Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 2/20/26: Epstein Billionaire Wexner Drops BOMBSHELLS, Iran War LOOMS, Dem Tea Party Gains Steam

Episode Date: February 20, 2026

The BP Team looks at Trump threatening limited strikes on Iran to gain leverage, Epstein associate Les Wexner testifies and drops some new bombshells, and we speak to Julie Gonzales who leads the Dem Tea Party effort in Colorado against Dem Senator Hickenlooper. Julie Gonzales Campaign: https://www.julieforcolorado.com/    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. I'm Bowen-Yen. And I'm Matt Rogers. During this season of the Two Guys Five Rings podcast, in the lead-up to the Milan-Cortina-2026 Winter Olympic Games, we've been joined by some of our friends. Hi, Boen, hi, Matt, hi, hey, Elmo.

Hey, Matt, hey, Bowen. Hi, Cookie. Hi. Listen to Two Guys Five Rings on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. 1969, Malcolm and Martin are gone. America is in crisis. And at Morehouse College, the students make their move. These students, including a young Samuel L. Jackson, locked up the members of the Board of Trustees, including Martin Luther King's Senior.

It's the true story of protests and rebellion in black American history that you'll never forget. I'm Hans Charles. I'm in a lick Lamouba. Listen to the A building on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the last couple years, didn't we learn that the folding chair was invented by black people because of what happened in Alabama? This Black History Month, the podcast, Selective Ignorance with Mandy B, unpacks Black History and Culture with comedy, clarity, and conversations that shake the status quo. The Crown Act in New York was signed in July of 2019, and that is a bill that was passed to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles associated with, race. To hear this and more, listen to Selective Ignorance with Mandy B from the Black Effect Podcast Network

on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent Media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to You are full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breaking points.com. Good morning, everybody. Happy Friday. How goes it? It goes.

Excellent. It goes. Yes, we got a really busy show today, don't we? Yeah, and I think Emily's going to be joining us. She just was having, like, some boomer computer issues, so we'll let her work that out. She can jump on whenever she gets that figured out. But yeah, I mean, we're all watching to see whether we're going to be at war with Iran over the weekend or next week or what exactly is going on there. Ryan's got some new reporting about how Democrats are approaching all of this. And, you know, I would say you'll be disappointed, but I think actually people probably expect the way that Democrats are by and large, elected official Democrats are by and large approaching the possibility of a major war with Iran. Yeah, nobody can be disappointed anymore. Yeah, you have to have hopes and expectations to be disappointed.

Yes. Yes. Good point. Excellent. High hopes. We'll take a look at that. We got a Wall Street Journal article on that right here. That was breaking this morning. Trump weighs initial limited strike to force Iran into nuclear deal. President Trump is weighing initial strike to force it to me's demands, a first step that would be designed to pressure Tehran into an agreement, but fall short of a full-scale attack that could inspire a major retaliation. the opening assault, if authorized, could come within days, would target a few military or government sites. People familiar with the matter said, if Iran still refused to comply with Trump's directive to end its nuclear enrichment, the U.S. would respond with a broad campaign against regime facilities. So what do we make of this deal making? You know, strike first, deal later. Well, and what's different about this reporting is prior to this, we'd been, obviously we can see all of the military equipment that is being.

amassed in the region, you know, the largest amount since the Iraq War. So everyone can see that. A bunch of the leaks to Barack Ravid and others were saying, hey, they're actually preparing for this to be much larger than the 12 days war, potentially weeks-long engagement. Iran also is in a place where they've kind of realized like, hey, we did the kind of choreograph, like, we're going to hit you back, but not really. That obviously didn't work because we're still being threatened. So they're in a very different place in terms of how they're tactically and strategically thinking about this. And, you know, the problem with this, I mean, outside of obviously like any act of horror is illegal, both by our own laws and by international law, et cetera. But the problem with this

tactically, too, is if you think that some sort of tactical strike on Iran is going to help coerce them at the negotiating table, the reality is the exact opposite. They're going to walk away from the negotiating table, which this report lays out, by the way, if you hit them in any way. They're hoping that attacks from the U.S. are going to create some sort of rally around the flag, like nationalistic fervor, to help re-glu a country that has in some ways, you know, come apart over the past two months and that they'll be in a stronger position in terms of, like, the government's solidity. So this plan, like in my opinion, all of the other plans, makes no sense, especially when I still don't even know what Trump is really actually trying to

accomplish here. Yes, exactly. And it's it's a miscalculation probably in the sense that the previous moderates who had urged the kind of little tit for tat that you talked about, you know, them, them carrying out in both the 12-day war and also back in January when they first struck, all the people who advocated that have either been pushed out or killed by the by the actual attacks. And so they've been replaced by people who were warning at the time that if we don't hit hard, we're just inviting further and endless attacks. So if Trump comes in with what he thinks is like a little gentle tap to like nudge them to some, to nudge them at the negotiating table, which is like just an absurd concept to begin with. But let's let's say that Trump tries that. They don't know that this

is just a love tap. You know, they expect this to be the, you know, you know, you know, you. You you know, emptying of the barrel from this massive unprecedented, unprecedented since the Iraq war, Armada that's hanging out in the Middle East, they think this might be the end. The hardliners who have come to power by the fact that we have brought them there would then be arguing to just, you know, fire everything. Like we're probably going down at this point. Just, you know, empty the cabinet.

Fire everything. See if we can race to a nuke. I mean, that's, and that's the thing, too, is think of it. from our perspective. Like, if someone attacked us, would that make us more likely to have a diplomatic solution with them to come to the negotiating table? No, of course not. And especially when what they've already seen is that any sort of trying to take a reasonable or moderate approach, etc., just encourages more escalation and more aggressive, more aggressiveness on the part of us and on the part of Israel. So they'll look at that and say, okay, well, if they hit us,

and then we bend to their demands. What is that going to teach them? I mean, Ryan and I being parents, like, this is very basic sort of toddler logic. If they throw a temper chandrum and you give them the piece of candy, guess what they're going to do the next time they want the piece of candy. The same logic applies here. If the U.S. throws a temper tantrum and strikes them, and Iran rewards that behavior by capitulating to what are insane demands in terms of, you know, the full like not only are you giving up the nuclear program, which Iran has long been willing to do, just see the. you know, Obama-era accords. Right.

And, you know, their continued willingness to come to the table on that. But in addition, we want you to give up all of your ballistic missiles. We want you to stop supporting any of the, you know, resistance groups in the region. None of this is really, you know, feasible if you want to maintain any sort of production of power. If you want to maintain, if you want to be a sovereign nation whatsoever, otherwise you're just a complete sitting duck. So in any case, if you reward this warlike behavior and give a. into any of those demands, then guess what? That is going to encourage more attacks from the U.S. and from Israel. So I think that's how they're thinking about it. There's also a piece in this. I can't remember if it's in, I don't think it's in this article. I think it's in a Financial Times report about the way that Iran is thinking about this. And they said that there were a bunch of IRGC commanders who did not want to agree to the ceasefire from the 12-day war. And whereas the Western press has painted the 12-day war as just a stunning victory. for the U.S. and for Israel, it's not seen that way internally in Iran. From their perspective,

they're like, yeah, you hit us hard. You, you know, we're able to take out a lot of people, infrastructure, et cetera. But at the end of the day, y'all were the ones who came to us wanting a ceasefire. And again, to Ryan's points about, you know, the moderates versus the more hardline approach. The hardliner said we shouldn't agree to the ceasefire. We should continue hitting them. We should extract some more pain and assert ourselves more because otherwise, they're just going to come back attack us again. And guess what? They've been completely vindicated. The hardliners have been completely vindicated by the approach and by the continued threats that we're making now. Right, because they could argue right now, and I'm sure that they are arguing internally,

if you had listened to us and you had hit Israel for another week or another two weeks or another three weeks, yeah, we would have taken on more damage, but they were depleted. They were on their back foot. We would have caused them the kind of damage that they're not used to, which would then give them, you know, second thoughts about doing this next time. Now, they're doing it with, you know, many times more American resources in the region. And so it may be possible. Now, you know, we'll see, but it may be possible that Iran just doesn't have the capacity to push through all of those resources. But if they aim at, you know, closer areas, you know, American-linked bases in Iraq or, you know, Qatar or Dubai or Abu Dhabi,

like it's a little more difficult for the U.S. to intercept and play defense around there. You have to go further to get to Israel, so that just gives us more opportunity to knock stuff out of the air. But yeah, you're exactly right. They are saying right now, we told you so. We told you that the only language that the U.S. and Israel understand is violence. Anything else, you know, shows weakness to them. Yeah. Yeah.

Ryan, you want to talk about what you guys are reporting out today about the Democratic side of this equation. Tell us about our opposition party. How are they doing? Yeah, opposition party, in quotes. You may have noticed that other than a handful of members of Congress, including Rokana, who has teamed up with Thomas Massey to push for a war powers resolution vote, which should come to the floor next week. There's been very little said publicly by Democrats, you know, against this. Even during the Iraq war, you had Democrats. that were for it, but you had a lot of Democrats that were, you know, outspokenly against the Iraq war. You're not seeing much of that this time. So back in June, and this is what we'll be reporting later today over at drop site, if you remember Trump was kind of fainting that there had been progress in the negotiations and actually, you know, what, we might not go ahead, you know, and strike Iran. And Chuck Schumer came out with his video mocking him as,

Taco Trump. And this coalition of more than two dozen anti-war groups sent a letter saying, Schumer, what are you doing? Like, are you trying to taunt Trump into going to war? Like, don't do, this is not a game. Don't do Taco Trump stuff right here. Like, give him a political off-ramp. Give him the space that if he wants to do a diplomatic solution, eat the taco. Enjoy the taco.

Like, this is much better than killing, like, at that. thousand plus, or who knows how many you're going to end up killing. It ends up being about 1,200 people, but who knows? It could have been a lot more. And so after that letter was sent, there was then a call with a top foreign policy aide who, by the way, as a report in the story, has taken two recent trips to Israel paid for by APEC. So this aid calls one of the lead organizers and they have a conversation. And she says to him, listen, what you need to do. You need to to understand is that there are many Senate Democrats who believe that Iran needs to be dealt with militarily. But they also understand that this would be catastrophic politically for Democrats.

Another war in the Middle East is not something that the Democratic base wants. It's not something that the American public more generally wants. And so they would like Trump to carry it out for them. And for these two reasons. One, it accomplishes the goal, the policy. policy goal that they have of attacking Iran, but also they think it would be bad for Trump. So his domestic politics would suffer. His base would be split. The issue of Israel would and Israeli kind of leverage over Trump would deepen the fissures that already exist within the MAGA coalition. So from the perspective of these Democrats, it is a win-win. Now she added, Schumer doesn't believe that. Schumer himself, of course, is opposed to these strikes,

doesn't want them to happen. But that is the political logic that exists in the caucus that is kind of pushing some of the momentum around how this is messaged publicly. So that is... So that's why they're basically

just not saying anything. Right, because there's a cold logic to it. Like that logic, in a completely cynical way, doesn't really have any holes in it, other than that it's evil. And it's going to lead to, could lead to untold lives being lost and tens of millions of people living in a country

that's completely destroyed. But that doesn't factor into the cost-benefit political calculations. Like would it be better for the midterms if this happens for Democrats? Probably. And also, a lot of Democrats want it to happen anyway. They just know that they don't have the kind of political will or the political support to carry it out. Wow. And how deep does this support for this approach go in Democratic caucus? Are we talking about like a handful of the most caucus members or is this kind of the conventional wisdom?

It's hard to say. But if you look at, I think if you look at a vote on, you know, sending offensive weapons to Israel, for instance, and you get like a pretty sizable majority. of Democrats supporting it still. Like, I think that that's a pretty useful kind of proxy for how much support that remains for something like this. Which is interesting, Ryan, because that's different, hi, everyone. That's different than Venezuela, right?

Like, the, their, Dems were. Not exactly, like, a lot of these Democrats are happy to go to war with Venezuela, too. Like, this is a- But they made process. complaints. Sure. And they'll make process complaints again. And they'll pin it on Trump publicly.

But privately, are they actually that upset? I don't think so. I mean, obviously there's a serious, like, anti-war base. And they have their representatives in the Senate and the House. But outside of that, you know, there's not a whole lot of squeamishness when it comes to using American power violently around the world. And the timing's a little ironic after all of the Democrats just came to Munich for their foreign policy debuts to all of a sudden be radio silent on foreign policy is very interesting. Now, Ryan, I know you're talking about more of a moderate sort of centrist wing of the party who thinks about this. But where are people like AOC and others who are considered the progressive left of the party?

It also seems like a little bit of radio silence from them. Is that true? So, like, we can assume that AOC, of course, is against war with Iran. I haven't heard. I think she did say something about it in Munich, maybe. I mean, she's certainly against, yeah, like, you can count her as, like, in the no column on this. But I certainly haven't seen her out there as a vocal opponent, somebody making this, like, a significant issue. Now I should say, according to sources in the Schumer's office, that this is not an accurate, you know, characterization that this person had of this conversation with the staffer. This person recounted it to a number of other people at the time.

So I find it, I find the characterization of it credible, but just to say that there's some, there's some dispute about how this, you know, conversation went. But no, like you haven't you haven't seen much noise from somebody like AOC. Maybe she's preparing something. I don't know. But I haven't seen like a kind of Bernie. Obviously he's against it. Like there's no question that they like Bernie and AOC are against us. But like have we heard much?

Are they pushing it hard? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, we haven't seen them leading the charge. And Emily, on your side, now I also feel a little bit of radio silence in the lead up this one that feels different than the conservative America first noise before the 12-day war. It seemed like there was a lot more pushback, consternation, and anxiety from the right leading up to the strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, whereas now it kind of feels like people are perhaps just kind of given up or they're just kind of going with the flow.

Is Venezuela part of that equation that people felt like Venezuela was such a a win that you now look kind of like a loser or a wimp and that you should just trust the plan. What's the perspective on that side? I think that's right. And I think there are two things behind it. First is that actually what the government calls Operation Midnight Hammer didn't cause nuclear escalation. And the second point would be that those were strikes on nuclear sites. And what's likely to happen now is strikes on, according to the journal, government buildings,

military facilities, that sort of thing. Not a nuclear strike in particular. I think when you're listening to Tucker Carlson, ahead of Operation Midnight Hammer, that was a lot of the concern was specifically about striking nuclear sites. So there's that, but also I think because Midnight Hammer and then Maduro were quick and targeted, as people say, there's just, a little bit more, like people feel like they have maybe some, some egg on their face, probably. Privately, they'll probably still say, listen, if this, what happens, if there are strikes in the next couple of weeks, then how successful really was, quote, unquote, Operation Midnight Hammer? That's an obvious question. Yeah, I thought we got rid of the nukes. Yeah, the goalposts just keep getting shifted. So, yes, but I think people are wary of, coming out so hard in saying this will lead to nuclear war. This is almost certain to lead to nuclear escalation. And I think that's a lot of what was happening earlier in June. Still think that

was correct, by the way. It didn't turn out that way. But the argument is that the possibility was intolerably high. And just because nobody said it was 100 percent possibility, well, maybe somebody did. But most people weren't saying it was 100 percent possibility. So just because you have 10 percent or 20% that it won't lead to the end of the world. That's, you know, not sure I'm taking those odds. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if you guys listen to Sager with Andrew Schultz on this, but he was saying, look, basically the anti-war faction or the, you know, more restrainedist faction within the

administration has been completely cowed. Like they've been, you know, they've either given up or they're just on board at this point. And the fact that the 12-day war and the Venezuela strikes were seen as these grand successes has basically led to them keeping their mouth shut. And then the other piece, I think, is, you know, one of the voices, and I, you know, this is not someone I give a lot of credit to, but one of the voices leading up to the Iran war, who was opposed to it was Charlie Kirk. And, you know, he's been, he's been killed. He's taken off of the chessboard in terms of someone who had access, who could be, uh, pushing some of those messages and was, you know, was Radisson at least in the buildup to Iran. So, so yeah, I think they've been effectively cowed.

You hear very little from the, you know, the America firsters who were previously opposed and, you know, love to tell Trump as the anti-war president, blah, blah, blah. Like those voices are gone. And so you couple that with what Ryan was reporting about the radio silence from much of the quote unquote opposition party, including some of the progressive leaders, you know, you basically got Rokana and Thomas Massey, once again out there is the dynamic duo like, hey guys, you know, you're supposed to come to Congress. Like, we're not really, we're not down with this.

What's going on? But other than that, we sit on the precipice of a potentially major war. If you just look at the assets in the region, once again, more than we've seen since the Iraq war buildup. We sit on the precipice of this major war. And it feels like everyone's just like, hmm. Yeah, whatever. We'll see. What are you guys up to this weekend? It's kind of crazy making, you know? And go ahead. Um, well, just speaking of the chess board, who else was ahead of the 12-day war? It was Marjorie Taylor Green. Steve Bannon. Bannon has been somewhat neutralized by the Epstein stuff. And Marjorie Taylor Green is no longer in Congress and does not have a good relationship with Donald Trump because she was pushing the administration. She started doing it publicly to focus more on domestic policies and less on foreign policies. And so she's now just back in Georgia.

Yeah. Ryan, one last question I have for you. And then we can move on to this good segue to the Epstein class and the latest things that we're learning there is the Ayatollah put out this tweet that was like, hey, you know this island y'all are talking about? That's just the tip of the iceberg. We got a lot more that we can let you know about if, you know, your crazy president does attack us. How much credence do you put in that?

Is that just bluster? Or do you think there could be some substance behind it? So the I had told, so Handala is the hacking group that originally got access to Ehud Barak's inbox. It ended up getting leaked to this nonprofit, distributed denial of secrets, which made it available to news organizations, including us. So, and we were able to do, you know, significant amount of our early reporting based on that, on that hack. it is often said that Handala is linked to the Iranian government. It's never been proven, but it's like one of those things where like all of these, there's like the hacker group that's associated with the U.S.,

there's a hacker group that's associated with Russia, there's a hacker group that's associated with the Israelis. This is the one that people think of as like associated with the Iranians. So the Ayatollah, like, may have been briefed that, like, they did, if that's true, that they played a role in, like, getting some of this. information out. We also know, according to the warrant that was used to search John Bolton's house, according to that warrant, Iran hacked his AOL account like three times. And one of the things, and the reason that they were searching him is that he was keeping, according to this

warrant, classified intelligence on his AOL account. Many such cases. It's very, very easy to hack an AOL account. Like, I mean, having an AOL account to begin with is embarrassing. Like forgot password. Like forgot password. You know, done. Like you basically, you're in. You're in.

And so the Iranians, according to our own, you know, DOJ, are sitting on at least John Bolton's inbox. God only knows this guy's been involved in every, you know, piece of American shenanigan for decades. Like, God only knows what's in there. So, and what else have they hacked? like what other they have claimed to have you know all manner of like uh information about the Israeli government Israeli politicians America like so that that's what they're alluding to they are also like a staggeringly kind of conservative country when it comes to their what they do like if you look at their kind of conservative responses that they've had to the attacks every time the

they had they seem to have had that Barack inbox for a very long time before it was leaked if it was them that had it. Interesting. Because like the time that it stops there's many years before then between the like last email and when it finally gets you know made public. So why like why don't we have another like according to FBI

they have Bolton's inbox? Like why have they not released that? I don't know. So you know we'll that's that seems to be what he's he's referring to there. Imagine being Trump, being the president of the United States, being in the Epstein files like a million times, that we know of. And then knowing that Israel has all of that information. And now Iran's like, let me just level the playing field here and tell you that we also have all of that information. So your move, boss.

Right. Who's threat is more credible to you. with Imagine being Trump, I was like, oh my gosh, where is this going? Too early for those conversations. Imagine being Trump. Imagine being sure. You've been up all night on true social. You've had 20 diet coach.

Your 10-A-B Mac run is on its way to you. Yeah, that's why Emily was late. She was putting makeup on her hands. Well, but I take a lot of ibuprofen. I take a lot of ibuprofen. That's right. The big one. I think it's Tylenol, isn't it?

Tylenol. She wants her blood nice and thin. You know, that's what it is. Well, if Iran or the Ayatollah have any info, Ryan at dropsite news.com, he's in boxes open. I'm not soliciting any information from any designated terrorist organizations whatsoever to be very clear. That's, maybe I'll start an AOL account. I'm starting a new AOL account. And everyone can access it.

from there. Canadian women are looking for more. More out of themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women.

Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on I Heart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Welcome to the A building. I'm Hans Charles. I'm in Alec Lamoma. It's 1969.

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. had both been assassinated. And Black America was out of breaking point. Writing and protests broke out on an unprecedented scale. In Atlanta, Georgia at Martin's Almermata, Moore House College, the students had their own protest. It featured two prominent figures in black history. Martin Luther King Sr. and a young student, Samuel L. Jackson. To be in what we really thought was a revolution. I mean, people would die.

1968, the murder of Dr. King, which traumatized everyone. The FBI had a role in the murder of a Black Panther leader in Chicago. This story is about protest. It echoes in today's world far more than it should, and it will blow your mind. Listen to the A building on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Bowen-Yin. And I'm Matt Rogers. During this season of the Two Guys Five Rings podcast, in the lead-up to the Milan Quartina-26 Winter Olympic Games, we've been joined by some of our friends. Hi, Bowen, hi, Matt, hi, hi, Elmo.

Hey, Matt, hey, Bowen. Hi, Cookie. Hi. Now, the Winter Olympic Games are underway, and we are in England. Italy to give you experiences from our hearts to your ears. Listen to two guys, five rings on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. On that note, we do have more Epstein stuff happening. Les Wexner, the Epstein Associate billionaire, came in to testify.

We've got a few clips from that right here, including one Ryan wanted to start with about a Roman embassy and an exchange with his lawyer. Let's take a listen. Look at that plether vest. I'd be walking out with forks and stuff. Gee, that's a good idea. We ought to have an inventory. There was a, I hired a lady to be like the house manager who had run the U.S. embassy in Rome and said, yeah, I know how to do this.

And I said, well, why don't we keep the inventories of stopping? She said, yeah, I could do that. So she did that as a puny example. but I wouldn't have had the idea. But then, all the things were inventoryed. That wasn't worked for me or Jeffrey. It was just regularly done. And for those just listening on the podcast,

Les Wexner's lawyer leans in and whispers in his ear, I will fucking kill you if you answer another question with more than five words. I sort of appreciate Wexner's response to that too, It was just to laugh. Yeah. Yeah, you're probably right. Yeah, but let this man cook.

So that part of it went viral. What a lot of people didn't notice was what led into it. Let's unpack that for a second. If you are somebody who has even dipped your toes in history of the U.S. post-World War II or even ever seen a Jason Bourne movie. Like what does what what happens when you hear the words embassy in Rome? Like that is the locus of the CIA's operations when it comes to working with organized crimes. All of its all of its espionage.

That's that's where it projects power to the Middle East. It's it's work with terrorist organizations. It's worked with drug trafficking, arms trafficking. Like that embassy in Rome, that is the hub of like all of it. That is, like to hear, like, alarm bells are going off in everybody's mind who's like, here's the embassy of Rome. So Jeffrey, according to Wexner, Jeffrey Epstein had the woman who ran the logistics for the U.S. Embassy in Rome, which is also like this is the CIA's hub of its operations in this entire region and moved her to Wexner's mansion to count his forks and knives. to do an inventory of his forks and knives. I see nothing wrong with this.

I mean, you're not going to get anybody better at logistics. It just feels like anti-Italian bias to me, to be honest with you, Ryan, this whole approach. It's so, like, try to think of who is doing logistics and operations for the U.S. Embassy in Rome. Like, this is somebody who is read in on the deepest, secrets of U.S. espionage. Like that that's the person that Epstein suggested to Wexner run his operation. Yeah. As he's also, as we reported, like moving the CIA's Southern Transport planes, you know, to his operation to transport his, no, apparel around the world.

Like, they are, it's like they're taunting us. To be honest with you, the fact that Wexner, just sort of like naively lays out this piece of information and has to have his life threatened by his lawyer. It does give some credence to his claims like, I'm just kind of an idiot and a rube and very naive. And I had no idea what was going on here fully at least. Either that or he's saying if you keep pushing me,

you keep prosecuting me, I might accidentally reveal a lot more. So you see it more as a potential sort of like an Easter egg for people who are in the know of like these are the type of connections that I have just so you know. So I'm not just this like innocent bumbling old man. It was the woman who ran the embassy in Rome. That's who we were working with. Yeah, that is like very like only lightly veiled like reference to. I don't think it's that intellectual.

I think this gives like old man at the retirement home and the kids are coming to visit and he's telling them old stories. Like I don't think he's that calculator to do more. I mean, maybe he is. I don't know. I don't know. But I wish she'd keep cooking. Well, it would explain why we don't. You have the Rothschild one too. Yeah. Emily, go while I pull this one up. Yeah, it would just, some of it might explain why we never, ever hear from Les Wexner and that like they're utterly terrified that he lacks discipline in legal settings. He's a blabberman. I mean, how old is he at this point? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, he's clearly in there with this leather vest. He's like, let me tell you about the old days with my buddy Jeff.

They're like, don't do that. I just, I love the concept of them. They're like, sir, you have to, you're being deposed by Congress. What would you like us to pack? Bring me my finest pleather vest. It's interesting to me that you clapped that as pleather. Because I feel like. like that could actually be real leather.

It could, it could, but I, but we'll watch this one. I think he killed, I think he killed many animals for that vest. All right, let's take this one from the Rothschilds. I did personal work for the Rothschild family in France. Well, specifically, I talked to Ellie de Rothschild, and so I mentioned that earlier. So he, he represented their whole families that have been a whole bunch of people. I mean, most of them I never would have met in New LA. He would say, like, I'm providing financial advice to the founders of Google.

I'm financial providing financial advice to Jeff Bezos. So this is why I'm like, this guy. The lawyer leaning in again. It's like when Sager starts going off and Crystal just has to do like a Sager. Crystal, you should, we need like a button that you can press that says Sager, if you answer one more question. I will fucking tell you.

More than five words. I'm going to fucking kill you. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. It's very, the whole thing is very, and again, Dropside has done some of the best reporting here because Wexner

claimed, you know, oh, we cut off all contact at this certain point. And then you got those, you know, access to those emails. And lo and behold, that was not true. And by the way,

the philanthropy that, you know, Wexner's family, like philanthropy, was being run almost completely entirely by Jeffrey Epstein, was one of the largest funders of Zionist causes, by the way. And long after the supposed contact is cut off, they're still saying, hey, what does Jeff think about this? What does Jeff want to do with X and Y and C? And the other thing that is very revealing in terms of trying to figure out, okay, was this just some like really stupid rube of an old man who was completely, you know, bamboozled and had his money stolen by Jeffrey. Epstein, which is the story he's, he and his lawyers are trying to put forward, or is this someone who knew what was going on? You also uncovered an email from him to Epstein that said, you know, after his conviction, um, that said you violated your, your one rule, always be careful. And Epstein replies to him, you know, still there's no excuse. So that would indicate, you know, I mean, that would seem to suggest that he had some knowledge of Epstein's doings. Not to mention the fact that, like, when you look at the birthday book, when you look at the way he converses with effectively everyone in his social circle, like they're constantly talking about his lifestyle and girls and sex and, you know, gynecologist and torture and all kinds of crazy shit. So it certainly gives the impression of if you knew this guy, you knew something of what he was all about. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And he knew him since the 80s, like that's what we're learning, like, you know, a much longer relationship than we understood. And also, it's another wonderful Easter egg for him to throw out saying that he was working that Epstein was working with this Swiss bank in the mid-80s.

And these kinds of Swiss banks were at the nexus of the Iran-Contra, money laundering and money movement operations. They were moving that money from one bank to another, something like, I don't know, Emily, you might remember from, you've read Ari Ben Minashe's book more recently, but every like 90 days or something, they were moving huge amounts of money from one, like from these 30 banks to another 30 banks to another 30 banks. And so the people involved with that got familiar with the shady end of European banking, which might even have been even shadier in the 80s than it is. than it is now that it's with the electronic records is a little bit trickier to move things around than just with paper and pencil

and bags of cash. But yeah, so connecting Epstein to this Swiss Rothschilds bank as far back as the mid-80s gives more grist for the idea that he really did

get his connections to both intelligence and wealth through the the really epic era changing Iran-Contra scandal. And didn't Wexner, am I remembering this right? Doesn't he end up with some Iran-Contra planes? Mm-hmm. Yep, yep.

So after the heat comes on to the CIA's airline that it was shipping the planes and the drugs in the 1990s, the thing files for bankruptcy and sells half of its – planes to like I think some Angola company and then the other half get moved to Columbus Ohio by Epstein to work for Wexner. To move Victoria's Secret around the country. Yeah, and he already has, I think maybe he only owned Abercrombian Fitch at that point, but the limited brands for sure. And which was already being managed apparently by, you know, the CIA's top logician

out of the Rome embassy. Like, ridiculous. And we have a little bit of sound on those fashion shows in particular. Let's take a listen. I would go to some of the Victoria's Secret fashion shows. It was very important to the brand. It's some of the- Very important to the brand.

Trump was there. And I remember because Trump would always introduce himself to me. And I always thought it was kind of odd that he was at the fashion show because he had nothing to do with fashion. So is that another veiled threat that he's got more to say? Or how do we feel about the fashion show comments here? I mean, it could certainly be read through either lens.

Just an old man remembering things that he remembers and sort of enthusiastic about having the opportunity to share them. That's that vibe of like, you know, your dad or your grandpa at the dinner table. Like, finally, I've got a captive audience. Let me tell you about what happened in 1943. Yeah. Yeah, someone asks me a question. They're engaging with me. I've got things I want to say. Yeah, it has that energy. But then, I mean, if you view it through Ryan's theory of, you know, he's mentioning these little nuggets, none of which is conclusive, but just to kind of indicate, like, listen, if you take too hard a line with me, there are things, you know, I have levers I can pull here. This would certainly fit into that, you know, into that theory as well. The Victoria's Secret element is not unimportant because the Wall Street Journal has a great, like, TikTok of what went on with Jean-Luc Brunel. And there's a lot more depth. I mean, it's probably like a 2000-word story or something, but there's a lot more depth on the Jean-Luc Brunel stuff.

Actually, Crystal has been like on that stuff for a long time. But it's the, you can see how the Victoria's Secret partnership, or the partnership with Wexner, who oversees Victoria's, secret would have been important to Epstein. You can see where that becomes interesting that Trump is at the fashion shows when, as Wexter says, he didn't really have anything to with fashion, which is just cutting, unintentional and just absolutely cutting. But what they were doing very clearly was using modeling agencies. And the journal, I mean, I think it's conclusive at this point. You can see it in emails, but the journal pretty much clearly connects the dots that they were using Jean-League-Bronin Epstein,

were using modeling agencies to recruit women to come to the United States and basically work as mistresses. There's an email where one of them says, you know, she's reminiscing. And Epstein, she's getting into a tussle with him, but reminiscing and says, you know, when I look back on it,

mistress was the only job proposition that you were ever serious about. Having my pictures taken with Bill Gates and Woody Allen, it's nice, but it's not going to help me get a job. And so that really puts it, I think, in, that's a pretty good picture of what was happening. It's one example, but that's a pretty good example of what was happening across the board. So Wexner, the question then for me, and I don't know if Ryan or anyone else has thoughts on this, chicken or egg, is Wexner CIA and then Victoria's Secret? Or is he Victoria Secret and then CIA or another Intel agency?

Yeah. He's a useful, you could imagine him being, you know, a useful figure in many respects. you know, he's moving vast amounts of, you know, material around the world, you know, from, you know, particularly from Asia, but elsewhere, you know, in and out of the United States. Yeah, yeah, I don't, I don't know. He's also one of the largest, you know, funders of pro-Israel nonprofits here in the U.S. and helping to organize support for Israel at a very extreme level. Like the guy that's doing maybe the top three of pro-Israel donors over the last like 40 years.

And a lot of that seemingly directed by Epstein too. Yeah, literally. And it's also, this is Cold War right after the Cold War. right after the Cold War. And John Legg-Bernel, Epstein, are, and it goes into the last, like, 10 years before they died, but they're bringing a lot of Eastern European women over. And so that's with Wexner having Victoria's Secret models, like you have like international group of hot women moving around the world. You can see how that also can come into potential intel capacity as well, unfortunately.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, that's true. Well, and we know Epstein used his connection with Victoria's Secret, you know, when he was personally approaching, he was, oh, I'm close to Naomi Campbell. You know, he would hold himself out as an actual representative of Victoria Secret to try to, you know, cultivate young women, potentially girls around the world. And so Wexner, that's why this guy is so important. I mean, people watch the show probably already know this, but not only, does he have all of this money and hands over power of attorney to Jeffrey Epstein?

You know, this is the first place where you can really, you know, sink your teeth into, okay, this is where Epstein got a lot of funds from, from this Wexner character. And then he has also the, you know, the modeling angle with Victoria's Secret. And then there's all these, you know, the Rome embassy and all and the Iran contraplanes and all of these things that are very eyebrow raising about what other connections he may have had. All right. Well, we've got a guest waiting in the lobby here. Why don't we let her in and see what's going on with her? Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women.

Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers. all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Welcome to the A building. I'm Hans Charles.

I'm in Alec Lamoma. It's 1969. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. have both been assassinated. And Black America was out of breaking point. Writing and protests broke out on an unprecedented scale. In Atlanta, Georgia at Martin's Almermata, Morehouse College,

Students had their own protest. It featured two prominent figures in black history, Martin Luther King Sr. and a young student, Samuel L. Jackson. To be in what we really thought was a revolution. I mean, people would die. 1968, the murder of Dr. King, which traumatized everyone. The FBI had a role in the murder of a Black Panther leader in Chicago. This story is about protest.

It echoes in today's world, far more than it should, and it will blow your mind. Listen to the A-building on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Bowen-Yin. And I'm Matt Rogers. During this season of the Two Guys' Five Rings podcast, in the lead-up to the Milan-Cortina-2020 Winter Olympic Games, we've been joined by some of our friends. Hi, Bowen, hi, Matt.

Hey, Elmo. Hey, Matt, hey, Bowen. Hi, Cookie. Hi. Now the Winter Olympic Games are underway, and we are in Italy to give you experiences from our hearts to your ears. Listen to two guys, five rings on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. All right, guys, so we're very excited to have another candidate joining us this morning. So this is Julie Gonzalez.

She is a state senator in Colorado, and she is challenging Colorado Democratic Senator John Hickenlooper in the Democratic primary. Welcome, State Senator Julie Gonzalez. Great to have you. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Great to be here with y'all. Yeah, of course. So just tell us why you decided to jump into this race. Look, I think like a lot of Coloradans and a lot of Americans that we are sick and tired of go along to get along politics. And what I mean by that is our Democrats who are telling us, oh, if only there was something that we could do in the midst of our dissent into fascism. And then at the same, time going and voting for those very Trump nominees. John Hickenlooper has always been a centrist incrementalist and has voted for not one, not two, but ten different Trump nominees in the midst of the second Trump administration. Y'all make it make sense. At the same time,

in the Colorado legislature, we have been doing the work in order to protect Coloradoans, whether that's defending and advancing reproductive freedom, passing the Colorado Voting Rights Act, and ensuring that when ICE agents trample on our Constitution, that there are remedies and penalties in place. And so we have done the work, and yet those victories end at the state line when we don't also have a fighter in Washington, D.C., fighting for those same values. And the real question is, yes, we do absolutely need to go and flip red seats blue to build a governing majority. And at the same time, we've got to really start asking ourselves as the Democratic Party. Let's look at the caliber of leaders that we're sending to D.C. from the safe blue states. And that's why I'm stepping up to run. Give people a little bit of a sense of your background before you were, states.

or the work that you probably still continue to do. What is your background? What brought you to politics to start with? Certainly. My family goes back in Colorado generations. We are the types of Chicanos down in southern Colorado, northern New Mexico, who we didn't cross the border. The border crossed us. And when I went to Yale for my undergraduate degree, I learned there about power that.

that if you don't have institutional power, if you don't have a bajillion dollar endowment or tremendous access to wealth, the way that you earn concrete wins is by organizing people. And so I've done that work since I graduated college. In 2005, I've been in Colorado organizing on affordable housing, educational justice, and immigrant rights. When Donald Trump came down that golden escalation, down in 2015, those of us who had been in the immigrant rights movement knew that his candidacy was viable. And even when a lot of our establishment Democrat colleagues were saying, no, no, no, don't worry. There's nothing to see here. We got involved and organized. And after he won in 2016, I then stepped up and was part of that blue wave during that first midterm election.

that achieved a democratic trifecta here in our state legislature. I've been proud of the work that we've been able to accomplish since. Obviously, you come from the immigrant rights advocacy issue near and dear to your heart. You know, there's a national debate on the Democratic side about what the future of ICE should be. You know, are you in the reform camp or are you in the abolished camp? Look, I actually, when my family was, when I was growing up, my dad managed ranches. And when I was 10 years old, my dad got a job managing a ranch in deep, deep South Texas. And so we moved there in the summer of 93. And then the summer of 94, I'm sorry,

in January of 1994, NAFTA was enacted. And so middle school me actually witnessed the real beginnings of the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border growing up down in deep South Texas. I've now seen, right, I went to my very first Dream Act rally in August of 2001, and the Dream Act is now old enough to get a beer and we still haven't passed it. And ICE is younger than the Dream Act. So for those who say, oh, no, let's just go and reform ICE. Let's just go and add some additional training and body cams. No, I've seen it firsthand. I've seen what border enforcement look like before the militarization and the fear-mongering

of the creation of immigration and customs enforcement. And I stand firmly in the abolish ICE camp in order to replace it with a system that provides an actual legal pathway to citizenship, that restores due process, that treats everybody with dignity and respect, and doesn't ask babies and three-year-olds to represent themselves in immigration proceedings. Let's ensure that everybody has access to legal counsel so that they can navigate this incredibly important system. Let's make sure that there's enough judges and immigration adjudicators to be able to not have people waiting around for 20 years to try to have their application reviewed. But right now, our immigration

system is broken, and too many Democrats for far too long have gone and played political football with people's lives. And that's on both the Democratic side and the Republican side. And I was going to pick up on one of those points, too. You mentioned due process. Colorado is one of the places for all of the nonsense that's been spewed about Trenda-Iaragua, that actually really did have a serious situation with a trend to Iraq. I think it was an Aurora. And President Trump picked up on it and all of that. So I imagine, you know, even Democratic Colorans were upset with some of what was happening.

So I imagine voters will want to hear you talk about what the, if ICE is gone or if there's no cooperation with ICE, what does a orderly law enforcement system look like for people who are taking advantage of the country's immigration laws? How would you answer that question? Absolutely. Look, we have always wanted to ensure that in a moment of crisis, that you are able, anybody, whether you are, I don't care where you were born or how long you've been here, that in a moment of crisis that you can feel safe to call 911 and ask for help. But what we've seen is when local law enforcement is also doing ICE's job for them, that fear prevents entire segments of community who are either immigrants or live in mixed out as families or have mixed out as neighbors. They then don't have that trust in local law enforcement.

And so we've seen what happens when ICE is doing, is not even following the law that local law enforcement abides by. They're roving and causing panic and fear not only for immigrants, but for U.S. citizens as well, right? And so, look, I'm proud of the work that in Colorado we have done to say, ICE, go get a warrant. ice, don't come at me with a wannabe warrant, something that is signed by a supervisor. Go actually and follow the due process that every other law enforcement agency in the United States has to abide by, which is judicial review. Go talk to a lawyer. Go get a warrant. And then, absolutely, we will comply with said judicial orders. But what we have seen take place is fearmongering and scapegoating of communities against one another. The whole Dren Darawa situation that took place in Aurora was put forward as a red herring by a slum lord who actually owed a whole bunch of, was involved.

in a whole series of legal problems in Aurora. And those fear-mongering local elected city council members in Aurora were just booted out in this last November's election. You know, Donald Trump's entire mass deportation effort, he named Operation Aurora after our community here in Colorado. but those local elected officials who were a part of building that false narrative were all booted out in a sweep this past November, which I think really demonstrates the extent to which Coloradans are sick and tired of the fear mongering. They actually just want to be safe. And Donald Trump and his mass deportation agenda ain't achieved in safety at all. I'm also curious what it's like in today's media environment to try to go from the state legislature to the Senate.

Like how are you going about getting your message out? Hickenlooper obviously has huge name ID across the state and he's got good relationships with all of the local TV stations, I'm sure the Denver Post or whatever else. But where do voters, particularly ones who vote in the primary, like where are they getting their information and how are you? how are you reaching them? And have you found, how's the fundraising going in order to reach them going? Absolutely. You know, it's been very fascinating. I would say in this moment, the disconnect between the establishment and the base. And we have some real soul searching to do as, you know, I'd say loosely, Team Blue. We've got to decide whether or not we are going to continue to be the whole to the corporate interests and the corporate lobbyists who say, ooh, not too much, ooh, can't do that.

Hmm, if only there was something we could do, turns out, actually, we can have nice things if we're willing to fight for them. And what we have seen in the wake of Donald Trump's second election has been an incredible grassroots movement that has. has been energized and activated to stand up to say no kings in this country. Dems, do your job, and let's go and build the governing majority that will defeat this MAGA extremism once and for all. Look, I'm not handpicked by Chuck Schumer. It's fine. I wasn't voluntold to step up and run for this seat. And, but I stepped up after seeing not only those election victories in Aurora and in school boards and city councils across the state, booting out mag extremists who were trying to ban books instead of opening libraries and better funding our local schools.

And there is a real energy in our state to actually elect someone who is willing to. stand on the values of ensuring that we are fighting for an economy that works for everyday people and not just for the billionaires. And so, look, I'm not going to outraise John Hickenlooper. But that's never been the goal. We're always going to do the work to outwork him and out-organize him. So, Julie, you mentioned Chuck Schumer. We reported on a New York Times focus group this week where a lot of voters were talking about wanting a progressive instead of a moderate. They called the party weak, paralyzed, useless. Where do you fit in that Dem T party?

Do you believe that Chuck Schumer and Akeem Jeffries should step down or not be in leadership of the Democratic Party? Look, Chuck Schumer would not earn my vote for a Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus. I think that also given Senator Klobuchar's shift to run for governor and Senator Durbin's retirement, that there's a real opportunity for an entire new generation of Senate Democratic leadership. And I think that it is time for us to think differently about how we go and organize our base. You don't negotiate with, you don't, you don't, you don't, you don't, you don't, you don't, You don't negotiate with terrorists. You don't give into bullies.

And so how we stand strong on our values in this moment absolutely matters. And so I'm a known for Chuck Schumer. And it's probably why so much of his incumbent protection program is being deployed at this moment on Senator Hickenlooper's behalf. That's fine. I'm proud of the work that we are doing to earn the endorsements of. of Indivisible Colorado, of SEIU, the Working Families Party, and the Sunrise Hub here in Denver. And look, that momentum is indicative of the faith and excitement that Coloradans have to actually send someone to D.C. who's been battle tested, who has already done the work to move policies that often were seen as impossible on immigrant rights,

on reproductive freedom, on voting rights, and move those into getting signed into law and then being implemented. That's how I've shown up. And I'll just say one last thing here. Colorado is one of four states that has never elected a woman to serve either as governor or to serve in the U.S. Senate. The other three states being Pennsylvania, Idaho, and Indiana, and with Colorado being a democratic trifecta and a long-standing champion for gender equality, I think it's time. I have a few lightning round yes or no questions for you

and we want to be respectful of your time. Okay, so first one, I think you'll find all of these easy, but we'll see. A PAC funding, yes or no? No. Corporate PAC funding, yes or no? Nope. Tax the billionaires, yes or?

Absolutely. And last one, do you support Bernie Sanders' legislation to pause data center construction for AI? Absolutely. 100%. All right. Well, anybody else got another cue or should we let Senator Gonzalez get back to her busy day, I'm sure. Actually, it's pretty early there. Is it none? Is it not? Yeah, it's eight in the morning over here. Well, one of the things that I think is very interesting about your race is, and Ryan can probably speak to this better than me, but it seems to me that Colorado, it's not that long ago. Colorado was a swing state. It's obviously become a very solidly democratic state. And yet you still have quite conservative democratic leadership between Hickenlooper Bennett and then Governor Polis. There seems to me to be a big disconnect between where the base of the party in Colorado is and the leadership that they're representing, which is why, find your race, you know, particularly interesting one to watch. So let people know where they can

follow you and support you if they're so inclined. Absolutely. Look, what is clear in this moment is that no one is coming to save us but us and that we are the ones that we have been waiting for. And so if you're sick and tired of having to vote for someone who doesn't align with your values, that's why primaries matter. And the Republican Party in this state, is trying to right now out extreme themselves moving further and further and further to the right. And so the question really now in this moment is, who do you want to control your life? Do you want the insurance executives, the ice thugs? Do you want the corporate lobbyists to control your lives?

Or do you want people to have been listening to the people who too often have been either taken for granted or forgotten altogether by people in power, actually making decisions? That's how I show up to this work. And it's why I believe that we will win in Colorado. In order to get involved with the campaign, hit us up on social media. Senator Julie on all of the socials. I'm currently the only Latina in the state Senate here in Colorado. If elected to the U.S. Senate, I'd increase the number of Latinas in the U.S. Senate by 100 percent, the first and only Latina ever to serve, Catherine Cortez-Mastewa out of Nevada, right? And so in these times, we can have nice things if we're willing to fight for them.

Hit me up at Julie for Colorado.com in order to learn more about the campaign and get involved. All right. Thank you, Julie, and we'll leave a link in the description of the video. Have a great day. Okay, that was Julie Gonzalez in Colorado. I forgot to add my lightning round question, are aliens real in honor of the Obama interview? I thought about making that joke. We'll leave that one alone.

After she has access. That's right. That's true. They don't tell us. state legislators. No, no, no, but then you got to be very careful about revealing classified information according to President Trump. Absolutely. Yeah, do we have that? Are we talking about that in the premium half? Well, we're hiding all the classified info behind the premium paywell here. So if you want to see that and more, breaking points.com to see the full Friday shows. You can send

up for a monthly or yearly subscription there and help support our journalism. And we will see everyone else on the second half right now. I'm Bowen-Yang. And I'm Matt Rogers. During this season of the Two Guys Five Rings podcast, in the lead-up to the Milan-Cortina-26 Winter Olympic Games, we've been joined by some of our friends. Hi, Boen, hi, Matt, hi, Elmo.

Hey, Matt, hey, Bowen. Hi, Cookie. Hi. Now, the Winter Olympic Games are underway, and we are in Italy to give you experiences from our hearts to your ears. Listen to Two Guys Five Rings on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever. you get your podcast.

Over the last couple years, didn't we learn that the folding chair was invented by black people because of what happened in Alabama? This Black History Month, the podcast, Selective Ignorance with Mandy B, unpacked black history and culture with comedy, clarity, and conversations that shake the status quo. The Crown Act in New York was signed in July of 2019, and that is a bill that was passed to prohibit discrimination based on hairstyles associated with race. To hear this and more, listen to Selective Ignorance with Mandy B, from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

1969, Malcolm and Martin are gone. America is in crisis. At a Morehouse college, the students make their move. These students, including a young Samuel L. Jackson, locked up the members of the board of trustees, including Martin Luther King's senior. It's the true story of protests and rebellion in black American history that you'll never forget. I'm Hans Charles. I'm Mennelick Lamouba. Listen to the A building on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.