dude, now you're using your mom's family name to support the work that you're doing. It's like, would anybody care about Bobby Shriver if his last name wasn't Shriver? Sorry. You know, and same thing, like one of his cousins chimed in the same way. RFK alone had like 11 kids, 11. JFK, what, he had two. If you could include the

Shrivers, Maria Shriver, and you got the Schwarzeneggers and all that, who has claim at this point to the Kennedy family name? I'm just like, listen, if your last name is Kennedy, if we've gotten, what, three now, U.S. congressmen who have grifted off the Kennedy name to be mediocre ones, Bobby can do whatever he wants to. If anything, he has probably more of a claim to the legacy than like a great, great uncle, son or whatever who has been some random congressman from Massachusetts. So I was very annoyed by it. I'm curious what you think. Well, OK, so first of all, the second I saw that ad, I said to Kyle, I was like, the family's going to be furious. They're going to be furious because I mean, that ad is, for political nerds, it's an iconic ad. Everybody knows it's this nostalgia throwback. And then for

him to be superimposed on the ad and really be claiming like, I am the legacy. I am the heir apparent. I am the Kennedy brand. I knew they were going to be pissed off. And it's not the first time that the family has put out statements condemning him, condemning his positions, saying we absolutely do not support him. We 100% are behind Joe Biden. And I think that's their right too. Yeah, they can do what they want. I understand they're upset of like, this direction for the Kennedy brand is not at all what we want, what we see, what we identify with. And so it doesn't upset me that they put on statements, but it does get to this a couple of things. So first of all, I think this comes out in our focus group. It is really clear that he would not be where he is politically if his name was not RFK Jr.

He's all but admitted some of that. The Kennedy name is a huge part of his appeal. That's why back when he was in the Democratic primary, the moment he jumped in, you know, all of a sudden he's at 20 percent or so in the polls. Just because of that nostalgia, of that association. And there's an irony to it because, you know, this is a country that, you know, famously threw off a king, right? Doesn't like supposedly political dynasties. And yet on the other hand, there clearly is deep affinity and association for certain political dynasties. And, you know, we've had the Clintons for better and mostly worse are sort of political dynasty, the Bushes for a long time, political dynasty. We sort of have pushed those big brand

names back into the past. And yet here you have people who are reaching for an alternative who are just like, let's go back even further to this longer term American political dynasty, which is the closest thing we've had to like political royalty in this country is that the Kennedy family. So there is a lot going on here. Like I said, I knew instantly when I saw the ad that his family was going to be really pissed. And it is funny. Like, I don't think he should have apologized because it is it is one of the things that the focus group participants told us is they love his authenticity, the sense that he just like says what he thinks. And this is not a big thing, but it is sort of indicative. You can't be like, oh, my gosh, I'm so sorry.

This ad was like really hurtful and I apologize for it. But then also be like, and I'm pinning that ad at the top of my Twitter profile because I love it and I want everybody to see it. Like just say, listen, you can disagree with me. It's fine. You don't have to embrace my campaign. I get it. You have your own views. But, you know, this is what I believe is best for the country rather than doing this kind of two faced thing, which lands very poorly. Yeah, I don't think you should have apologized,

period. Like I said, he does not know. None of these people have monopolies. JFK's grandson. Yeah. You think anybody would care about frickin Jack Schlossberg if he wasn't JFK's grandson? He's my age. He doesn't even have a real job. You know, it's like all of these or Caroline Kennedy, our great ambassador to Japan. It's like, oh, yeah, you're totally a great or was an ambassador to Japan. It's like you definitely would have gotten that diplomatic post if it wasn't for your last name. And look, it's not just her. Chelsea Clinton. Yeah. Ted Kennedy. And how many of his screw up relatives, you know, have we all had to endure in American politics in the last couple of days or in the last couple

of years? I just think it's one of those where you guys are all doing it. Don't complain. Nobody has a monopoly on this. But to go back to the important point, which is what we were originally talking about with the DNC, is this ad and the Super PAC and more, they really realize how much trouble they're in. Let's put this up there on the screen. The DNC has now filed an official complaint alleging that the RFK Jr. Super PAC is working too closely with the campaign. They say that it is a, quote, ballot access scheme and argues that it constitutes illegal coordination with the super PAC supporting the independent bid for the White House. The committee is alleging that the American values 2024, while working to collect signatures to ensure he's on the ballot, will

have to, quote, integrate their expenses with the campaign in ways that violate federal election rules in order to do so. Crystal, you've had more experience in the political realm. Can you explain this so-called firewall between super PACs and campaigns? Because I honestly still don't fully understand it. I mean, it's very simple. You just can't coordinate. You cannot coordinate. And so there are legal argument here is basically like, because the super PAC is doing all this work to try to get him on the ballot. And it's actually the candidate who has to submit the signatures that inevitably they're going to have to coordinate at some point. As a legal argument, I have no idea whether it has merit. As a philosophical argument, this is total and

complete bullshit. And it's obvious what's going on here. They do not want him on the ballot. They don't want people to have that choice. They want to force a choice that is only between Joe Biden and Donald Trump because they know in another contest where people have other options, they are completely screwed. Their only hope is to try to keep the quote unquote anti-Trump coalition together that got Joe Biden barely over the finish line last time. And if you have any divergence from that whatsoever, whether it's from RFK Jr., Cornel West, or Jill Stein, or anybody else, they are completely screwed.

The polls have showed at this point, you know, the original theory, which I was always a little skeptical of. You can go back and watch the coverage at the time. The original theory was that, oh, RFK Jr. is probably going to take more from Trump. He's going to appeal to more Trump voters because a lot of the positions that he leaned into were more right wing coded, including his position with regard to Ukraine. The polling has not borne that out. And it's partly because, you know, there's a lot of dissatisfied former Democratic voters. It's partly because Joe Biden's support is incredibly soft. People, even his supporters, are not particularly enthusiastic about him.

And so at best, RFK Jr. seems to take equally from both candidates. And plenty of polls have shown the opposite, that he actually seems to take more from Joe Biden. So they are launching an all-out war on democracy, let's be honest, to try to keep RFK Jr. from even appearing as a choice on the ballot. Now, when we interviewed RFK Jr. last time, you asked him very directly, are you going to be on the ballot? He said 100%, I'm going to be on all 50 states. I honestly don't know how you can promise, you can't promise that at this point. That's not his fault. That's the fault of both of the parties collaborating effectively in every state in the country post Ross Perot to make it as difficult as possible for an

independent party candidate to gain ballot access. It is wildly unfair. It is wildly anti-democratic. Again, it's not RFK Jr.'s fault, but there are no guarantees that he is going to actually be on the ballot in any of these states. And it's entirely possible that lawsuits like this, and this, I'm sure, is the first of what will be many lawsuits against him in all of these various states. And some of them are very likely to succeed because a lot of the judges

adjudicating them and a lot of the law itself was written in a very partisan manner. So in that way, that is in some ways the biggest obstacle to him. Now, he has other challenges. Obviously, there's a lot of partisan sentiment in the country. There are a lot of people who just are diehard Democrats, a lot of people who just are diehard Trump supporters. But I do think that there is a large sentiment also in favor of an alternative. The question is whether or not there will be any alternatives for Americans that even appear on the ballot. And I think that is the biggest challenge. The other thing is, and I do want to always make this clear, you know, even this group of focus group voters who are with RFK and want to support him, even them when they were really pushed on, OK, well, if it's very clear he's not going to win and, you know, you either have Joe Biden or Donald Trump, you know, are you 100 percent going to vote for RFK. And even some of them were not 100% clear. We see this a lot of the times with third party candidates that people are excited about it. But when it comes down to it, and it's like, but I don't really think they're going to be able to win the day. So really, I'm kind of throwing my vote away if I don't vote for one of the two parties. Oftentimes,

their support ebbs when it comes down to it. And even Ross Perot, let's remember, you didn't win a single electoral college vote. So this system is really rigged and stacked against you. And part of that rigging is what we're seeing here from the DNC. We're going to tie you up with legal challenges in every way we possibly can. We're going to make sure that instead of, you know, focusing 100% on campaigning, you're having to focus on ballot access. You're having to fight these challenges in court. And so even though you guys know I'm not an RFK Jr. fan, you know, I've got a lot of issues with him, Israel being one of those issues. Of course, I have that same issue with Joe Biden and Donald

Trump, but let's put that aside. But even though I'm not a fan, like I am a fan of democracy and I believe people should have choices. And this is complete and utter bullshit from the Democratic Party. It's complete, but you're exactly right. I mean, it's just a project. And, you know, I'm on RFK Jr.'s website where they're talking specifically about ballot access. The number of signatures that you need in some of these states is just completely insane. Like in California, you need some 22,500. They say here that 39 states require 10,000 or fewer, but California, Florida, and Texas require more than 100,000 signatures. And again, if it was just a matter of just getting normal people to just

sign, it would be fine. But there comes down to legibility, and they can challenge the validity if you can't read it properly. There's address verification. These are all dirty tricks that people have been using in politics now for decades, not only to just keep opponents off, but specifically third-party ballots. So as you said, the more that he appears to be a threat, the more that they are going to go after him for ballot access, and they are going to legally try and make his life a nightmare. The key victory for him will be if he can get on in the swing states and in the big ones, California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania. But that in and of itself, as I just laid out, is such an immense project.

It's going to cost millions of dollars. So it's like what? Also, what, the DNC doesn't use super PACs? They've got, you know, they have just as many as the Republicans. They've got a billion dollars in funding on their side. Like the things they're slinging here is just ridiculous. They make it also so that if you are one of the candidates for one of the two major parties, it's obviously way easier to get on the ballot.

And I think it was California. I looked this up a while ago. I think it was California that was like, not only did you have to get this massive number of signatures, but you had like this very limited time frame in order to obtain them. I know Bobby has been looking at potentially running a Libertarian party ticket to try to get ballot access. Or even he and Cornel West have both talked about forming their own parties because in some states that makes it easier to obtain ballot access. But it is an insane threshold that has been set here and insane

obstacles just to the basic functionings of democracy. It really is truly outrageous. And I don't care what you think of RFK Jr. Like I said, I have my own thoughts about him. You should support democracy. You should support the right of people in this country to have actual real choices. Totally. I could not agree more. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family

that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. I know a lot of cops,

and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company

dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad.

Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st, and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott.

And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner.

It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug ban is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette.

MMA fighter Liz Caramouch. What we're doing now isn't working and we need to change things Stories matter and it brings a face to them It makes it real It really does, it makes it real Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast Season 2 on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts

And to hear episodes one week early And ad free with exclusive content Subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Let's move on to the next part here. Just some funny continuing fallout from Joe Biden, the special counsel that concluded he is too old, infirm and not have does not have enough mental acuity to stand trial. Official position of the Department of Justice. Well, who's the number two? Kamala Harris. And they're trotting her out, you know, trying to make it so that she very much could be presented as an alternative figure. Should you be uncomfortable

voting for Biden, you can be rest solid that she is there right behind him. Let's put this up there on the screen. So the Wall Street Journal did an interview. Interestingly, this actually was two days before the actual special counsel report on board Air Force Two, in which she says, quote, I am ready to serve. There's no question about that. Everyone who sees her on the job, Harris says, has walked away fully aware of my capacity to lead. So according to her, everyone that has seen her on the job has walked away with a full awareness of her capacity to lead. Throughout much of this, really what comes across, Crystal, I think both with the headline of this, the interview, and even the questions that were being presented to her,

it's obvious that for a lot of people, they're very understanding, even now the press, you know, which really was tight lipped up until the point of the special counsel report. They're like, we need to seriously prepare ourselves for the fact that if this man wins reelection, he's going to die. He's going to die in office. Very, very possible. You can go watch my monologue in the past about life actuarial tables and how the odds are, and they're not good for him making it all the way to the end. But what comes across to me is the impossible position that the Biden-Harris ticket is, quote unquote, because for all of the approval rating problems of Biden, he's in Jimmy Carter territory, 39%, all of that. Hers is worse. It's like she has a worse approval rating than he does,

and we barely see her. And it's because anytime that we do, she just makes the most, she has the most bizarre, you know, affect. She's always, as Marshall has said at our live shows, reaching for an Aaron Sorkin-esque thing and it comes out garbled. I mean, to me, she is like the absolute worst of the opportunists, the empty shell. And I mean, we've seen also the egomaniac that she is as well with the massive level of staff turnover under her and the clashes with the White House and the West Wing, which disdain her ability to quote unquote lead as well. And apparently, according to this article, she did refuse on Sunday to actually go on the shows to defend Joe Biden, or at least, you know, she said she had a scheduling conflict or something, which I find incredibly extraordinary.

I'm not sure what you thought of it. What they said is that the Biden people had asked her to go on the Sunday shows to defend him. And instead, she was so anxious to go out and defend him right away that she decided to give comments that day or the next day. I can't remember. After both. After one of her events. Yeah. That's where I was the question. You're so busy on Sunday. What are you freaking doing on Sunday? The other thing with Kamala Harris, though,

is that and this goes back to her days as a senator. She has always been very camera shy and very uncomfortable in interviews. You know, she doesn't like to have things coming at her that she's not prepared for. She doesn't do particularly well in those settings. You recall that Lester Holt interview that she did early on with regard to the border, you know, where he was processing like, why haven't you gone down there? And she was like, well, there are a lot of places I can't remember what she said, like, well, I was in Europe or something like that. It was like, I went to the border. I was at the border. I was in Europe. And I, like, well, I was in Europe or something like that. It was like I went to the border. I was at the border. I was in Europe.

And I was like, wait, what? Which border? I mean, you know, she doesn't say she just laughs when she's uncomfortable, too, which is very off putting. So I think part of the potentially avoidance of the Sunday shows wasn't so much that she didn't want to defend Joe Biden because her ticket to relevance runs directly through Joe Biden. And the only reason that she is vice president, obviously, is because he decided he made this commitment to James Clyburn and whatever. And so she ends up in there.

The only way that she'll ever become president of the United States is potentially through him dying in office or just being propped up again by the political establishment and the powers that be. So I think she's very determined to support him however she can. So my read of the Sunday show avoidance was more her own discomfort in front of the cameras and fear of making her own mistakes as it was about any sort of rift with her and the president. But just to back up what you're saying about her delivery, it's not just even the things she says that are so head-scratching. Like, you read the transcript and you're like,

what? But also the way she delivers things is so strange. And for some reason, I don't even know why, this old clip of her at some, like, swearing-in ceremony just went viral on left Twitter because of how strange and bizarre her delivery of this line is. Just so you guys know what we're talking about. Let's take a listen to that. You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you. Now, what part?

OK, what's the context here? OK, what is the actual context? So actually, people went back and looked. She's actually quoting her mother. And her mom and dad were both like Marxists, basically. And so people were, you know, reading into this, this is some like accidental Marxism that she sort of imbibed. And I think that's part of why it went viral on left Twitter. But then the other reason is because, again, the delivery is just so strange and like her mannerisms. And why are you saying that's at this swearing in ceremony for, I think, some people in the education department or something like that? This just like run of the mill, you know, bureaucracy swearing in ceremony

situation. So I got to tell you, though, Sagar, the more that I see Joe Biden, the more ready for Kamala I am. I you know how I feel about this woman and all that I've said about her. And I would take Kamala Harris over Joe Biden at this point between his age and between his support for Israel, which is like totally, totally in unmovable, unshakable, locked in in like 1973. Yes, Kamala Harris like moves with the winds. The winds are blowing against what Joe Biden is doing right now. And yet he will not move because his brain is stuck in, like I said, like 1973. So listen, I'm not saying it's great. I'm saying the bar is on the freaking floor. And if I had a choice between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris at this point,

it's not even questioning my mind. I would take Kamala Harris all day long. At least her synapses are firing in some direction. At least when I'm watching her, I'm like, what is she saying? But I'm not like, is she even going to be able to complete this sentence or find this word that she's searching for? So that's where I am at this point. I just can't get there. You would take Biden over Kamala? I don't know. I'd rather shoot myself in the head.

Like, this is what I'm saying. But these are the choices we have at the table at this point, Sagar. To me, Crystal, I genuinely believe she would be the worst president since Andrew Johnson. And you can call me hyperbolic if you want. I think she's a race huckster. I think she is a opportunist. I think she is one of those people who wear the wind blows. As you say, look, maybe go in the right direction on Israel. Look at the way that it's blowing within the blob on Ukraine. This lady

will end up with us in a nuclear war. That's exactly where Joe Biden is too. It's not like it's different. It's an impossible choice. I just feel like, so with regard to Israel, there is at least a chance, and the leaks behind the scenes are that she has been uncomfortable with some of the direction of the Biden administration. And just by dint of her being younger, there is at least a chance she would be marginally better there. So, and like I said, at least the brain is somewhat functional, even though it functions in a very bizarre way at many times. So I'm not saying it's great, but yes, I would take Kamala Harris over Joe Biden. That's a recency thing because right now Israel is quote unquote the most important thing. But like, you don't know.

I mean, listen, if she if the whole George Floyd thing happened while she was president, we'd have freaking Ibrahim Kendi in the Department of Anti-Racism under this lady. For me, it's just too existential. I don't know, though. At the same time with Biden, like, I think he's going to die. She was like locking up weed users. Yeah. You should love her for that. I do love her for that. But then she turned her tune and she was the little girl getting bussed. And putting parents in prison for like their kids being truant. So the idea that she's going to put Ibram X. Kendi in some anti-racism department. But that's the problem. She was hard on crime whenever it was good, politically advantaged.

Then she was like pro-defund the police whenever that was politically advantageous. She was never pro-defund the police. Does she ease that she's wearing? Play a clip of her saying

she's in support of defund the police. Doesn't exist. I can go deep and show you even more how like, at her personal level, how much she desires attention

if people want to go back and look at some of her early career, which was allegedly called sexist and all that at the time to me, she's just an empty shell. Look, this is the problem. Like you're saying, you're putting me in an impossible position. Like, I don't know. I honestly don't know. I, any other day I could argue both sides on Biden on Israel. Yeah. He probably seems to be more pro Israel on Ukraine. He probably, I mean, he's been very pro Ukraine, but the thing is with Biden is every once in a while when he's hopped up on the right stuff, you can see flashes of

some of his caution, everyone, you know, that we've seen in the past. He refused to give him F-16s or whatever, but then he'll eventually cave. With Kamala, I think she would have just, I think she would have gotten us into a no-fly zone nuclear conflict in the early days. I don't trust her judgment at all. And that's really what it comes down to. I don't think you could. I think she's such a horrific opportunist on all these issues. I don't think you could have had a worse Ukraine policy than what we have. I think we have the worst of all worlds Ukraine policy, where on the one hand, we're like, no, we want you to fight this war. We're going to blow up this potential negotiated peace. On the other hand, we are going to slow drip the military aid

to you so you have no prayer of actually winning. And you're gonna just destroy entire multiple generations of Ukrainian men on a hope and a prayer that we're actually gonna be like, I don't think you could do the Ukrainian policy worse. So listen, it's horrible. I'll put one point in the favor of Joe Biden. I don't think Kamala would have gone out of Afghanistan. Yes, no, there's no way. I don't think she would have done. And that was where, you know, his sort of like hardened old man ossified views worked out.

But weighing that against, you know, just consistently supporting a genocide in Israel indefinitely to the end of time. I got to side with Gamla at this point. I don't know, Chris. I just, I think that she would rip this country apart. If there was any sort of genuine, like, domestic crisis, I cannot imagine her at the helm. I just, again, I think it would be— Can you describe to her more, like, courage to actually do something provocative than she actually has? It wouldn't even be provocative.

It would just be, like, rhetorical without backing up by action. There's no ability to unite. She has no confidence. I mean, look, like I said, I think it's Johnson level. That's how bad that I think it would be. But, you know, we got through Johnson. Where are we with Joe Biden, though? Grant got us out at the end of the day from Johnson. So what do I know? Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets.

Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait.

Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple.

Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated,

on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st, and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher.

Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real.

It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. John Stewart made his big debut last night, I guess a return debut, and he did it very much in John Stewart fashion in Decision 2024. It's been a long time since we've heard words like that, but he also did it with a scathing look at both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, the subject of age, going after the media in their treatment and the surrogates that support both of these

individuals. Here's what he had to say. Welcome to The Daily Show. My name is Jon Stewart. Now, where was I? These two candidates, they are both similarly challenged. And it is not crazy to think that the oldest people in the history of the country to ever run for president might have some of these challenges. Now, Democrats will say that any criticism like this,

especially of Biden, is unfair because you just don't know Biden like they know Biden. I was in almost every meeting with the president, and the president was in front of and on top of it all, coordinating and directing leaders who are in charge of America's national security, not to mention our allies around the globe. Did anyone film that? I'm not trying to be cruel.

I didn't want to. I don't want to have to do this on my first day. Come come over here. Look at me. Look what time hath wrought. Look. Look. The response

in Gaza has been over the top. You know, I like how Biden describes Israel's incessant bombing of civilians the same way my mother talks about the Super Bowl halftime show. It was a little much. Did they need to be on roller skates? Whatever happened to music? You sing the song and people will love it,

but with the abs and the twirling. All right, so we added a little bit of Israel commentary there. Look, that's John at his best. You know, at his best, he's somebody who's able to skewer like a... And you know, it's interesting, Crystal. Already this morning, I'm seeing Keith Olverman and some others attack him for quote-unquote both-sides-ing the issue. It's like it's not a both-sides issue. He made a great point also in his monologue, if you watch the full thing. He's like the only record for the two

oldest candidates before this are the ones that they set before in the previous election. He's like, we've got no more age milestones to break here, fellows. Like, we broke the gray ceiling or whatever it is that's there at the top. So anyway, I thought he did a great job, but he'll only be with us once a week, once a week. So I'm not sure who's going to be in the rest of the rotating cast. Yeah. I mean, he's instantly made The Daily Show relevant again. He's been irrelevant for quite some time now and he's back in form. His timing is fantastic. I thought he had some great lines there. I thought it was a great first downing. Big week for millennials between Jon Stewart's return

and your halftime show. So I'm pretty excited about all of those things. And I do think also, a couple other things to say about it. The fact that he worked intentionally, very intentionally, worked Israel and what he describes as their incessant bombing of civilians and critiques Joe Biden's incredibly meek, sanitized language about it being over the top and the way that, you know, the media was like, oh my gosh, I can't believe he said that. That's such a shift in tone, et cetera, et cetera. The fact that he works that in, I think also shows his continued courage and principle that he's not going to be afraid to go places that are uncomfortable because even though that seems like an incredibly

obvious statement to make, it's the sort of thing that can get you even the fact that, you know, he's Jewish can still get you branded as anti-Semitic or self-loathing or whatever. So I was glad to see that he made sure to include that commentary in his comments. The other thing that is worth noting is apparently the break with Apple was over censorship. And, you know, that was something that we had predicted early on. We had said from the launch of that show, which I do think had some, you know, had some great moments and some trenchant commentary, et cetera, that was worth checking in with. But, you know, it was like, why don't you just do this on your own? Then you don't have anyone looking over your shoulder. And Apple obviously has all

kinds of conflicts of interest and are inevitably going to assert, you know, put pressure on you where those conflicts of interest come into play because they have much bigger fish to fry than the success of your one show on their platform. So that rubber eventually hit the road and good for him for saying, no, screw you. I'm not doing it. I'm not putting up with the censorship. You know, I'm at a point in my life where I don't have to and I don't want to. And so I'm going to go back to The Daily Show and offer my commentary there at least once a week. And hopefully he doesn't get face any sort of similar censorship concerns from the folks at Comedy Central. Yeah, you're right. I mean, so if people don't remember, he had top disagreements with them

for wanting to do episodes on China, AI and then the upcoming 2024 election, obviously for Apple. It's like, yeah, they manufacture all their stuff in Shanghai and Shenzhen and Guangzhou. They can't be having delays over here because of the subsidized Apple TV product, which barely was working and bringing them any money. It's like a lost leader for them. So it didn't make any sense. For Comedy Central, I hope it works out. I'm curious just to see whether he'll have the staying power. I mean, I think he probably will because he's so famous. If he keeps this up, you know, kind of going in areas where, if he keeps it up in terms of going in areas which most of the mainstream media is not going to touch, then he's going to find the same second life that he was already beginning to have in 2015 and more on the Internet.

Because that was another big thing. I don't know if people remember. Comedy Central clips in The Daily Show was incredibly hard to find back in the day. They were very restrictive in terms of their streaming service. But this one, they tweeted it out. They put it out on YouTube. I'm hoping they don't try and copyright like this video, for example. And I think that's a smart play because in the modern age, that stuff really does not work

with trying to keep people from being able to see anything except in a certain place. It really is, you kind of have to be everywhere. And this is, as you said, this is the first time I felt like The Daily Show was relevant since he left. Yeah.

And Trevor Noah and all that, the only time I ever paid attention was when Trevor Noah left and that was it. Or when he did something that was particularly cringe and embarrassing. Sure, right, for himself. Yeah, good point. I'm just looking on YouTube right now, that opening that we played you a bit of, they titled it on YouTube, Jon Stewart tackles the Biden-Trump rematch that nobody wants. True. It has 1.4 million views in

10 hours. So that's quite a bit. Real number is like 2.5 million. That's true. Yeah, because just so you guys know, the front end always lags what you can see on the back end. So clearly that is getting a lot of traction. And I wouldn't be surprised if the clips on Twitter are even more viral. So it's obviously a very different game from when he left with the preeminence of social media and of YouTube and these alternative platforms. And so as long as they're leaning into that and unafraid of people sharing the content, of putting the clips up on YouTube, of not copywriting people like us who want to play a bit of it and give people a taste of it, I think it will be successful. I think it'll be relevant. I think it'll be another important voice to have that frankly has been really sorely missing because the thing with

Jon Stewart is like, yes, obviously he like, liberal. His politics are pretty standard issue liberal, honestly. But he's also not afraid, as is evidenced in this clip, to go after the Democratic Party, or to go after CNN, like he used to always. That was some of his best work, was the media commentary, just completely mocking CNN. You know, while he was off of The Daily Show, when he, remember when he went on with Colbert and did his whole bit about the lab lead? It was freaking hilarious. And that was at a time when it was still like,

oh, you can't really say this. You still can't really go there. And he went there and was completely unapologetic about it. And so that type of fearlessness is, you know, something that is welcome and always a good addition. And he's just funny and has good timing and is good comedic writer and has a good team around him. So excited to see what he has for us in the future. Even I mean, again, some of his politics are like cringy lib stuff that we're not going to agree with. Some of the Ukraine things that John has done, they're questionable. Some stage time that he's

taken up with certain people and including some people that he had on his show yesterday. But you're not always going to agree with me. At least it's not just like DNC brain worms all day, every day. So I will take it all day long. It's not Rachel Maddow saying, well, he can ride a bike, and that means that he's not too old to be the president. Yeah. John should play that one, actually. I wish he had. John should actually run for president. I would take definitely him over by. Yeah, I mean, better than the options we've got. Let's move on. We've got the update on the Supreme Court case. This happened a couple of days ago. We wanted to pair it with some of the more latest legal Trump developments. There's been some major things happening. But the major headline really from the last few days was the Supreme

Court really, how do you say this, defenestrating the Colorado Secretary of State and their legal team who were trying to block Donald Trump's name from the ballot. We have a mashup here of bipartisan justices to really just skewering their defense of the law for the interpretation that they tried. Here's what they had to say. I think the reason it's been dormant is because there's been a settled understanding that Chief Justice Chase, even if not right in every detail, was essentially right. And the branches of the government have acted under that settled understanding for 155 years. And Congress can change that. And Congress does have Section 2383, of course, the Insurrection Act criminal statute,

but Congress could change it, but they have not in 155 years in relevant respects for what you want here today, at least. No, Justice Kavanaugh, the reason why it's been dormant is because by 1876, essentially all former Confederates had received amnesty. And we haven't seen anything like an insurrection since then. Would anything compel a lower official to obey an order from, in your view, the former president? I'm imagining a situation where, for example, a former president was, you know, a president was

elected and they were 25 and they were ineligible to run office, but nevertheless, they were put into that office. No, no, we're talking about section three. Please don't change the hypothetical, okay? Please don't change the hypothetical. I know I like doing it too, but please don't do it. The point I'm trying to make is- He's disqualified from the moment he committed an insurrection. Whoever it is, whichever party, that happens. Boom. It happened. What would compel... I'm not gonna say it again, so just try and answer the question.

If you don't have an answer, fair enough, we'll move on. And I read your opening brief to accept that those events counted as an insurrection, but then your reply seemed to suggest that they were not. So what is your position as to that? Oh, we never accepted or conceded in our opening brief that this was an insurrection. What we said in our opening brief was President Trump did not engage in any act that can plausibly be characterized as insurrection. All right, so why would this not be an insurrection? What is

your argument that it's not? Your reply brief says that it wasn't because, I think you say, it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government. So that's one of many reasons. But for an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence. And this— So the point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection? No, we didn't concede that it's an effort to overthrow the government either, Justice Jackson. None of these criteria were met. This was a riot. It was not an insurrection. So what we included there at

the end was actually Katonji Brown Jackson, who was speaking against the Trump people. Now, if you know, listen, in terms of our legal analysis, we're not lawyers and Supreme Court laws like a whole other one. One of the comments I found most noteworthy was from Neil Katyal. I think you've done a monologue on him before, Crystal. This is like a dyed in the wool, like a classic MSNBC, Russiagate type Democrat. But he's one of those, lots of corporate connections, et cetera. But MSNBC relies on him for legal analysis, which is fair because he's actually argued quite a few cases before the Supreme Court. On behalf of like really terrible outfits. Yes. But here was his assessment of the Colorado case and their defense before the court. I've watched over 400 Supreme Court arguments. I've done 50 myself. I would tell you this argument did not go well for the Trump challengers. And that's to put

it mildly. I probably have some other adjectives that I won't say on air. There you have it. Didn't go so well. And people are expecting either it could be 9-0 or possibly 8-1, depending on how Katonji John Braxton or Sonia Sotomayor end up ruling in this case. Any reaction, Crystal, before we move on to the next legal development? I mean, it's not surprising whatsoever because it was an, you know, it's a sort of unprecedented situation, aggressive reading of the constitution. There were other states in the country that went in the opposite direction of what Colorado did. And the Supreme Court is fundamentally, and I don't mean this on like the typical political spectrum, but just as like a descriptor, it's a fundamentally conservative body that is loathe and sort of cowardly, but loathe to really like, you know, insert themselves in the political process in this way. Now, in a lot of ways, that's going to be sort of unavoidable

as we're about to discuss. They are going to have to decide whether they're going to take up an appeal from Trump with regards to whether he should have blanket immunity for basically anything that he did in the context of the presidency. They're going to have to decide whether to let the appeals court ruling on that stand or take that up. There are going to be possibly a number of other things that come before them. So they are going to be central to this election, whether they want to or not. And obviously, not going in the direction of Colorado is also a decision and also consequential. But this is not surprising. This is what everybody was effectively predicting from the beginning. Yeah, I mean, just it was such a novel interpretation, quote unquote. And it was

just one of those where it obviously jumped the gun, too, especially because it was prior to a trial. But that gets us to the real part. And this is where the Supreme Court case could be a lot more interesting and actually could very much turn on Trump. Let's put this next one up on the screen. Donald Trump actually asked the Supreme Court late last night to pause the ruling that was denying him, quote, absolute immunity. So this is a little bit complicated, but basically there was a previous appeal in which the president said that the election interference trial, which is currently trying to have a court date and all of that set,

one of the challenges that Trump and his team issued in the appeals court, the D.C. Court of Appeals, that was subsequently rejected, was that the president has, quote, absolute immunity from criminal prosecution from while he is president. According to them, quote, without immunity from criminal prosecution, the presidency as we know it will cease to exist. These were according to the Trump lawyers. Like I said, this has been rejected now by two subsequent appeals courts. Noteworthy, though, that these appeals courts are far more liberal, I guess, in terms of their appointments. I'm not making a partisan judgment or even really, frankly, a judgment on the case itself, but more so just setting it up for what the Supreme Court

is now going to have to consider. He has now, by asking the court to have this consideration, it will then trigger the process on their part of whether they're going to accept the case or not. If they don't accept the case, then it will default, Crystal, to the lower court of appeals as opposed to having something that they would rule on. And now whether they take it, as I said, is up to, it's up to the court on which of the three justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, as of how to, whether they will take the court, they will take that case before them, apparently just in terms of the will take the court, they will take that case before them, apparently just in terms of the way that the swing votes and all of that currently lie.

But it's one of those where I'm actually not really, outside of Kavanaugh and Alito, who I believe have more of an interpretation on executive power. This is even the type of thing where Clarence Thomas, who there's a major case going on right now about administrative law, he's more libertarian than others. I would not expect them, at least according to the people I've spoken to, FedSoc, others, that this would be a case that Trump is going to win, even if it did get accepted by the court. And they may just punt and not take it, because that was probably the easiest political course for them as well. Especially because the appeals court ruling was quite clear. Yeah, it was just like, that's not quite aggressive.

It's just not how it works. And even, you know, it's the appeals court panel. It was three judges, two Democratic appointees, one Republican appointee. It was unanimous. We played, if you guys will recall, a little bit of the oral arguments where they were pretty scathing. They were basically like, oh, so the president can just like, yeah, can direct the SEAL Team 6 to murder his political rival. And then effectively, if he resigns before he's impeached, he can just get away with that. They were highly scathing and skeptical of this. Obviously, they ruled against the Trump team. I think this is one of these where the Trump team didn't really expect to succeed, but this is part of their strategy of drawing this out as much as possible.

And so, you know, the outcome at the Supreme Court is uncertain. I think it's unlikely to go in Trump's direction. But probably the bigger question is just how long do they take to make a decision here? The trial for this case, this is kind of the central one. This is the election subversion one. Jack Smith in D.C. It's, you know, the center of like what happened in 2020 and stop the steal and all of that stuff. That's this case. So it's really the one that is most central to the concerns that so many Americans have about Donald Trump and the disgust that they felt for what they watched unfold on January 6th and also leading up to January 6th.

So in a lot of ways, this case is kind of the main event, whether or not it is the most likely to succeed is a different question. So in any case, this was originally scheduled to begin on March 4th. So we were very close on the precipice of this bad boy starting up and, you know, really taking over news coverage and being the center of our sort of political universe. And at a very early date in which, you know, it was very, very likely that this would be concluded even before you get to the RNC. That original date has been taken off the schedule while this appeals process plays out. And as Sagar was indicating, you know, there are a bunch of different options. Number one, a Supreme Court could just say, no, we're not, the appeals court ruling stands, we're not taking it up. You can proceed and then that's that. And

you would think that the trial would then commence probably pretty shortly. They could take it up in an expedited process. So they consider the appeal, but they do it on a more timely fashion. Or they could do it in their sort of like ordinary course of what their normal schedule is, which of course is what the Trump team is pushing for. In which case you would not have this trial than starting until, you know, late in the general election process, most likely. So the stakes here in terms of whether the Supreme Court even decides to take up the appeal are pretty significant, separate and apart from what they ultimately end up deciding, which, like I said, I think most legal observers feel like this is not going to go in Donald Trump's direction. It's more important for what the timing is and how much he's

able to delay before this trial actually begins. Yeah, I think that's all very well said. And as we come back to it, I just wanted to continue to highlight for people that there are still more cases that are not even at the Supreme Court level, which could be consequential for Trump. Two actually this week, let's put this up there on the screen, two cases, two judges as they highlight. We're facing a potential ruling in that civil fraud case that we've talked about previously, which cost Trump hundreds of millions of dollars,

which on top of the aging Carol verdict could be very consequential to him personally. And as we said, he could also receive that court date on his actual trial for the first criminal trial of the former US president. This one would go back to, this one would go back to some of the New York instances. This is the Stormy Daniels, Hush Money situation. Alvin Bragg situation, which we have all laid out. So I know it can be tedious to try and go through the arguments and all this, but it's just so consequential, Crystal, to the ability, literally his ability to run. Because let's say he is convicted on January 6th,

that election interference trial. Well, we may have to go through an entire three cycle of the Colorado ballot access thing where we'd have a new interpretate where they're like, well, now he's been convicted of this. And even though it's not technically an instruction, we may have to have the appeals court process. We have the Supreme Court that I have to weigh in again. And then same whenever it comes to his money, his literal ability to fund his life and, you know, his legal bills and whether he'd have to ask his supporters and then coming back to the criminal prosecution in the state of New York and what the actual impact of that would have for him, not just for his business, his ability to appear on the ballot in the future.

Not like he needs New York or it's not like he's going to win the state of New York or anyway. But the point is, is that that then links back to a little Georgia case, which we haven't even added in here, with all the developments of Fannie Willis. So it's a huge mess. Yeah, and actually there's a hearing in Georgia this week presenting evidence to a judge about the romantic relationship that Fannie Willis was having with the dude that she appointed. So that's a whole other situation.

But just to go back to these two New York cases and their significance, on the civil fraud piece, this could be a lot of money. Even for someone as incredibly wealthy as Donald Trump, we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars, that's a lot of money. So that one is significant just in terms of his personal wealth business status. He may be barred from doing business in the state of New York. That's where some of his most iconic properties are around which the Trump brand has been built. So that's significant from that perspective. The other one, the Alvin Bragg one, I mean, this is seen as sort of like the stepchild, the least significant of the criminal charges against Donald Trump. And this is where the delay on the immunity question that we were

just talking about with regards to the actual election subversion case, this is where this becomes really significant. Because if it weren't for that delay, that would have been the case that went first, which again, is the one that is much more central to people's concerns about Donald Trump. So even for him to have the timing be that the Alvin Bragg case starts first, and that's Americans' first taste of, you know, Trump on trial. That's sort of the narrative that sets in. I know it's a much easier case for him to make that that one is, you know, politically charged and these are old allegations and it's a witch hunt, et cetera, than it is to make that same charge against the election subversion case, which again, many Americans have deep concerns about.

So I think it is a tactical win for him that the Alvin Bragg case is the first one to launch here. Most likely that's the first one where the trial date is going to be the earliest and where we're hearing evidence and all of those things. So in any case, it's still a real guessing game how the timing on all of these things is going to play out. But this is what we know at this point to the best of our ability. I think you are very right in raising that. I know a lot of cops.

They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English.

I'm Greg Glott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios.

Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The OGs of uncensored motherhood are back and badder than ever. I'm Erica.

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

If you like witty women, then this is your tribe. Listen to the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday on the Black Effect Podcast Network, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you go to find your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.