Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 2/17/22: Ukraine vs Western Media, Freedom Convoy, Woke Recalls, CNN Drama, Obama's Legacy, Vladimir Putin, US-China Relations, & More!

Episode Date: February 17, 2022

Krystal and Saagar talk about Ukraine's response to American media warmongering, NBC spreading propaganda from Ukrainian Nazis and the US deep state, Canada's targeting of Trucker bank accounts, woke school board recall elections, CNN drama causing a meltdown behind the scenes, how Democrats lost the working class, dangerous comparisons of Putin to Hitler, and the history of corporate elites selling out to China!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/Bob Kuttner: https://prospect.org/topics/robert-kuttner/ Greenberg’s Piece: https://prospect.org/politics/democrats-speak-to-working-class-discontent/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now.

Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A lot of times, big economic forces show up in our lives in small ways. Four days a week, I would buy two cups of banana pudding, but the price has gone up, so now I only buy one. Small but important ways. From tech billionaires to the bond market to, yeah, banana pudding. If it's happening in business, our new podcast is on it. I'm Max Chastin.

And I'm Stacey Vanek-Smith. So listen to Everybody's Business on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. 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 Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed we do. A lot of big stories to update you on. There are some things about Ukraine that we need to correct the record on from the mainstream media. We also have a little story for you, a little parable about what counts as fake news and what does not, according to the powers that be. Absolutely unbelievable. Also some updates for you out of Canada continues I mean the news that comes out there just continues to be completely insane the latest thread that we want to follow is the doxxing of everybody who contributed money through what is it called give send go give send go yeah and you really stirred up a firestorm on

this one kind of accidentally Sagar I'm at the center of the storm. I'll tell you all about it. I'll give you all of that. Also, a school board recall in San Francisco that may say a lot about our current politics. We've also got some new inside details for you about just what the hell is going on at CNN. I'm calling it for a complete shutdown, and we still can figure this out, Sagar. Also very excited to talk to you, Bob Kuttner, today. He's got a piece out about the supply chain and how we became so incredibly vulnerable with shipping so much

of our manufacturing capacity overseas in general and to China in particular. But we wanted to start with the very latest out of Ukraine. So you will recall that we were told by some members of our mainstream press and being fed by the Biden administration that Russia was going to invade Ukraine yesterday. Yeah, yesterday, February 16th. Hmm, interesting. Didn't pan out. Okay. That didn't happen. That's not to say that they will never invade Ukraine or that the danger has diminished or any of those things. But, you know, you would think that maybe there would be a momentary like reflection of, you know, we were fed some bad information. This didn't all pan out. Of course, you're not going to see any of that. President Biden did speak on Tuesday. So the day before the supposed invasion was going to happen.

Here's a little bit of what he had to say We are not seeking direct confrontation with Russia Though I've been clear that if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully And if Russia attacks the United States or our allies through asymmetric means like disruptive cyber attacks against our companies or critical infrastructure, we are prepared to respond. But we're moving in lockstep with our NATO allies and partners to deepen our collective defense against threats in cyberspace. Yeah, that's, I mean, certainly something. First, number one, we will respond. I mean, drawing the line at Americans. But the real thing that concerned me there was a cyber attack. Whenever he said a cyber attack could come on any one of our

companies. I mean, what does that mean? This is something, Crystal, where we have no rules of engagement whenever it comes to the escalation ladder on cyber. What is a direct threat? That is one of the big questions. Bringing down the grid. Look, bringing down the grid is one thing. Hacking a bank. I mean, I don't know. The Sony hack, for example, that the North Koreans did? I mean, we have a long history of not really understanding what exactly to do. And to me, that's just more escalatory rhetoric from the president when it's very clear that there is an off-ramp to a diplomatic solution at this point.

Yeah, so at this time when Biden was giving this particular speech, the information we had was that Russia had announced they were pulling back some troops. They put out some video that appeared to show them removing some of their soldiers and some of their equipment from those sort of more aggressive posture. Now we are being told, and this is the situation, we don't trust any of these people. So we just have to present you what this side and what that side is saying. CNBC tear sheet, let's throw this up on the screen. NATO first says, actually, we've now verified that Russia is not pulling back the troops that they claimed. In fact, it appears that they are increasing troops later in the day after NATO said that. Then the U.S. came out and

directly accused Russia of lying about pulling back troops from Ukraine's borders. They said that actually Moscow has increased and added more than 7,000 combatants into those positions. Again, that's what our administration is saying. Russia is saying they're pulling them out. I don't trust any of them. So that's where things stand. In terms of cyber attacks, this was the other thing that had people very nervous on Tuesday, is there were a series of cyber attacks, we can put this AP tear sheet up on the screen, targeted at critical infrastructure in Ukraine. We're talking about government institutions, we're talking about major banks. These were distributed denial of service attacks. They're described in this AP article as relatively low-level cyber mischief.

We don't know who perpetrated these attacks. Russia seems like a primary suspect here. Seems like a good guess. Yeah, seems like a pretty good guess, but they weren't able to pin it down exactly. And so the U.S.'s scenario, one of the many that they laid out is that the cyber attacks could come before the direct invasion and the false flag and the crisis actors and all of that stuff. So people started getting nervous when they saw the information about these cyber attacks coming out. But again, the vaunted invasion did not actually happen on Wednesday. But what did happen is the Russian foreign ministry is trolling us. Let's go ahead and put this tweet up on the screen. They have called on

Western media outlets to publish a full list of dates on which Russia will invade Ukraine for the year ahead so that Russian diplomats can schedule their vacations accordingly. Apparently, they literally did this. And one other thing here, Sagar, that is important piece of information we don't have a tear sheet for to add to this overall picture. You know, you may be asking why there's been definitely a change in tone from the Russian side, whether or not they increased or decreased their troop levels. They certainly have projected more of an openness to diplomacy. They've kind of backed off some of their more heated rhetoric. Part of that has seemed to come from the Ukrainians themselves opening the door to, hey, maybe we're not going to enter NATO. floated the possibility of a referendum and having their own citizens vote on not joining NATO with

the idea that they would probably vote against it if it was going to lessen tensions with Russia here. So that seems to be a step forward in the last piece. And then, you know, I'm curious for your latest thoughts as we now have multiple Ukrainian politicians saying that the U.S. and Western media have done more damage to them by hurting their economy to the tune of billions of dollars than the threat of Russian invasion has. I mean, think about that for a second. They are directly saying, high-level Ukrainian politicians are directly saying that the propaganda and the hysteria coming from Western media has caused billions of dollars of damage to their economy and has been far more devastating than what Russia is doing. That's not to say what Russia is doing is good, but that is insane when you consider all of that. And there was a BBC report on the ground on Wednesday, the day of the supposed invasion. And they went out in, you know, public squares, the government had hung up all these like

unity signs, whatever. And there were protesters out, but they were out about some like small business tax thing that they were mad about. So there was actually more energy around this like specific government policy thing than there was any sort of panic or freak out about potential Russian invasion. So there you go. I mean, that is just you couldn't make it up. And this is the part where CNN and all these others are being specifically called out by the Ukrainians themselves. This is the head of Zelensky's Servant of the People Party in Parliament saying that Western media hysteria is now costing the country two to three billion every month. He specifically says CNN, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal coverage

worse than the top Russian state propagandists. I mean, my thoughts on this is like you said, Russia's not a good actor here. I should be very clear. The Russian Parliament actually passed a resolution basically saying if the eastern ukrainian separatists wanted to separate and become russia that they would be accepted into the russian federation okay i mean this is not good right once again this is setting the ground for if they did want to do a just the tip style invasion and take over eastern ukraine where most of the people there are russian speaking there's been a hot civil war there now for like seven years or I think eight years now that's been happening in the eastern Ukrainian provinces, which are separatists already in all but name only. That goes to show

you that the ground is being set if they still want to do that. The problem, though, is the media, which is you cannot trust these people. What did we show you in our last show? CBS News being like, Russian troops have moved into attack position according to a single U.S. official. I see this stuff constantly being blared by the Western press. Things like Estonian intelligence chief says that Russia may do X, Y, and Z. You think the Estonians don't have a very direct role as a NATO country in themselves sharing a border with Russia and making sure that the West gets whipped up into trying to do something about this?

You have to question people's motivations. You can't just report these things flat out with no context. And that's the problem that we have. The situation is very dynamic. Actually, a listener to the show sent me a piece from the Wall Street Journal about exactly what I've been warning about, that we've had multiple close contacts between our aircraft as the tensions continue. There have been three already just in the past number of days. Three close intercepts. And by the way, thank you to the former Air Force pilot who sent me a very detailed write-up about why I was wrong about

this. But I actually asked another friend in the Pentagon. And from what I hear, they're equally concerned about the same thing. They don't have proper lines of something called deconfliction, where you're like, I'm flying here. No, I'm flying here. There's a lot of big problems that are happening. And all it takes is a single incident for something like this to pop off. And then you have a major diplomatic crisis that can ratchet tensions. And you never even know what you were originally fighting about in the first place. As the situation remains dynamic, we have now 6,000 U.S. troops that have been deployed to the region. Now we have all kinds of disinformation coming out

of Russia. And when NATO tells you, how many times can you tell me that the Russians are moving to attack position and then nothing happens? Like, what's happening? I mean, are they just going there and back and there and back? Here's the other question. Why are there new U.S. journalists who are on the ground with our troops? Oh, because the Pentagon correspondents are literally banned by the Pentagon currently from not being embedded? That's another reason I don't trust them. That is really crazy. All I got to rely on

are these guys doing stand-ups outside of the, stand-up is like a, you know, like a report outside of the capital in Kiev. That's not enough for me. I mean,

I want to see on the ground level stuff, but you know, you're not allowed to do it. I love they're using COVID as an excuse too. And we're going to get to some of the reporting

that is coming out of Ukraine. Yeah. Oh yeah. The stuff that they are showing you. Louding the training of the literal Nazis that were allied with there and who we've been funding and arming. We'll get to that in just a moment. Thank you, NBC News and Richard Engel. Michael Tracy had a good piece, too, where he actually talked to a member of parliament, a Ukrainian member of parliament, who described the conduct of the U.S. media as, quote, crazy and forecasted that $10 billion in cash infusions would be required to stabilize the country as a result of these, quote, alarmist foreign provocations. And that it's that dynamic that is most likely to cause the destruction of the Ukrainian state, not a purported Russian invasion. Now, what the press has been trying to persuade

people is, you know, the reason the Ukrainians are downplaying these, the risk of the Russian invasion isn't because the risk isn't real, isn't because, you know, our CIA and our administration aren't being straightforward about what the real risk is. It's because they don't want economic chaos. But as Michael points out in this piece, I mean, an actual Russian invasion would be far greater economic chaos. So they don't have an incentive here to hide the ball and pretend like, oh, it's all fine, when they in fact know that it's really not all fine. And let me also say the fact that there wasn't a Russian invasion on Wednesday when we were told that that was the date also doesn't mean that it will never happen. And I think we should be really clear about that.

But I saw an analysis, someone who's an expert on these things and who was evaluating the propaganda that was coming out of Russian state media. And they said, this is not propaganda that is prepping people to be behind an invasion and be behind a war. What they're selling to their public is basically like, we got one over on the Western media and, you know, the U.S. without even having to fire a shot. They freaked out. They melted down. Now we have credibility. Now they're listening to our concerns without us having to do anything. So that's sort of what they're prepping. They're prepping their population for there's not going to be an invasion. And we already basically won with the actions that we've taken. So that's important as well. But, you know, there was one piece that was worth actually paying attention to in the New York Times, which we did want to highlight because it gave a little bit of texture to some of the concerns and why Russia may be behaving in some of the manner in which they are.

Let's go ahead and put this tear sheet up on the screen. It says, on the edge of a Polish forest where some of Putin's darkest fears lurk, a U.S. missile facility in Poland is at the heart of an issue animating the Kremlin's calculations over whether to go to war against Ukraine. The issue that they highlight here is a military installation in this small town in Poland, which is very close to Russia. It's barely 800 miles from Moscow itself. It's only 100 miles from Russian territory. And what the U.S. has said is located at this military installation is basically anti-ballistic missiles. They say aimed at shooting down any missiles coming from Iran. But the Russians look at this and go, is this really just for Iran?

And also, how do we know that this is just about defensive capabilities and that you couldn't easily retool this facility to be aggressive and offensive. And I think, you know, if you put yourself in their shoes and you imagine that kind of installation put in place by Russia in Mexico, you could imagine that we would not be incredibly comfortable with that either. And it also gets to our backtracking from what was long-held Cold War doctrine with regard to nuclear deterrence, which was the famous idea of mutually assured destruction. Part of that was in 1972, Russia and the U.S., who were both working on developing anti-missile systems, agreed to step back from that because the whole idea of mutually assured destruction is that both parties have to

be vulnerable. That's right. And so if you have one party that has incredibly effective anti-missile defense systems, then they're protected and you don't have that same deterrent effect. It was under George W. Bush that we stepped away from that. And ever since then, of course, Putin and Russia have become increasingly unsteady, uncertain, aggressive in certain ways. And part of it goes back to this space in Poland and another one that is in Romania. So, again, these are the sorts of pieces that we should see a lot more of that actually helps you to understand the real dynamics of what's going on here and doesn't just fall back on this cheap and easy narrative of Russia bad, Putin evil, mastermind, you know, pulling the strings all around the world,

because then you have more information to evaluate what might actually work in terms of diplomacy, what might actually work to de-escalate and not end up with a hot war on European soil. We could have this conversation. Putin is bad. Okay. He's pissed about this base in Poland. Do we really need it? Can we keep it in Turkey? Oh, yeah, we actually do. You know, Turkey's also a NATO country. We have Incirlik Air Base, all of that.

Is it possible to have roughly the same amount of strategic deterrence against Iranian missiles as well as balance our tensions in know, tensions in the East. This is what real diplomacy looks like. This is what actual strategy looks like. You and I can have a rational conversation even by accepting the basic fact that, yes, this is obviously an aggressive move, but also trying to understand the legitimate concern. I've said this from the top. Look, just give them what they want. Tell them. And there's no sane person on Earth who thinks Ukraine should actually be a part of NATO at this point. Just say it. It's never going to happen. Ukraine. Ukrainians are stepping back from that. And even the Ukraine. And look, even

if they wanted to. I'm sorry, Ukraine. Like, look, you know, it's this is nuclear war that we're talking about here. We have to think about our interests very at the very first. We should have had a big debate in this country about expanding NATO all the way up into the Baltics, in my opinion. I don't think any of those states should even be within NATO, but they're already in there, so what are you going to do? But from my perspective, we have to absolutely just put it off the table. And then if they still invade and are still being aggressive, then you can show that they're full of it completely and just be like, look, we literally said it's not going to happen, and then they're still acting aggressive. Oh, it turns out that this is much more about revanchism. Take it off of the table and take any legitimacy that there possibly could have to the world or even to China

as well, who they've now had an alliance with on this. Remove that from the negotiating table. And let's see how much of this is actually about belligerence. But there's too much hubris here in Washington, Crystal, in order to simply do that. All Joe Biden has to do tomorrow is stand at the podium and say, look, Ukraine, we stand with you. We have a longstanding alliance. You know, we support your right to have a democracy, but you are not going to be a part of NATO because we recognize that we live in a dynamic and a complicated world. I don't see what's so hard about that. Yeah, and obviously we have a lot of potential influence and leverage that we could use with the Ukrainians in terms of economic incentives, in terms of military.

We should back up their economy, too, since we're the ones who are crashing it, apparently. Well, we should 100% be doing that. But we can use some of that leverage to push them in the direction of a referendum of the type that they're contemplating here and some more vocal language about, hey, you know, what Zelensky said was basically, you know, this may be a dream. This entry into NATO basically stepping back and saying we might have wanted this to happen, but it may not be worth the price of admission. So that's where things stand today. I always want to emphasize a very dynamic situation just because there's been, you know, the invasion date was missed and the false flag hasn't happened yet. Right. Certainly, you still have a lot of Russian combatants in, you know, aggressive postures and all of that. So tensions are not gone.

Something bad could still happen now or down the road. But the date certain of February 16th came and went without them invading. That's right. All right. Let's go ahead and get to this. This is really troubling and fits directly with what we've been focusing on here, which is that the role currently of the media and of the U.S. intelligence community in spawning and exacerbating some of the crisis that we began to see. And one of the most stunning things that has happened yet, some of you might have seen a viral image of a Ukrainian grandmother, 79 years old, who was training in order to resist the Russians. This was a piece that was done by NBC News. Let's take a listen. Some communities are taking matters into their own hands.

Just across from Russia, in the city of Mariupol, some Ukrainians are preparing. Basic training for the whole family. Learning first aid to treat gunshot and shrapnel wounds. And weapons training. On a 7.62 caliber AK-47 is Valentina Konstantinovskaya. The 79-year-old is a retired accountant and a great-grandmother. You're about my mother's age,

and I can't picture my mother laying down on the concrete learning how to fire an assault rifle. Do you think you would actually be doing this? Yes, if Putin comes, I should be able to shoot. The threat is very serious, she says, and I think every person in our country should be able to shoot from the window or on the street if the enemy comes. And unfortunately, Crystal, that viral moment, it came out later that the group that was training those people were legit neo-Nazis. So let's go ahead and put that up there on the screen, which is that Ukraine far-right group offers training to civilians and that the 79-year-old

who said she was ready to defend her family was being trained herself by a neo-Nazi group in the city of Maripol. Yes, the Azov Battalion. I'm probably saying that wrong. I apologize. Well, and by the way, it wasn't hard to tell. I don't know if you noticed the, like, patch that was on there. Yeah, they had, like, SS patches on their thing. That's how you know. They had, like, lightning SS patches. Right.

And, I mean, by the way, this is important history, too, with this, you know, group of far-right neo-nazis which is that originally when we had authorized uh funding uh you know training and equipment to ukrainians there was originally a line in the bill that that said but not these guys and then when nobody was looking they're like yeah these guys too so these are these are our allies they're like these actual neo-nazis very upfront about their views, and they are just as important as you would expect. These are some of our allies there who we have been certainly arming. Very likely, it would be surprising if they weren't included in that CIA program that we brought to you, where we're bringing people here and we're training

them in all sorts of the things that we know how to do well. So, yeah, these are some of the people that we're supporting. And NBC just puts it up there, like this heartwarming story of the tough grandma who's getting all trained up to combat the bad Russians. Look, go grandma. It's not my country. But it's one of those things where when it's our dollars and our media who's holding this stuff up and painting a picture, they're not telling you the full story. This is the same thing about what happened in Syria, which is also question this. Do the rest of the Ukrainians want those people to be the ones who are in defense? Ask the Ukrainian government how they feel about those neo-Nazi groups. They don't like them. There's the rest of the Ukrainian

people. I bet they also don't even want to be associated with them. We had the same problem in Syria. They're like, oh, well, they're fighting ISIS. Okay, but what else do they believe? And what, you know, it's like, well, what else are they happening here on the ground? These are, again, questions which you have no insight into whatsoever, which a one minute soundbite from NBC News, which paints it all as black and white. But, you know, us funding and training and equipping radical extremists, that never comes back to bite us, right, Sagar? That never happens. Of course, right?

And then, oh, we don't even think about that and how that might look in the future. Here's the scary thing. What if those people do win? And also, you think the Russians wouldn't have a propaganda field day to be like, oh, we're fighting Nazism backed by the United States? Right. Given what they call the Great Patriotic War or World War II and all that has so much salience in their own country. But at the same time, and I want to tie this to the US intelligence, because this is another story that we've been looking at very closely, which is that there's a blog called Zero Hedge. Now, look, I don't agree with Zero Hedge all the time. I actually

think his or their views on monetary policy and all that are completely wrong. But I believe in complete freedom of speech, especially whenever it comes to editorializing. If he publishes something false on this blog, then he can be sued for defamation, libel, and all that, as per the United States court system. But the U.S. intelligence community is doing one of the most cowardly and insane things I've ever seen with the help of the mainstream media. Go ahead and put this up there on the screen. So on Wednesday, the United States accused the financial website Zero Hedge of, quote, spreading Russian propaganda. Now, let's be very clear here. The U.S. intelligence officials briefed a bunch of reporters in the mainstream press on background and accused Zero Hedge of publishing Russian

misinformation and propaganda. To be clear here, the U.S. intelligence community are not identified as to exactly which agency. They do not point to any specific article that Zero Hedge actually did. They are not putting their names to this accusation against the Zero Hedge website, and they are simply warning and accusing it anonymously through laundering of the mainstream press. The press does nothing except print U.S. accuses financial website of spreading Russian propaganda. They cover their bases by being like Zero Hedge denies it. But once you have that out there, you are now branded on as literally a disinformation outlet. Especially in this climate. Especially in this climate.

And just to emphasize this very clearly. So the U.S. brands zero hedge Russian propaganda. They don't give you any evidence. They don't tell you which agency has assessed this, to what extent. Was it an op-ed? Was it a post? Was it a tweet? Also, who is the U.S. Intelligence Committee, even frankly, to litigate any of that? But that's another question. And then what happens, let's put this up there on the screen, which is that when you go on Twitter, I've pointed this out, and you click on a zerohedge.com link, Twitter is placing a warning on all links on zero hedge and gives no reason as to

why simply saying that some of the content on that website may violate Twitter's terms of service. Now, here's the thing. If it's not on Twitter, why do you care? You have no business litigating that. Like I said, if zero hedge publishes something which is false, defamatory, or libelous, you can sue them in a U.S. court and you can prevail. However, we have strong free press convictions and defenses in the United States specifically for this reason. But you are seeing the fusion here of the government, the U.S. intelligence community, with no evidence, can simply accuse you of being a Russian propaganda outlet. And then Twitter, a private company, just making it so that you are getting warnings and labels placed on your links. Now, to be fair to ZeroHead, or to be fair, Twitter has placed this warning intermittently on ZeroHedge links for some time. But ZeroHedge was actually the account,

Crystal, which was banned for floating the lab leak theory in February of 2020 and was kept off of the platform for six or plus months. So this is already an outlet which has published a theory, which, by the way, looks predominantly to be true two years later, was taken off and deplatformed for this specific reason and now being directly targeted by the U.S. intelligence community and essentially being censored by a private outlet. Like I said, I don't agree with the guy all the time whenever it comes to monetary policy, but that is far beyond the point. Irrelevant. I'm not being like, oh, I'm accusing Zero Hedge of spreading financial misinformation. I'm not saying that. I think he has a right to say and to publish whatever he wants on his blog.

This should be seen as part of a larger propaganda effort that we've been tracking around these, you know, potential Russian hostilities in Ukraine, potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. Because the line consistently from mainstream press, from lots of blue checks on Twitter and directly from the administration is, hey, if you question us, we don't know what your motives are, right? If you question us, maybe it's because you're a useful idiot. Maybe it's because you're a Kremlin propagandist. I mean, that's what we saw. That was the insinuation

in that extraordinary exchange we played you with Ned Price, which was like, listen, we don't have to give you evidence and you just have to take it and accept it. And if you don't, I'm not sure that you're a patriot. I'm not sure that you really, you know, are standing for American values. Some of the things that Zero Hedge was publishing with regards to Russia and Ukraine were pretty similar to some of the things we've been saying on this show. That's right. Questioning the media narrative about just how imminent this invasion was,

questioning the media narrative in terms of, you know, failing to help people understand what Russia's position in all of this was. And so that's why this is, you know, this is very troubling stuff. And like you said, the fusion between intelligence agencies, what their, and then their use of the mainstream press and then the, you know, the Biden administration. And then you have these tech giants who are only happy to serve power. And we're going to show you in a moment the way that they also apply their rules extraordinarily selectively. Yeah, this is this is deeply troubling, in a climate where you know people are routinely

smeared it's this mccarthyite smearing red baiting smearing of oh you're really doing the duty you know doing the bidding of putin you're putin's puppet all of that stuff now that this label has been given to zero hedge anything they publish or print from now on, there's a whole group of people who will just automatically dismiss it. Yeah. Even though on some things they have been right when the mainstream media has been wrong. And it's also really noteworthy, and this is why we put these two things together. Is NBC News going to face any repercussions or accountability? They spread neo-Nazi propaganda.

For their neo-Nazi propaganda? No, they're not. They're not going to be censored. They're not going to have a label put on them on Twitter or anything like that. They're not going to be called Nazi propaganda. And you know what, Crystal? They shouldn't be censored. Are we calling for that here?

No. Of course not. We are doing what you're supposed to do. They published something dumb without context and got caught, and we are exposing it here on our show. You choose what you would like to consume and in the long run who you think is more trustworthy. If you choose them, well, I don't really get it, but that's on you. And this is the thing. In a free society, you cannot allow this fusion of state and tech in order to censor

whatever they deem misinformation. That is straight up police state. Look, I am as big of a critic as there is when it comes to the fusion of woke ideology and big tech. And that's a whole other conversation. But when it comes to the actual United States government accusing you of private website and outlet of spreading propaganda with no evidence, with no citations and anonymously laundered through the press, and then actions being taken against them, again, with no specific violation of a term of service that is even specified. That's straight up, I mean, I don't know what else. That is a 1984 Orwellian-type behavior. And you're right.

Look, our show is doing very well right now. I'm not going to lie. It's great on YouTube, Spotify, all of that. All it takes is one person in the U.S. intelligence community to leak that Breaking Points, which as of this morning is a top political podcast on Spotify in the United States, back it up with anything. They can just say it. Some lackey in the mainstream press will undoubtedly print it as they did. Uncritically print it.

They'll include our, like, denial, but nobody will care. And there you go. And then what's YouTube going to do? They're going to be like, oh my God,

well, we can't be complicit in spreading Russian disinformation. Boom, you're done. I mean, this is, you think I'm exaggerating. It can happen this quickly. We set up our business to make sure that it's, financially at least, we could be okay. But

that's not the point. The point is, is that all of us out here are vulnerable to actions like this. And didn't we used to understand this? When the Bush administration accused the New York Times, and when George W. Bush looked the editor of the New York Times in the face and said, by publishing this top secret NSA program, you will be responsible for deaths. And he was like, the editors were like, I'm sorry, we're going to publish it. He did the right thing. That is what it used to look like. You look the intel community and the people in the face and you say, you know what?

I got the info. Screw you. I'm publishing. It's up to the public to litigate and to decide. And this is just something where with the fusion of now the intelligence community and the sympathetic media because of Russiagate, because of a lot of different reasons, you know, as long as you're on the right side of disinformation, you're fine. Then, you know, we are seeing one of the most dangerous and censorious environments in a very long time.

I truly despair when I see this. And I know a lot of people out there, oh, you're defending zero hedge, just like with Assange. It's not about zero hedge. It's not even about him. It's about the precedent and the principles that are being set in a economy and in a world where millions of people now, more so than the mainstream media, get their news on the internet. And in that, we can't allow the U.S. intelligence community to litigate this. We simply can't. Or we have long ago sailed off into a new age and a new land. Yeah.

Well, speaking of authoritarianism, we've got some updates for you from our neighbors up north, and they are deeply troubled. Our neighbors to the north, I don't know what's happening in Canada. It's deeply sad. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. We'll start with the news, which is that the Ottawa police are warning occupiers, quote, leave now as the protesters dig in. This is after Canadian Prime Minister has gone ahead and Justin Trudeau has declared a state of emergency, has suspended civil liberties whenever it comes to government actions that are taken. And Crystal, before we even get into the media doxing of private donors who gave money through a website called GiveSendGo, which was then hacked and had their donor list

leak, and now we have media organizations contacting them, you were telling me this morning about some of the financial warfare that the Canadian government is undertaking. Could you out like that for Tuesday is an extraordinary maneuver to invoke the Emergencies Act. Trudeau is the first prime minister ever to do so. They considered it for covid, decided that was too extreme. But to deal with a protest, they have now decided to invoke the most extreme and sweeping powers of the Canadian government. And as part of that, they are asking banks to not just freeze the accounts of people who are supporting these protests or either giving money or just participating in the protests. They're saying credit cards should be canceled, that they should be completely debanked. So your mortgage could be canceled. If you're applying for a mortgage, you're certainly not going to get one. Even things like with your accounts frozen, you know, things like alimony

or child support payments may not go out. And these banks are also completely exempt from any liability if they target someone and completely screw them financially who wasn't even involved in the protests. So banks are given carte blanche to debank, freeze the accounts, and make them completely so that they can't have any interaction with the financial banking system. Yeah, welcome to China. This is called social credit support. This is what it is. Totally, totally insane. And so, and they're being pressured also to do this. So not only do they not face liability if they screw it up, not that they should be doing this to anybody, but they're being pressured to cut off the financial support because Canada has decided the minute that they messed with U.S. trade, man, the hammer came down.

And these are tactics the likes of which I have never, ever seen. Now, I will say, Sagar, I looked up, because I was curious, some of the polling around how Canadians feel about all of this. And specifically with regards to the military being brought in to deal with the protests, 64% agreed with bringing in the military. So I'm not going to say that there isn't significant support in Canada for some of these actions, but think about what this means. They are designating even people who are small dollar donors as terrorists. We're about to talk about the way these people have been doxxed. Some of their businesses have been harassed and been forced to shut down. All because they sent a little bit of money or showed up to a protest of a cause that

they believe in. And again, their cause is not particularly my cause. It doesn't matter what they're asking for. Their core demands are totally a legitimate line of inquiry and protest and debate. And I do not care where you are on the political spectrum. We have got to stand against the idea of using the military, making arrests, invoking something as sweeping as the Emergencies Act, and then freezing people out of the banking system altogether. Ruining their lives. Truly, truly seeking to destroy their lives.

It's so insane. I can't even believe that this is real. Yeah. And look, if you're Canadian, I mean, I would just implore you to think about the principle and the precedent that is being set, because from our perspective, this is totally nuts. You know, I want to give major props here to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who spoke out yesterday about the media effort to dox some of these small dollar donors. And I previewed some of this, but this is something I found myself at the center

of the storm somehow, which is that the GiveSendGo, the Christian fundraising site, had its website or its donor list hacked as to who gave money to the trucker freedom convoy fundraising effort. Some of these people now are being doxed and contacted by the being harassed because she gave $250 to this protest in Canada. And Ilhan Omar, to her eternal credit, spoke out for this. Let's put this up there on the screen. She says, quote, I fail to see why any journalist felt the need to report on a shop owner making such an insignificant donation rather than to get them harassed. It is unconscionable and journalists need to do better. She is 100% correct. And it

takes a lot of courage for her to say what she did because I bet you she's getting a lot of pushback. And you know, I can say this because I found myself too now in the center of the storm. I was minding my own business yesterday and I got a message from a person who watches this show. This person donated $40 to the Freedom Convoy. $40, okay? Just happened to support the cause. An American citizen exercising his right. It's his money. The donor list gets hacked. And what does he show me? He shows me an email from the Washington Post who is contacting him. Let's put this up there on the screen. I have the exact email here, which he provided to me. Quote, my name is, and I'm not going to give you the name of the reporter because this person asked me to take out identifying information.

I am reporter at the Washington Post. I am writing about leaked data on give, send, go contributions to the trucker convoy in Canada. Your name and email addresses are associated with a $40 contribution. Could you please tell me if this matches your records and either call or reply to this email to share what motivated you to contribute to this campaign? Now, Crystal, imagine you are an average citizen who is sitting out there. You privately donated money. Your name name has now been leaked and now a Washington Post journalist is contacting you let's say that you work in an apolitical environment you're terrified your name could be published over a $40 donation to a cause a private political cause that you believe in you could lose your job you could be socially ostracized

your kids parents friends or whatever may not want to talk to you anymore. You didn't ask for this. It is a free country. And to watch the response to this has been unbelievable to me. So the tweet went very viral, which I frankly did not expect. And here's what ends up happening. I find myself at the center of a political storm because almost every journalist in America decides to start attacking me, saying, oh, you've never heard of reporting before. This is called reporting. Okay. Number one, if Fox news was using a hacked donor list of black lives matter donors and contacting them,

we all know what all of you would say. And by the way, I would agree with that. I would absolutely agree with that, which is, I don't think private donation lists, especially small dollar donors like this, should be targeted, harassed, or have their names exposed in any way. Number two, here's this. What happened to Twitter's hacked materials policy, Crystal? WikiLeaks and all of that was deemed state propaganda. Oh, we can never report on hacked materials. They're very comfortable reporting hacked materials and exposing the names of, once again, normal, average citizens. You want to count after Crystal and I? That's all part of the game, man. I'm used to it.

I have a show here. I'm very lucky I'll be able to talk to it. If you're a public figure or a billionaire or whatever, it's all good. You're in the square. You're in the debate. But a normal person out there, $40? The sociopathic response to this, Crystal, has been, Sagar, you're an idiot. There's nothing wrong with what's happening here whatsoever.

No, no, no, no, no. In this country in the year 2022, to have your private political activity exposed as a normal citizen, that is an act of harassment. You could lose your job. And if you don't understand that, you need to ask yourself, why is trust in media so low? I'm repulsed by the response to so much of this. And the lack of empathy for a normal person living their lives who is getting harassed and doxxed.

I mean, I- Who wanted to send a small modicum of support to a cause they believe in. It's a free country. And you know, here's something too. This individual gave with the expectation of anonymity. Yes. You know, if you're giving a political contribution, you know the rules, you know the dollar amount threshold above which your name is going to be publicly available and all of that.

But these individuals gave with the expectation of anonymity. And also, it's very clear what is already happening to some of the people who have been publicized, not just their name put on the list, but then their names publicized and written up about in news articles. So it's a very real concern. And I also think it just exposes how sad the press is that, like, you know, there are huge, consequentialential power-based stories involved with this protest. And you're going to spend your time chasing down some $40 donor and harassing them about why they gave to this cause and what motivated them and all of that. And we don't know whether, you know, this person's name would end up in a story with their motivations exposed and subject them to all of that scrutiny that they never wanted and never asked for. So there's such an instinct because it's so easy to write these punching down stories about the bad individual citizens

and how evil they are and how wrong they are. And there's no consequences because these people, they don't have the money for like lawyers to fight back and protect themselves and all of this. Whereas if you're punching up,

you know, this is part of why the Jeffrey Epstein thing was never exposed, which, by the way, we're going to give you an update on all of that tomorrow. It's coming this weekend, guys. We had so much in the show. There was a lot in the show. The Prince Andrew thing will come, I promise.

Yeah, we've got Prince Andrew thing. I think it's going to drop tomorrow. Anyway, but to do that, oh, that takes some courage. That might take going against your social circle. That certainly takes going against somebody who has power and influence and money to fight back. So they choose this cheap and easy approach. And what ends up happening then is, you know, the dynamic that plays out across partisan media, where it's all

about demonizing the individual citizens who happen to have an ideology that your core audience doesn't agree with. Everybody is trained to hate one another, and you end up with a really ugly society. So this is like a microcosm of how they've gone so wrong. What are you doing spending your time on chasing after these small dollar donors instead of asking, what are the banks going to do here? What's Trudeau going to do here? What are these big tech giants going to do here? And then on the Twitter thing, I mean, you know, I'm not the first to point this out. The whole reason that the Hunter Biden laptop story was totally censored, New York Post's account was suspended. I mean, they lost their minds over. You can't report or you can't link to, you can't tweet

about the Hunter Biden laptop stuff was because it was hacked materials. People are straight up, I mean, the Hunter Biden thing wasn't even really hacked materials because it was on his laptop, whatever. But I mean, we should have been able to talk about it nonetheless. But people are directly posting the link to and outing names on Twitter based on clearly hacked materials. And Twitter has done nothing. And that's the president's son. He got more protection than normal people out there working stiff. Yes. You know, he's a multimillionaire. Exactly. Exactly right. So Twitter hasn't responded to requests for comment about why there's such a blatant, incredible double standard here. Their policy

says something like there's an exemption if it's hacked materials that were journalistically reported on and have to do with holding power to account or something like that. Is this holding power to account? These people who gave like 20 bucks to a cause, is that holding power to account? It's disgusting. It's really blatantly dishonest. It's blatantly biased. And this is why we are always pushing back against the idea that these companies should have the ability to pick and choose how they handle these situations. 100%. Obviously, we need principles and all that. But just, you know, if in the off chance that any member of the mainstream press is listening,

ask yourself why nobody trusts you. Ask yourself why this show is doing so much better than you. And here's the reason. You know, normal people are fed up, and they're terrified. They're being targeted for their private political beliefs. They're being demonized. You know, these banks in Canada,

last time I checked, we have the same banks. Why don't you go ask J.P. Morgan and all those other people? Are you complying with this policy? Does the United States government give you any instruction in order to do so? That would require, as you said, actually going and facing the billionaires who, by the way, sponsor a lot of these people who are also in the media. So look, I'm always going to stand up for these people. I know you are as well. Any of these activists who are out there, I mean, not even activists, normal citizens who just felt like they wanted to give money to a cause that they believe in. It's a cause of freedom in terms of defending their right to be able to privately want to engage in this behavior and not face immense political pushback. And if you don't get that, you're a sociopath. That's what I discovered yesterday.

Many of these people are sociopaths. How is it controversial to send in money to a political cause about just like, hey, we want to change our COVID policy? This is not crazy. I mean, it's not, this is not radical. In fact, I mean, here in DC and in states across the country, blue states and blue cities are rolling back a lot of these, you know, mandates and mask requirements and all of those things. Like, they're not really demanding anything more radical than what's being done in a lot of blue cities and blue states right now. So it's this derangement around the trucker protest is really wild.

It truly is. I feel for the people in Canada. Okay, let's go ahead and move on. Slightly more hopeful story from my perspective. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen, which is that San Francisco has been in the midst of a major recall around election for three members of the school board. And on Tuesday, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly supported the ouster of three of these members. It's the first recall election in nearly 40 years. So specifically on the recall itself, I spent a lot of time reading about this. Part of the problem, Crystal, is that a lot of this stuff gets culture-warified

into the right and left-wing media, and that's specifically why I tried to read it all through the lens of California-based local at both LA Times and San Francisco. So here's what happened. About a quarter of the people in San Francisco ended up coming out to vote. The major issue at hand had nothing to do with critical race theory. It had to happen with this, that these three school members in particular, number one, had antagonized

the Asian American community by removing the standards test-based system in order to enter the most prestigious high school in San Francisco, which has to do with test scores and assumptions of equity and how apparently that's a much better system to have a lottery won. But the second one was this, furor and outrage over the fact that San Francisco schools were closed longer than some of the most in the country, and that in the midst of that, that these three members in particular sought to have a campaign to rename one-third of the schools in San Francisco, including a school named after Abraham Lincoln. Look, you know, one of them was Dianne Feinstein.

I actually think it's kind of funny. I can't stand Dianne Feinstein. Oh, they were going to rename a school named after Dianne Feinstein? That's kind of hilarious. I support that. Diofine. Oh, they were going to rename the school named after Diofine? That's kind of hilarious. Yeah, I also support that for different reasons. I'm now opposed to the recall. Not woke reasons. It came down to this.

Were these people normal citizens? Overwhelmingly democratic in nature. Many of them Asian Americans. This was a huge show out from the Asian Americans who came out and said, you are focused on non-critical BS, like renaming schools, while my kid has a mask strapped to his face or cannot go to school and has to do Zoom. And that is ultimately what this was all about. So there's a lot of culture war analysis of this. I frankly think it just comes down to wokeism is certainly part of it, giving the whole school school renaming. It was COVID insanity.

I think that's at the end of the day. That is why there was this overwhelming 70 percent vote in order to turn them in order to recall this election. And just to show you how mainstream the concerns over the actions of the school board and these three members in particular were, San Francisco Mayor London Breed. Yeah, she supported the recall. She supported the recall because of exactly the reasons that you're citing, that she felt in particular that schools were shut for way too long, that they were focused on other superfluous issues rather than doing the work to try to prepare to reopen schools. And of course, we've tracked here very closely that while it was an understandable, out of necessity and caution decision at the very beginning of the pandemic, it very quickly became clear that that policy was doing a lot more damage to kids than ultimately it was protecting them.

And then you layer on top of that the issue with, I think it's called Lowell High School, I just remember because my son is also named Lowell, where they, you know, it's a similar sort of touchy dynamic as what we've seen in New York, where there's this kind of sense from the Chinese American community in particular that they changed the metrics because there were too many Asians testing into the school. They're like, well, this seems like bullshit. This is unfair. It is actually, yes.

So you layer those things on top of one another. And what you get is a picture of, you know, it's the big problem for the Democratic Party writ large, something I'm talking about in my monologue. Like you're focused on all this symbolic cultural nonsense that doesn't impact people's daily lives. And on the issues that are at the core of people's concerns, healthcare, education, economics, you're out to lunch. You're not doing anything. Or in this instance, you're actively harming us. It's not just that you're like absent. You're actively harming us and our children and their ability to learn in a classroom. I mean, I can tell you as a parent, the year and a little bit that my kids were on remote learning, it was a lost year.

Yeah, it was a lost year. My kids are extraordinarily lucky and privileged in a million years. And they're kids who do well at school and, you know, don't have like issues learning. But my son, when he was seven and he's trying to do remote, six and seven, he's trying to do remote learning. That was impossible. That was impossible. So I feel for these parents and I completely understand why they turned down and why there was such a lopsided margin in favor of removing these people. I also have to throw in, this was also from the local coverage, the Board of Supervisors president who was backing the school board members, so they were against the recall.

This is how they explained what was going on and very much trying to paint it like this wasn't a local grassroots movement, that this was outside forces and all of this. So the Board of Supervisors president says, Trump's election and bold prejudice brought a lot of that out, even in our democratic and liberal city. There are a lot of people who do not want people of color making decisions in leadership, even though the voters said that is what they want. The three individuals who are recalled happen to be people of color. Oh, by the way, so are six out of seven other members of the school board. So to paint this as- Prime racism.

Just trying to paint it as some like, oh, it's Trump's fault and it's racism. This is why you all deserve to lose. I mean, look, I've said a million times, Republicans don't deserve to win, but if this is what your approach is going to be, you 100% deserve to lose. I also forgot to mention this one. Allison Collins, who was one of the three AUSA board members, had actually said in the past that Asian Americans are like slaves who benefit from working inside the slave owner's house. So basically calling us all Uncle Toms, who are doing well inside the system and not bucking it, not standing in solidarity. So, Allison, you know, screw you. Burn in hell. I don't really know what else to say. Because when you see crying racism at San Francisco voters, San Francisco voters, probably some of the most progressive people on the planet,

or at least in the United States, and calling them racist for wanting their kids to go back to school. That's the ultimate state of this. But what actually also bothers me is, you know, it just shows you the essentialism that comes down to so much of our politics, which is so depressing. You know, we are fighting these titanic battles, masks in school or not. Some race book, which, by the way, I completely oppose, in school or not.

We're not having fights about funding better curricula you know like should we sports funding you know after-school program actually helping some of these kids increasing math and science pathways to apprenticeships all that is off the table it's a binary choice mass in school or not. Not school better or not, or school better this way or school better this way. That's the most depressing part. And that's a real regression because before the pandemic, we were having that conversation. I mean, that's what the Red for Ed, the teacher strikes, that's what they

were all about. I mean, yeah, there were local issues about like teacher pensions, but what that really boiled down to and why you saw those protests sweeping across a lot of different red states is because those are the states that had cut education funding and cut education funding, cut education funding. So they were pulling, you know, schools where they didn't have enough resources to even have a five-day school week. Or like teachers buying, you know, supplies on their phones. Which is routine. I mean, we showed you that the teachers scrambling for cash at the hockey game. I think it was in North or South Dakota. I remember the images coming out of textbooks that were from like 30 years ago and are totally worn down. I mean, that conversation was really essential and really

critical. And now that's lost in, you know, what are effectively culture war fights. There's one other piece of this California story that is relevant, which is, this is astonishing, shows you what a bad place Democrats are in right now. Joe Biden, let's put these numbers up on the screen. Joe Biden is actually underwater in California. Now it's narrow.

47% approve. That takes skill. 48% disapprove. Look at the numbers for Kamala. This is her home state. 38% approve and 46% disapprove. Okay, guys, Democrats have lost California. Now that doesn't mean, obviously, as we saw with Gavin Newsom, that they're ready to vote for Republicans.

But this is how great the failures are and how disgusted people are with the total lack of action and care and concern for what their actual day-to-day concerns are. That even in California, Biden is underwater. And again, you notice, keep these numbers up for a second longer. You notice another trend that we've been tracking from the very beginning. He only has 17 percent that approve strongly. And meanwhile, he has 34 percent who disapprove strongly. Similar with Kamala. She has only 15 percent that approve strongly and 35 percent who disapprove strongly. So even for Biden, when you have it roughly 50-50 here, the number of people who love him are dwarfed by the number of people who absolutely hate him. It was the polar

opposite. With Trump, it was just completely polarized and divided. You had a lot of people who loved him and a lot of people who hated him. Biden does not have that core enthusiastic support, even in a state like California. Yeah, look, these numbers, it just shows you the ultimate state. They're complete paper tigers. They got through the luckiest people on earth and somehow got into the Oval Office. But reality is coming in quick. And look, I resisted the Jimmy Carter label for a long time, but I continue to see a lot of parallels. And at that time, there was one former governor of California who came out and who showed you what the next political revolution was going to be. So I don't know who that person is. I don't think it's going to be Gavin Newsom who's coming to our rescue though this time, guys. Probably not. I don't think it's going to be Ron DeSantis either. Perhaps that person is out there. I mean, you have to think he's going to get a primary. Like these numbers are just way too weak for them not to smell blood in the water for somebody to jump in.

Right? I mean, it's a one-party state. They've got that fake primary thing. Oh, I'm not talking about California. I'm talking about primary. Biden in general. Yeah, yeah. Look, I hope so.

We'll see. The regime is strong, even though it is weak. Maybe. Maybe the regime is strong. We're going to find out. All right. Got some big updates for you on CNN that we wanted to get to. First of all, we got some more details about how it all went down between Cuomo and Zucker, because these two

were thick as thieves. They were best buddies during the pandemic. They were going for multi hour long walks together in Central Park. So how did this all come apart to the point of Cuomo ultimately getting fired? Let's throw this New York Times tear sheet up on the screen. They brought in everybody. They even brought Ben Smith back for reporting on this. I don't know if you noticed that. I did actually see it on the byline. This was a team effort here to get to the bottom of this one. The long and short of this says, how a secret assault allegation against an anchor, that would be Cuomo, upended CNN and Jeff Zucker. The network's top-rated host and its president were forced out following ethical lapses, an office romance, and a letter from a lawyer for Jane Doe.

So long and short of what is a very lengthy article is it looked like Zucker really wanted, know, things continue to come out about Cuomo and his abuse of power, and then Letitia James's investigation reveals how he's advising his brother in ways that had never been made public, and maybe or maybe not Zucker knew about, we don't know at this point. Zucker really wanted to let him off with a suspension and bring him back. And I don't know if you remember this, I'd kind of forgotten this, but Brian Stelter had even reported, we think Cuomo's going to be back in January. I do remember that. That's right. Yeah, because we were, we, that's kind of what we thought. Oh, they're going to, they're going to tube in this. They're going to wait for the frenzy to die down and then they're going to bring him back. But then they actually fired him. So we're like, what the hell? I can't believe they

actually did it. Well, what happened is immediately after Zucker brings in Cuomo and says, hey, we're going to suspend you, but, you know, wink and a nod, you're probably going to come back. They get a letter at CNN. It's from a lawyer representing a woman who had worked with Cuomo at ABC News years earlier. And she alleged that he had sexually assaulted her.

And the story goes, according to her, that in 2011, when she, you know, was only referred to as Jane Doe, was a temporary employee, a young temporary employee at ABC. She was hoping for a full-time job. Cuomo offers her career advice, invites her to lunch in his office. She shows up. There's no food there. Little red flag right there. And then Cuomo badgers her for sex. And after she declined, allegedly, according to her, he denies it, he assaulted her and she ran out of the room. And somehow what makes this even so much worse

is years later, when it's coming out about Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose and all of these anchors, longtime institutions are being brought low by their own Me Too scandals. Well, she hadn't heard from Chris Cuomo in quite a while. He reaches back out to her and says, hey, why don't we do a nice piece for you on CNN about the company you work for now? Basically trying to smooth the waters over so that she wouldn't come out of the woodwork and meet to him as well and destroy his career. So apparently when this letter arrives and she's being represented by a well-known attorney and they say, hey, we've got contemporaneous evidence. And she told multiple people at the time,

apparently this was the final straw where based on everything that had been revealed in the investigation from Letitia James and the sense that Cuomo hadn't been up front with executives about what exactly was going on. And then this comes out, and they finally said, all right, we're pulling the plug here. So that's the Cuomo piece. But we also got some additional news about what was going on with Zucker and Gallist. And this first piece actually also comes from The Times. You know, sure, the office romance, okay, that's a part of it. But really what was going on is, quote, CNN had skidded into third place in cable news ratings. A key investor, something we talked about here a lot, had criticized the network's opinionated, personality-driven programming.

Zucker had clashed with the top executive, that's Jason Kyler, who ultimately pulls the plug on him, at CNN's parent company, and he had made powerful enemies now out of Cuomo and his brother because he fired them. So it's that internal power struggle

that ultimately put Zucker's career into jeopardy. And then, let's put this next piece up on the screen. Then we find out that their own internal investigation into what was going on with Cuomo and the advice he was giving with his brother also uncovers wrongdoing not only by Chris Cuomo, but by Alison Gallist and Jeff Zucker. Alison being, of course, Zucker's mistress. So it turns out, while they were trying to, you know, just push this off all on Chris Cuomo, they were also involved in practices that they said did not meet CNN's journalistic standards.

So Alison Gallist has now also resigned in statement. She said, WarnerMedia's statement tonight is an attempt to retaliate against me and change the media narrative in the wake of their disastrous handling of the last two weeks is deeply disappointing. And after spending the past nine years defending and upholding CNN's highest standards

of journalistic integrity, okay, I would be treated this way as I leave. So that's the last piece here. They didn't give any details about what exactly Zucker was doing, what exactly Gallup was doing. Part of the leaks to the press was that they were directly advising Governor Cuomo on his COVID briefing, giving him talking points to push back against Trump. That's part of the leaks that have come out in the media. There's no specifics here

about what the probe found, but the bottom line is the same dirty business that Chris Cuomo was engaged in, these two appear to have been as well. I got to ask you, Crystal, because you're the only one who worked at a major network. Do you have to be like a complete sociopath to succeed? I don't get it. I'm like, yo, like cornering a woman at work, pestering her and assaulting her at work and then trying to use your platform in a blatant cover-up and then your boss is has a mistress who's his number two and they're all engaged in this like political cabal yes i said it uh cabal yeah in which they're defending each other and roger ailes into that as well that That's what I mean. It's bipartisan. I don't

understand. I'm like, do you truly have to be just like bottom of the barrel scum in order to succeed? I don't get it. And a lot of these guys came up. I mean, this truly was the culture among these men in media. Was they just, this was part of what, you know, they thought this was fine, that this behavior, which was longstanding routine within these media organizations, they just thought this is, you know, I mean, it's just it's utterly disgusting. But these are people who oftentimes are drawn to careers in media because they're total narcissists and egomaniacs who think the rules do not apply to them. They get, you know, high on their own supply. They think they're God's gift. They think that they can get away with anything. The rules don't apply to them. And oftentimes, for many years, they were right. So, you know, I mean, how many years was Lauer,

like, you know, cornering women and sleeping with interns and open secret? People knew what a sleazeball this guy was. And getting paid like $20 million a year. Yeah. People knew that he was a total, you know, a sleazeball, and it never impacted him. He was fine. Cuomo, I mean, it sounds very much like the similar behavior that his brother engaged in as governor, at least what was alleged. Again, they all deny all of this. At this point with Chris Cuomo, you'll recall there was also that piece that was published in the New York Times of another woman who made allegations about him. And that he had, remember, he sent that email. Oh, he sent her that email. Apologizing.

I'm sorry for playing grab ass with your boss. With your boss at a party when her husband was there. So it was like 5 p.m. It's not like it was like 1 a.m. 1 in the morning. Yeah, it's like not a frat basement here. So I mean that, when he's caught

engaged in that kind of brazen behavior, it's not a surprise that there would be other, you know, other shoes to drop here. Yeah, look, I really don't even know

what to say. It's stunning to me. And the most stunning part is that the talent at CNN, remember this. Talent. They are outraged that Jeff Zucker was fired. Was fired. Yeah. That's what they're upset about. They're not upset at Chris Cuomo. They are not upset at their own boss having a mistress as his number two and then the two of them engaging in powerful defense of a Democratic official and tarnishing the news brand and the value of their product.

They are upset that their corrupt boss was fired. Yeah. Because he protected them. I think they actually are upset about Chris Cuomo because he's apparently a total asshole that everyone hated. Oh, okay. That makes sense. Yeah. But they are very upset. They are very upset about Zucker. Not that he was also a sleazeball compromising all of their journalistic integrity, but that he got fired.

That's the thing they're having, literal mental breakdowns. That is what, quote unquote, the most trusted name in news people, that's what they're mad about. Amazing. Always remember that. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, guys, there's a new round of polling from the Dems who are desperately and hopelessly probably trying to maintain their grip on the House. According to Politico, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, has commissioned polling that finds Democrats currently at a four-point disadvantage to

Republicans in battleground districts that's on the generic ballot. To be honest with you, I actually would have thought those numbers would start off a little bit worse than that. Overall, the poll finds that some significant number of battleground voters think the party is, quote, preachy, judgmental, and focused on culture wars. Kind of hard to argue with them on any of that. Where things go from bad to historic disaster is when the pollsters factor in the impact of the GOP's own culture war messaging on issues like critical race theory, defund the police, and immigration. When those attacks go unanswered, the Democrats go from four points down to 14 points in the hole. Seems like a pretty simple story, right? Democrats have gone too far left on cultural issues.

They're out of step with the country. They need to forcefully pivot back to the center to have a prayer at winning the public. This analysis is, in certain ways, totally correct. And it's hard to disagree with, considering how unpopular left messaging is on culture and on identity. That's not an argument against the morality of left positions on some of those issues. In my opinion, they're a mixed bag of good and bad and fantastical. It's just a basic acknowledgment that it's nearly all a massive uphill climb as it's concerned with the public. But you won't be surprised to learn that the Dem establishment line regurgitated here

by Politico obscures as much as it ultimately illuminates. First of all, this analysis says literally nothing about economics. Now, I don't know if you've ever seen a single poll in your life, but voters have been shouting at anyone who will listen that the economy is their number one concern. Economy, inflation, health care. The issue set that determines whether or not they're going to make rent and put fresh vegetables or ramen noodles on the table. And it is insanely clear that the, quote, moderate approach on these issues has been a disaster. On Monday, I showed you the evidence that focusing on material well-being is still potent politics. The end of the child tax credit has sent Dem performance tumbling among those voters who benefited from that credit,

while overall Dem performance over the same time period remained static. So in other words, people who got the credit and then lost it abandoned Dems at a time when the rest of the public was actually holding steady. Why isn't the DCCC talking about that? Where's the polling on how the White House's unwillingness to use executive orders to cancel debt or expand health care has been a total disaster? Or the White House's total capitulation on core issues

like lifting the minimum wage or expanding union rights? Where's the polling on the obsessive quest among moderates to give the wealthy a tax break through the salt tax? Or our frontliner Elaine Luria's opposition to banning stock trades among members of Congress? Or the efforts of centrists like Kathleen Rice to protect Big Pharma's ability to price gouge the public. The Democratic Party's refusal to deliver on the issues that voters actually care about, though, is a double whammy of electoral devastation, because not only does it leave voters frustrated and struggling when it comes to their core concerns, it also makes it inevitable that elections will be fought primarily on the grounds of culture, which is exactly why our politics so completely and totally suck.

And this is where the terrain is much more perilous for Democrats. Makes sense, right? If you aren't going to actually attempt to meet voters' material needs and make an economic case, then voters are gonna primarily choose candidates based on culture war signaling. Culture war isn't exactly a new phenomenon

in American politics, but it's worth considering the pioneer of the current version of the Democratic Party, which leans so heavily on identity and culture and relies so little on working class economics. Spoiler alert, it's not the left. ran on a universalist working class message and was relentlessly smeared as a sexist and a racist and just an all around bigot because he leaned into a class first message in 2016. So who's the person we should blame for the current electorally and morally disastrous version of the Democratic Party?

For that answer, we can turn to a much more complete and less propaganda filled analysis just published in the American Prospect by Stan Greenberg. Now, Stan's got the picture of our villain right here on the screen, right at the top, and a headline which implores Democrats to please, for the love of God, speak to working-class discontent. Now, before I dive in, let me establish Stan's credibility on these issues. He's a longtime mainstream Democratic pollster who has a sort of revered status in political circles because he was the person who identified the phenomenon of the Reagan Democrat. These were lunch bucket type white working class voters who switched from being reliable Democratic voters to Republican voters

during the Reagan era, presaging the continued white working class realignment, which has, of course, come into dramatic focus during the Trump years. Stan's focus on Macomb County, Michigan, has led reporters and politicos to flock to that blue-collar suburb for years now to try to read the tea leaves of the Rust Belt white male. And he is now sounding the alarm bells that the same trend he observed among white working-class voters has now bled over to all races of working class voters. And Stan knows when this trend, which spells doom for the Democratic Party, begins. That would be under Barack Obama. It was under Obama that his own trailblazing identity was offered as a substitute for working class economics. It was

under Obama that homeowners were hung out to dry and bankers were let off the hook. His re-election and continued personal popularities created a sort of optical illusion that his mode of politics was really successful. But if you just scratch a little bit below the surface of those metrics, you see that his eight years in office were a time of destruction for Democrats, among rural voters and among the working class, leading to massive losses in the House, the Senate, state legislatures, governor's mansions, and culminating, of course, with the election of Donald J. Trump. Here's what Stan Greenberg has to say about the message that the Obama political project continues to send to the multiracial working class. Quote,

To be sure, Obama is America's most esteemed political leader nationally and in countries around the world. But by calling in Obama in every election, Democrats are telling voters they prioritize his political project. Presenting themselves as the party of Obama implies not only that Democrats represent a diverse, multicultural America, which is true, but also that they represent the voters who are doing well and want to help those who are still struggling. It says Democrats are not angry about the deepening inequality and corruption that has allowed big corporations and the top 1% to write the rules for all of us. It says Democrats are out of touch with working people. And of course, far more important than the electoral consequences for the losers in the Democratic Party

is what this commitment to personal identity and cultural signaling to the affluent over and above material politics has meant to the lives of working class Americans. Now look, the modern GOP, they've always been the party of the rich. The Democrats largely joining them has meant the complete abandonment of most of the country. Now if you step back for a minute, it's preposterous to imagine that the of most of the country. Now, if you step back for a minute, it's preposterous to imagine that the disastrous shape of the Democratic Party is because of the left.

The left is completely powerless, guys. They exist to get dunked on by a bunch of corporatists who still lionize James Carville. But the people with real power in the party have closed the door to leaning into the left economic policies which are actually popular and which could actually popular and which could actually reclaim their working class base. So they do their best to generate sister-soldier

moments and scold the left on culture, even as their own failings are the very reason why these cultural issues have taken over all of politics. It's Nancy Pelosi kneeling in kente cloth while proclaiming that she has a right to insider trade because of the free market for all eternity. Just can't imagine why it's not working out. Sagar, I don't know if people took note of how extraordinary it is for Stan Green. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. All right, Sagar, what are you looking at? Well, anytime there's a foreign policy crisis on horizon, the historical analogies all start flying. As Godwin's law states, the longer an online discussion goes, regardless of topic or scope,

the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler reaches one. Godwin came up with that rule in 1990, in the early days of the internet. But for foreign policy, it's actually been afflicting our thinking long before, all the way since 1939. And I continue to see it today in the Ukraine crisis. For the advocates of the most bellicose position against Russia, the Ukraine crisis today is a simple replay of the Munich crisis of 1938. Hitler and Putin are revanchist leaders who seek to restore the glory of their former countries. They are willing to use belligerent force to accomplish this and to exploit the international system plagued by

war weariness to stage high-stakes gambles that get what they want. In this telling of history, the answer of what to do is quite obvious. We must then do what the world failed to do at Munich, to stand up to Hitler, or in this case Putin, book. It's called Appeasement, Chamberlain, Hitler, Churchill, and the Road to War by Tim Beauvier. And then finally, I just read the first volume JFK biography by Frederick Langeval, which spends a lot of time on the pre-war diplomacy of Europe. Now, I've got to tell you something. While I think Munich may be one of the most important events in world history, the invoking of it to justify wars in the future may end up doing substantial damage. Given the horrors of the Second World War, a lot of the worst of Munich and the Holocaust, obviously, are just subsequent failures also to stop Hitler. They are burned into consciousness of any moral and good person, especially a person who thinks about foreign policy. But let's actually break it down when it comes to Ukraine. For the comparison for Munich to work, Vladimir Putin has to be a genocidal madman, hellbent on the domination

of all of Western Europe, and Ukraine has to be the opening salvo in a bloody and a long campaign. Now ask yourself the question, is there any evidence to support that whatsoever? The Ukraine crisis today is the result of a long and simmering tension between post-Soviet Russia and the West about the balance of power on the European continent. Any sane person can see that NATO expansion all the way up to the Russian border

is bound to cause a reaction. And in fact, if you compare Putin to the long arc of Russian history, a Russian czar paranoid of Western influence and seeking defense in depth through expansion outwards, that's about as typical as it comes. In other words, is Putin Hitler? Or is he just your average Russian leader who's been trying to annex Ukraine since 1667?

The reason that this matters is because if he's the former, it justifies World War III. If it's the latter, well, then we have a range of options, different foreign policy comparisons that we can draw from. The reason I'm laying it out this way is to reveal the mental traps that we can find ourselves in, which may narrow our scope of options and imagination during a foreign policy crisis. There's another aspect, though, to Munich that the hawks who invoke it today never consider. Munich was the dominant policy preference of the entire West at the time. Chamberlain was hailed as a hero in the UK for preventing a war. France and the rest of the West

were reeling from the Great Depression. The memory of the Somme and Verdun and Passchendaele was too fresh for most people. And the truth was, there was almost no domestic political condition that would have produced a different outcome than Munich, which was first observed, actually, by our own 35th president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy,

at just 20-something years old, when he wrote Why England Slept in the Year 1940. Now, why does this forgotten truth matter? Because something that the hawks of today like to disregard is the feeling of the public. They wish away the whims of the electorate, who today is roundly against intervention in Ukraine whatsoever. Well, why is that exactly? Maybe it's because the last time Munich was invoked by an American president to justify a war, it was September 2002 by George W. Bush for the war in Iraq. Something that the hawks never consider is that the reason Munich happened in the first place is because Europe and America's elite promised them that

the horrific First World War was the war to end all wars. And then, when they started raising the possibility of again, just a generation later, people said, well, hold on a second. I don't want to do that again. Is there not a lesson in that? Should the hawks not then learn this lesson? If you're going to lead a democratic public to war, you better not do so under false pretenses or make too big of promises. Because if you do so and it ends up being a disaster, generational memory is long and they will remain suspicious of you and any war in the future. Even if it is a righteous cause, like destroying Nazism and taking on Hitler.

And as I digest the recent history, I've just taken in the real lesson of Munich to me, that when elites betray the public and you lead them to a war with false promises, and when that reality is really confronted, the longstanding effects of that are going to linger for decades. I'm sure any hawk who's listening to this is just going to say, oh yes, the silly public, they just have to learn how to differentiate. That's the problem. America's elite can never fail. They can only be failed. Their invasion of Iraq and NATO expansion and conception of American foreign policy is always right. It's you who are too dumb to know the difference. Or, and I again posit, or maybe we do know better because we learned to start asking questions for ourselves as to what should

really be done. So as the lectures on MSNBC or from the White House continue, and you try to convince you otherwise, don't let their false appeals to history move you. It is a selective one at best, one that hopes to override the experience of your eyes and ears. And as we saw at Munich, sometimes there are downfalls to that. But in the long run, the skepticism of the public based upon lies from above may itself be what saves this country and many, many others. I've just been, you know, turning this over my head. I hear this all the time. And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,

become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Joining us now, we have Robert Kuttner. He is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect and also a professor at Brandeis University's Heller School. Great to see you, sir. Good to see you, sir. Thank you for having me. Yeah, our pleasure. So you wrote a fantastic piece. Let's go ahead and throw this tear sheet up on the screen. It is headlined China epicenter of the supply chain crisis.

How concentrating dependence on China upended our economy and added risk. Just start with the most basic question, which is, what did the pandemic reveal about our dependence on China and how it made us much more fragile as a country? Right. Well, let's start with the folly of relying on distant supply chains and then how China was kind of the ultimate example of that. So basically, beginning of the late 70s, we had this model where we offshore a whole bunch of stuff. We combine that with just-in-time production. We combine that with a lot of deregulation so that the government really has no regulatory authority over the various elements in the supply chain.

And then, just to make matters worse, we concentrate dependence on China in all of this offshoring. So all it takes is the right kind of crisis to just blow up the whole system. And COVID turned out to be that crisis. So that's sort of part one of the story. And then part two of the story is the particular stupidity of relying so much on China. Because China, you know, it's a totalitarian country that makes deals with American corporations to the advantage of China. But when we need stuff, as we did in the first few weeks of the pandemic, we come last. And I can go into as much or as little detail on exactly how that played out as you like.

Yeah, I mean, something I've respected about your work, you've been a longtime critic and sounding board on the insanity of the quote-unquote liberal international trading order. Bob, what are the assumptions that were baked in by this, by the people who designed our economy? And do they continue to have power in our society in terms of what they claim they can do to fix this? Yes, and that's exactly the right question. So this is one part ideology and one part corporate self-interest and corporate influence. So the ideology part,

you know, goes back 200 years. It's the view that free trade is just a good thing, that by trading with countries that are more efficient than we are, it's good for us and it's good for them. Problem with that is that going back at least 100 years, despite the traditional theory of comparative advantage, where one country is good at making one thing and another country is good at making something else, so they both benefit from trade. You go back 100 years, advantage is not the result of natural traits like being good at making wheat or having a lot of oil or coal. Increasingly, advantage is created. Japan says, hey, we don't want to make cheap toys anymore. Why don't we get good at making cars and steel? And Korea does the same thing. And then China does the same thing times 100. So the idea that there's some kind of natural advantage that trade can tap, that doesn't describe the way the world works at all. Then, beginning in the 80s, you have a lot of corporations looking at China, a market of a billion people that is starting to become more open to the West.

And you have American investment bankers, American corporations saying, wow, boy, would we ever like a piece of that action? And so they persuade Clinton that letting China into the World Trade Organization, which gives it access to America's markets and America's capital markets with no quid pro quos. China is still run by the Communist Party of China. That's this weird hybrid of one part Leninist dictatorship and one part state-run capitalism that works very well for China. So, you know, led by Robert Rubin, formerly of Goldman Sachs, then Treasury Secretary,

the idea is let's let China into the wto and all the investment bankers will get a ton of business because that'll give access to china to our capital markets and corporations can produce very cheaply in china with no environmental regulations and labor that's one cut above slave labor and everybody benefits except American cities that depend on jobs and American workers who depend on jobs. And so that's the marriage of a kind of faulty ideology with just craven self-interest. And this just putters along right through the Obama administration.

And then interestingly, it's Trump, in a kind of half-baked demagogic way, who breaks with this consensus and starts demonizing China and levies tariffs against China, which actually turn out to be useful in the hands of the Biden administration, which has a more strategic approach. Trump's approach was kind of scattershot. It was nationalistic. It was xenophobic. It was we don't like Chinese people. But the virtue of Trump was that he blew up the old consensus. And then Biden comes in with an opportunity, maybe, and the jury's still out on this, to reset the China relationship and to do it right. The problem is there's a huge undertow

on the part of the enormous corporations who benefit from the status quo. And even what has been revealed by the pandemic has only partly undermined that traditional consensus. Yeah. Could you go into that piece of the corporate influence in a little bit more detail? Because you have some great examples here in your piece of exactly how this influence peddling works. So even when the administration gets a good idea and starts to go in a good direction, there are all these forces and all this pressure come to bear on pushing them the opposite

way. So probably the emblematic example is investment bankers. China, even though it has a huge savings rate, needs Western capital. It needs Western expertise. It needs Western expertise. It needs Western validation. And so China can list companies on American stock exchanges or it can list companies on the Hong Kong stock exchange and Americans can buy the companies. The China hawks in the administration have said, this is a terrific piece of leverage.

Why don't we say that until China stops doing X, Y, and Z, right? Stops illegal subsidies, stops illegal dumping of products, stops stealing our technology, stops using spyware. You can no longer list Chinese companies for Americans to invest in on American stock exchange, or American investors can no longer be permitted to put money into Chinese companies, particularly companies that are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, which is most large companies in China, or by the Chinese military. You Americans cannot invest in these. Well, guess what? Even though Biden

has taken a somewhat hard line on tariffs and has put some Chinese companies on a list that precludes them per se because they are caught red-handed doing stuff like spying or stealing intellectual property, the more potent leverage of saying you cannot list your shares on American stock exchanges, that has not been done. And why not? Well, that's the influence of American investment banking companies on both parties. See, this is a part I just cannot emphasize enough. The investment bankers and the billionaires and all this, they not only have made a lot, they also have a lot at stake and an immense amount of influence. So, Bob, I mean, and again, you come from a much progressive background. Like, how do we fix this? How can we get and extricate our way out of it? The idea of decoupling the U.S. and China at this point, as much as I would like to,

it's not going to happen. So is there a viable path forward to restoring American resiliency, having a sane trading relationship with China in American politics, or is it simply just too far gone? What do you think? Oh, I do think there's a path forward. And the encouraging thing about the Biden administration is that he has broken with the orthodoxy on both trade theory and on China. So right through Carter, Clinton, Obama, Democrats as well as Republicans drank this Kool-Aid. They bought into the idea that a kind of corporate-led globalization would be good for everybody. And as I said, Trump blew that up in a kind of crude, incoherent fashion. But Biden has taken this new normal and tried to have a more coherent, tough China policy. So, for example, he, despite a ton of pressure,

he's left most of the tariffs in place. And this is worth a moment's reflection. The U.S. trade law does include some provisions whereby if your company is the victim of Chinese dumping, let's say you make solar cells and you're the best company is the victim of Chinese dumping, let's say you make solar cells and you're the best company in the world, you have the most advanced technology in the world. China comes along, they steal the technology

and they start making this stuff in China and they underprice you so that you can't make a living. That's called dumping. It's illegal. But by the time the dumping complaint is adjudicated, you're out of business. So what Biden did was to say, rather than doing this case by case, let's view the entire Chinese mercantilist system as one big case of dumping. And let's just levy tariffs against the whole thing. And that'll be ballpark accurate.

It may not be precisely accurate, but it doesn't matter. The point is to just create some breathing room so that American steel companies, American semiconductor companies, American solar companies, aluminum can start producing in the United States again while we work out what our long-term relationship with China is going to be. That worked pretty well. Another part of this is

reassuring. You need an industrial policy to bring back a lot of the industry that we've lost to China. They're beginning to move in that direction. There's bipartisan legislation now that is before the House-Senate conference. This was Schumer in the Senate to subsidize American reshoring. And I call this a positive form of economic nationalism. It's what we had during World War II. Economic nationalism has been a dirty word because it's associated with jingoism and China bashing in the sense of racism. But there's a positive form of economic nationalism where we say we need to stay in the game. We need American-based companies and American-based workers to stay in the game. So I do think that if they don't

lose their nerve and if they don't get too influenced by the more corporate types who are in the Biden White House, there is a path forward, but it's very tricky and they have to do everything right. And as you lay out in the piece as well, the longer that we wait on taking that kind of action, the more difficult it becomes because our skills and our tech and our abilities in all of these areas continue to deteriorate and decline. It's a wonderful piece. We'll put the link in the description. People should read through the whole thing, and we really appreciate you taking the time to break it down for us, Bob. Thank you, sir. I've been a fan for many years. Thanks for having me. Our pleasure. Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it. I mean, I said this during the

fake news block, but it's been a real wake-up call, I think, February. You know, I mean, watching this all transverse the Rogan thing, and apparently that's just disappeared now. But look, U.S. intelligence, they brand zero hedge with no evidence. They say he's Russian this all trans first the rogan thing and apparently that's just disappeared now um but look u.s intelligence they brand zero hedge with no evidence they say he's russian propaganda boom twitter puts a filter on them they can do that to us any day um you know part of our premium subscribers in our ama which comes out on sunday i'll give away one of the questions are like have you prepared for cancellation the answer is yes the business is prepared but it's because we rely on people like you with our premium subscribers. Look, we may be the number one political podcast in America today, for the record, on the charts,

but they can destroy you in a second. And we see the trends that are happening. And we thank you all for those who have showed up and for those of you who support us because it's been a crazy time here. And we rely on you guys so much. So thank you. Indeed. You guys have been there for us. And it has been. I mean, it's just essential.

It would not work any other way. We're dead. Truly. We have some wonderful content that's coming out this weekend that I'm really excited about. We've got another new announcement for you next week that I think we'll be able to bring to you. Hopefully. Another little addition and maybe some special events that we have planned for the future. So stay tuned for all of that. In the meantime, enjoy your weekend. Have a wonderful time.

We'll see you back here next week. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes

of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator,

and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy. But to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A lot of times, big economic forces show up in our lives in small ways. Four days a week, I would buy two cups of banana pudding.

But the price has gone up, so now I only buy one. Small but important ways. From tech billionaires to the bond market to, yeah, banana pudding. If it's happening in business, our new podcast is on it. I'm Max Chastin. And I'm Stacey Vanek-Smith. So listen to Everybody's Business on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.