Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 6/13/23: Trump Calls For Protests, Ukraine Mining Vehicles Destroyed, Foreclosures Skyrocket, San Fran Malls Close, Biden On Tape Taking Bribe, Tucker Cease And Desist, UPS Strike Looms, JPMorgan Settles Epstein Case, James Van Der Beek On Dem Debates

Episode Date: June 13, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump heading to court today as he calls for protests, half of Ukraine's mining vehicles destroyed in counteroffensive, home foreclosures skyrocket, San Fran malls and hotels close, GOP claims Biden corruption on tape, Fox sends Tucker a cease and desist, huge UPS strike looms, JPMorgan settles Epstein case, and James Van Der Beek demands Democrats host debates.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch: https://shop.breakingpoints.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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is

still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Looking for your next obsession? Listen to High Key, a new weekly podcast hosted by Ben O'Keefe, Ryan Mitchell, and Evie Oddly. We got a lot of things to get into. We're gonna gush about the random stuff we can't stop thinking about.

I am high key going to lose my mind over all things Cowboy Carter. I know. Girl, the way she about to yank my bank account. Correct. And one thing I really love about this is that she's celebrating her daughter. Oh, I know.

Listen to High Key on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, guys. Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible.

If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. We have former President Trump has a court date today. We will tell you what to expect and also what is going on with his legal team and the judge that's been assigned to the case and all of those details. We also have new details about the Ukrainian counteroffensive and how that is going. New numbers about the economy foreclosures are rising. And also downtown San Francisco really struggling, already seems to be in that sort of like doom loop situation. So we'll tell you about all of that.

We also have some new legal wrangling between Tucker Carlson and Fox News. They actually sent him a cease and desist. And Chuck Grassley making some pretty interesting comments on the floor about President Biden with regards to those alleged payments with Burisma, $5 million, Ukraine, et cetera, et cetera. So we'll tell you about that. We have James Van Der Beek. He is the actor who became famous in Dawson's Creek to talk about the Democratic primaries and how he became Fox News' favorite Democrat and how he feels about that. But before we get to any of that, we want to say thank you all so much for the incredibly supportive comments and also the wonderful feedback about the new set, which we are super excited about and also

still getting our sea legs around and figuring out all the shots and making them perfect. So we genuinely appreciate all the feedback. Yeah, it's all continuous improvement here at Breaking Points. Just want to say again, thank you to all the positive support. You guys have been so amazing. Many of you have been checking out our new merchandise with the new beautiful logo, the mugs and all that stuff. Everything is available at BreakingPoints.com. There's a merch tab and you can become a premium supporter if you want to go and help us continue our expansion, ramp up for all of this. We've got RFK Jr. later on today that we'll be interviewing. We'll be releasing that interview separately. So if you're a premium member and others, keep your eyes glued

on the podcast feed. That's going to come sometime in the afternoon. But with that, Crystal, let's get to the show. President Trump expected in a South Florida courtroom this afternoon at 3 p.m. for his arraignment with regard to those document charges. A lot of questions in this case about the judge that has been assigned, Judge Aileen Cannon. Let's go and put this up on the screen. So you might recall she's the one that was involved previously. She's a Trump appointee, a very recent actually Trump appointee, and she ruled that there needed to be a special master to go through the documents that were being pulled from Mar-a-Lago. She also basically blocked the prosecution from being able to continue to go through and evaluate

those documents at that time. A panel of three judges, all of them appointed by Republican presidents, came in and basically said that ruling was wrong and overruled her in quite strong terms. So there are a lot of questions about whether she should recuse herself from overseeing this particular case, which was apparently randomly assigned to her. Let me read a little bit from that article that we just had up on the screen. This was Isaac Chotner interviewing a legal expert about the question saga about her recusal. So the governing code around when a judge should recuse says they should take themselves out if the judge's impartiality, quote, might reasonably be questioned. Now, this legal expert says the fact that a judge's

impartiality might reasonably be questioned doesn't mean that the judge is partial. The public may simply not trust the impartiality of the judge because public trust in the mean that the judge is partial. The public may simply not trust the impartiality of the judge because public trust in the work of the court is a value as important as the work itself. The rule says the judge should not sit when we can't fairly ask the public to trust what the judge does. That rule is especially important in this case. One thing the prosecution can do is move to recuse Judge Cannon on the ground that in light of her experience in the search warrant case last year, her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The way that this works, just as a technical matter, which I'm learning about in real time, is it's actually on the judge herself

to decide whether or not she should recuse. The government can ask, can send like a nice note of like, hey, we think maybe you should recuse. She gets to make the ultimate decision. Now, there is a process where if she says, no, I'm good, I'm staying on the case, where the government can appeal. But it is unlikely that those appeals, those appeals succeed rarely. They do succeed sometimes, but they succeed rarely. And you also risk sort of like pissing off the judge who's important to your case. So it's a little bit complicated for them. One note on just what is going to happen today with this arraignment. So in addition to Judge Cannon, who, as I said, is Trump appointee, who was seen as taking this very favorable ruling towards Trump and being overruled by a bunch of conservative judges.

In addition to her being appointed, there's also a magistrate judge who was appointed to be involved with this case as well. They're sort of like, you could see him as like a helper judge. That's the individual who will be overseeing this particular arraignment today. But overall, randomly, this judge, Cannon, is the one assigned to this. Yeah, there's a lot of focus here on this judge. And I think it's interesting because this is previews exactly what we were trying to show everyone yesterday. Even regardless of how you may feel about said judge, this sets up even more legal fights and wrangling, which was going to take a lot of time. And you can expect to hear quite a bit about in the coming months, which will of course make it so that there is not necessarily going to be a quote, speedy resolution to this trial. That's actually where I think my

main takeaway is. I was like, man, the level of wrangling here over just beginning in the initial appearance over just the judge previews all of the procedural fights from here to come. Yes. Documents to Supreme Court challenges to the appeals. And as you said yesterday, the people who aren't lawyers are like, why should I care about this? Well, you should care because it just shows you the level of wrangling just in this one case, let alone what could come forward in the January 6th case if that is ever brought against Trump and how none of that may necessarily be resolved come Election Day 2024. I think it is very likely, and people need to really take this in, that Election Day is going to be both about, of course, the future of the country and who's going to be president, et cetera, and also whether Trump is going to spend the next four years in the White House or in prison. I mean, the charge, listen, the jury's

going to be in South Florida. That gives him a better shot in terms of jury selection. That's probably his best chance is that they're able to land some hardcore Trump supporter on the jury who just isn't going to convict basically no matter what. Because the facts as laid out, as we know them at this point, if it was anyone else, it'd be open and shut. I mean, I just don't think that there's any denying that given we literally have him on tape being like, I'm committing crimes here, guys. Look at me committing crimes. So that makes, you know, the stakes certainly for his supporters who want to see him be a free man, that makes the stakes very high politically. In terms of the timeline, as you're laying out soccer, this is going to take a long time to resolve. And he wants it.

His team is going to push for this to take a long time to resolve. They're going to fight on the jurisdiction. They're going to be all kinds of motions that they file to try to drag out the process because he knows really his best chance at maintaining his freedom is to be back in the White House where he can pardon himself and have control and, you know, be off the hook at least while he's there, you know, on Pennsylvania Avenue. So they're going to do everything they can to slow this down. So it's, you know, it's a pretty wild dynamic here that we're looking at. In terms of the details for today, just so you guys know what is going to go down, put this up on the screens from NPR, just what will happen at his arraignment. It's scheduled for 3 p.m. Eastern time in Miami. There's not going to be a lot that the public is going to

be able to see. They talk about the courthouse is actually connected to an underground garage, so he can be ferried in. It can provide a secure spot for him to be taken to be electronically fingerprinted. Just like in New York, we're not expecting handcuffs. We're not expecting a mugshot, which is not really necessary for such a high profile figure. We are unlikely, there are not going to be any cameras in the courtroom. We're unlikely to see a lot of what happens. And so, you know, it's, it's, there's not going to be a lot that comes from this court appearance today, expectedly. With Trump, you never know, but that's the expectation. Last time that we did this in New York, there was, we hadn't

gotten the details of the case yet. So we're all kind of waiting with bated breath to see, all right, what are the details of the charges? Are there things in here that we don't know about? And when the statement of facts came out, you know, revealed that basically it was what was already in the public record. We already have the charges here. So again, there's not an expectation that we're going to learn a lot more about this case. They do say some reporters will be allowed to watch and share electronic updates. So we will get some account coming out of the courtroom of what happens, but no camera and no expectation that we're going to learn a lot more about what additional evidence the government may have. It's simply, it's more of a procedural matter than it is one

that is in any way similar to what happened in Manhattan. We're going to get, like you said, the 37 charges, but we already know all the details of every single one of them, the indictment and the charging document already been released. We've had the initial photos. The government itself says they're going to push for a 70-day resolution in terms of starting the trial. But as we keep saying, that does not account for defense motions

and for others that must be resolved through the court process. So everyone just buckle up and realize that this is very, very different than what happened in Manhattan. We have the documents. We, in many ways, the symbolic appearance of him trekking down to the federal courthouse and appearing before the judge, even though we won't get a photo or any of that, is the most important thing that's happening. And then, of course, Crystal, later today, 8.15 p.m., the president will be having a, or former president, will be having a rally,

a press conference at Bedminster. Yeah. Not sure if he's going to take any questions. He's going to be flying back to the state of New Jersey after his court appearance. And we will have some analysis later on tonight for everybody around that. So everyone just keep that in mind as we go into today. Yeah. So before we move on to the next piece about Trump's plans for today's et cetera, there's a lot of reporting out this morning. We knew already that some high profile members of his legal team just before the indictment dropped, bailed on the team. And we're starting to get some details over why that is. I mean, none of this is going to surprise you, right? There's tons of infighting. Apparently, there's a lot of upset over Boris Epstein, who is like, you know, some of the

lawyers see him as wildly unqualified to be leading this team and have been very critical of some of the filings that he has put in, sent in to judges, including like a court filing that talked about how Trump dominated in the Republican primaries, which is totally irrelevant to a legal case. There were disagreements about like the media strategy. But what appears to be based on the reporting is there's a big divide in the potential legal strategy. One side wants to take the very Trumpian approach of being extremely bellicose and making more of a political argument and coming out guns blazing, even at risk of, you know, pissing off the judge, inflaming the jury, whatever. So that's one side wants to take like the very Trumpian approach. And then the other side says, hey, listen,

all you need is one juror in South Florida to take your side. So we think that you could actually win this case legally, you know, through the legal process versus the political process by, you know, playing it safe and mounting a traditional defense and doing the things that lawyers and clients normally do. So apparently that's the divide. And there's a lot of reporting this morning about how Trump is really having a hell of a time getting lawyers to replace the dudes who just left. I mean, would you want to work with this guy? I mean, he doesn't pay his bills on time. He like will randomly be caught on tape bragging about committing crimes. He lies to his own lawyers. So even though obviously it would come with a ton of prestige to represent

the former president in the most, you know, what's going to be the most closely watched case, perhaps in the history of the country, even though that comes with all of this prestige, basically everyone in Florida is like, eh, we're good here. And it does matter because, you know, these judges, they're human beings, whether it ends up being Judge Cannon or anyone else, having someone who's local, who understands this particular judge, their particular temperament, maybe has somewhat of a relationship with it. Like, it's gross that those things matter, but having local counsel with that kind of local knowledge

actually really does matter in terms of the outcome. No, you're right. I mean, one thing I learned covering Trump during Russiagate, he went through, like, multiple different lawyers during the Mueller investigation. There was always a lot of drama. Even the impeachment, if you'll remember, there were, like, all these different arguments

about who was going to speak on his behalf for impeachment one and for impeachment two. I just think in the end of the day, he'll figure it out. You know, there's always somebody in the Republican Party that wants to make a big name for themselves. Now, will he get the most- Someone will want the glory. Will he get the most competent defense? I'm just going to go out on a limb and say probably not, just given the caliber. But as always, he will find something. And look, as you know, if the stakes become genuinely existential, it's not like the Republican establishment or at least some of the lawyers aren't going to at least have some people come and back him. Like people, that's what happened during the last impeachment.

You know, every time there was a lot of consternation. But at the end of the day, like people went to bat for Trump. And especially if he continues to lead in the polls, consider it. Are you really going to, you know, abandon your nominee at the court? No, they're going to, you know, there's too much on the line. There's too much money at stake. Yeah. Well, let's say that's a good way to shift to sort of the politics of this. So Trump has called on supporters to show up and protest today. Let's put this up on the screen. He was on a radio program talking about how he wants, this was with Roger Stone, a longtime friend and ally who he also pardoned for his alleged crimes. So he says our country has to protest. We've lost everything.

They have to go out and they have to protest peacefully, he says. They have to go out. He also called Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was, of course, heading the investigation. He called him deranged. Now, I have no idea how many people are going to show up, whether the protests are more likely to be peaceful or not. But if history is any guide, when it was the New York indictment, and he also encouraged people to show up in protest. There wasn't a huge turnout. I did see some chatter online, some reporting online that like Proud Boys and others feel like, oh, this could be a setup. We're worried about after January 6th,

we're worried about the feds and all that sort of stuff, as they probably should be. And so my guess will be that the protests will not be a whole, whole lot to talk about. But, you know, you never know. Trump has a very adamant base. He has directly asked them to show up and support him in South Florida outside the Miami courthouse. I know the city is definitely preparing for a large and potentially contentious gathering there. So that's what we know on that front. Yeah. Put this up on the screen because I actually think this is the most important part is he, guess what? He's going to host his first major fundraiser the day of his,

that is really what it all comes down to for me, Crystal, is whether people show up to him or not, as we learned in Manhattan. Well, not that many people, although of course in Florida, there's quite a few more Trump supporters. But regardless, when Trump is under attack, that's when he raises the most money. That's why he's doing his press conference and big appearance or rally, whatever you want to call it, at Bedminster. And that's also why he had that same gathering on the night of his Manhattan indictment and why he flew back to Florida and had that big Mar-a-Lago event because he has always raised the most whenever he's under attack. Impeachment one was a bonanza for him. Impeachment two, even more of a bonanza. It's like we never seem to learn that lesson at

the very least in terms of the political benefit. And just yesterday, what did we bring everybody the news? 61% support in the Republican primary. Ron DeSantis not only didn't get a polling bump whenever he announced, he got a polling drop. He got a polling collapse. And every single, every contender going after Trump on these documents and all this other, all these other issues, people like Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie, they had the highest level of I will not support that person. Yeah. The highest level. Yeah.

It shows you that, you know, any Republican who wants to play with this in the primary, it's not going to work. Now, of course, that does not dispel the fact that independent voters, this is a problem. And it just generally feeds into the drama narrative. So I'm not saying it makes him more powerful for the general election. But in terms of the Republican primary, there is no question this is nothing but a benefit to him. And he will raise a probably historic amount of money as a result of these charges. The other thing that's interesting is partly because he has so burned his own fundraising list.

His grassroots fundraising has actually fallen off quite significantly. It's not anything like what it used to be. That's true. But the thing that does juice it is, you know, the raid on Mar-a-Lago, indictment in Manhattan, indictment now in South Florida. That juices his numbers. But even the fact that he is focused on, because this isn't a grassroots fundraiser, this is for the big high dollar donors, this event that he's doing in Bedminster. And they say that in contrast to his previous campaigns, he actually this time has to work the phones. He's got to do call time. He's got to woo bundlers. He's got to woo other major contributors. They're expecting more than 300

bundlers to be on board the campaign by the end of June. But, you know, previously he didn't have to do that same like wooing the big guy grind, the big guys grind that other candidates always have to do that, like Ron DeSantis has to do, for example, and Joe Biden has to do because they don't have that same level of grassroots support. So there's there's two pieces here. On the one hand, yes, this will certainly juice his grassroots fundraising dollars, no doubt about it. But it does show you that, you know, even the base, like they've been so tapped in terms of their fund. And the number of emails that Trump has sent to his supporters is insane. And it's really burned every Republican candidate because people are just so exhausted by the constant pleas, existential pleas for cash. But so this would be, this will be one event

that will certainly help him in that regard. You know, there's also, you sent this this morning, Sagar, there's rumblings that donors are still like, oh, you know, if Trump looks like he's going down, maybe we need to get Brian Kemp into the race. Maybe we need to get, maybe we need to get Glenn Youngkin into the race. And it's just incredible because you already have all of these contenders. What do you think is going to be different about

a Glenn Youngkin jumping in that's going to supplant Trump? I'm sorry, but it feels to me like this primary is all but over before it's even begun. I can't say the obituary just yet, but I was just looking that Ron DeSantis' people are very upset with Chris Christie and with everybody else. They're like, they're pulling away from all of our potential support. And I'm like, yeah, that is kind of true. You are. That's fine. But here's the thing. Even if none of them were in the race, the argument from Trump's opponents and the donors who are allied with his opponents was like, oh, he's got his base of 35 to 40 percent support, but that's it. Well, the latest poll has him 60-something percent.

It's not just that one either. It's significant numbers that have him over 50. Exactly. So even if everyone but Ron DeSantis drops out, Trump is still winning. So that's their case. Their theory of the case has kind of already collapsed, which is they had to think somewhere in their heart of hearts that these indictments, the legal trouble, whatever, that even though Republicans still liked him, they'd be like, yeah, it's too messy. I'm ready to move on. That is not the case. They had to think that, all right, he's got his hardcore base, but there's a majority of Republicans who want to move on. Clearly not the case. They thought, and remember, we covered these articles on Ron DeSantis before he jumped in the race. They're like, yeah, his polls have been flagging

lately, but he's not even in the race yet. Like, wait till he gets in the race and you're going to see how he picks up ground. Well, he's only gone in the other direction. So all of the claims that were made to bolster the case of Ron DeSantis in particular, but all of his, you know, adversaries in the Republican primary, they've already kind of fallen apart. I think that their case is falling. I will just say what votes haven't been cast yet. So let's not entirely count them out. Although, you know, I'm pretty excited to see how the votes cast out. We could see a historic polling miss, right? Like maybe there is some secret faction of Republicans that really are the silent, the silent, the silent anti-Trump voter in the Republican primary, to be clear, not in the general election.

Because I actually do think that person does kind of exist at the least in the general election. But for a primary, we're not seeing a lot of that evidence. So far, we're just seeing Trump absolutely dominate every single contest, media cycle, and everything that he touches, which pretty much fits with everything that I always thought was going to happen from the very beginning. Let's go ahead and talk about Ukraine. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in Ukraine that we wanted to hold to make sure we dedicated a significant amount of time to in today's show. The long-awaited counteroffensive is officially on.

It has launched. Now, how is it going? Now, initially, much of the conversation was happening around the dam that was blown up in eastern Ukraine. That dam, there was a lot of discussion. Did the Russians blow it up? Did the Ukrainians? Really, both sides kind of benefited from it. President Zelensky actually went and visited the region. There are reasons to think that both sides could have done the sabotage, and ultimately it is still a human catastrophe.

But now what we know is that about a week into the overall offensive, we're getting some indications about Russian strategy and about Ukraine, the gains it may or may not hope to make in this overall campaign. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. The initial takeaway that appears to be forming amongst Western analysts is that the Russian improved weaponry and tactics is posing challenges to the Ukrainian counteroffensive, even with all of the weapons

that have been provided to Ukraine so far. As I said previously, the initial kind of analysis was focusing on what was going on with the drone, but overall, or sorry, with the dam. But overall, what we are watching is much slower progress than that was initially made in the original Ukrainian counteroffensive. And this is also being verified by many Western analysts and others who have watched as the Russians have really taken over a year to bolster their 600-mile front line. They say that they've honed in on electronic weapons, reducing Ukrainians' edge in combat drones. They've turned heavy bombs from its massive Cold War arsenal into precision-guided munitions capable of striking targets without putting its warplanes at risk. And the tactics

are switching much more towards the defensive position that we saw, especially after what happened in Bakhmut. So the initial news, too, that I found really interesting, let's go and put this up there. There's a lot of maps that we wanted to show everyone from the Wall Street Journal. The counteroffensive that we can see here is the initial one is the view from the front line where you can actually see Ukraine that has taken back a few villages in the Donetsk region. I'm not going to go ahead and pronounce these. For those who are watching, you can see there pretty clearly where the front line is and then some of the villages that the Ukrainians have been stepping up artillery attacks and then taking

back villages. Go to the next one, please, so that people can see a little bit more. This gives some more insight into the dam near the city of Kherson, which exploded some of the flow areas that had been flooding. And then also, it shows you where more dangers were on the cities that are around the flattest land in southern Ukraine. The next map, please, also does some indication about the dam and where the actual demolition site had occurred. So, Crystal, the main takeaway within all of this, and please, can we pull over the third element, please, on the screen, is that the defensive capabilities of the Russians, or at the very least have been bolstered such that Ukrainians are having a harder time. That doesn't mean that it may not necessarily succeed, but that the initial push is not working as well as the last one. They say that the Ukrainian army has already lost half of its unique leopard breaching vehicles,

which had been provided to them by the West. And they've already come to the Germans and said that they need even more of them. So overall, and you know, if anybody's interested, you can go see, there's a lot of videos out there floating around about some of the battles going on. It's absolutely brutal and devastating stuff. But, you know, I mean, this just fits with some of the analysis that we'd seen up there. The warnings from the Defense Chief General Mark Milley that we're basically seeing a, you know, classic World War I type trench scenario. And that fits with the, you know, whichever army is attacking is generally going to be the one really on the losing side in terms of casualties. Maybe they can turn it around.

They can show us something that they haven't seen before. But it's pretty clear here that things are really grinding together. I mean, to boil this down based on this analysis to the most simplistic terms, the Ukrainians have learned a lot over the 15 months of the war, but so have the Russians. The Ukrainians have been bolstered certainly by more and more advanced weaponry that we have been willing to ship them. We've been training them aggressively in modern military techniques, but the Russians have also learned a lot from their losses and they have an advantage because they're in the defensive position and that's just the nature of war. If you get into a grinding war of attrition, which is what this increasingly looks like, we have always said,

and this is not based on our own analysis, it's based on what a lot of experts here are saying, that really advantages the Russians. And you can see it in the way that Zelensky and American and European officials are carefully talking about what quote unquote success might look like. And this is something we've pointed to before. Zelensky has really worked hard to play down expectations of what this

counteroffensive might look like and seemed to also sort of delay the start of it for quite a while. You know, we're now getting into summer for the spring offensive. But put this up on the screen. They say publicly American and European officials are leaving any definition of success to Zelensky of Ukraine. For now, Zelensky has not laid out any public goals beyond his off-stated demand that Russian troops must leave the whole of Ukraine. He's known as a master communicator. Any perception he's backing off that broad ambition would risk undermining his support at a critical moment. Privately, U.S. and European officials concede pushing all of Russia's forces out of occupied Ukrainian land is highly unlikely. Still, two themes emerge as clear ideas of

quote-unquote success, that the Ukrainian army retake and hold on to key swaths of territory previously occupied by the Russians, and that Kiev deal the Russian military a debilitating blow that forces the Kremlin to question the future of its military options in Ukraine. So it's early days. So we have to see what develops. Thus far, they've been able to take a few little tiny villages, you know, not make major progress. They're obviously losing a lot in doing that.

You pointed the Leopard breaching tanks, losing half of those in the early phases here. So as of yet, they're nowhere close to even the more limited definition of success. And part of what they would be aiming for here is to gain some strategic leverage if they are going to go to the negotiating table to be able to strike a better deal. If they're unable to do that, then, you know, I think the path forward is really, really unclear. Yeah, there was also some indication of what they're really going after, which is they say, American and European officials, it is key for Ukraine to cut off or at least squeeze the so-called land bridge, the large swath of territory that Russia sees between its border and the peninsula of Crimea, which has become the main supply right for the military stronghold. It's that and then the Zaporozhian nuclear power plant. I apologize if I did not say that

correctly, which of course has been inside of Russian control since very early days of the war and has been a great matter of consternation as to how it's being run. It looks like those are the two massive targets for the Ukrainian military. Another scenario they say right now is that the Russians could make an error by potentially putting their troops in the wrong place or defending a trench line too lightly, which could potentially allow Ukraine to punch through their lines and execute a devastating blow to Russian troops. So there's still a lot of different scenarios right now which are on the table. But from best we can tell, things are kind of grinding right now in the initial phase of the campaign.

No great success by the Russians, no great success yet by the Ukrainians, and lots of attrition that looks very, very World War I style as of now. And already, you know, the COPE articles about what success looks like and all of that are being released by the West. But, hey, everybody could be wrong. You know, again, really nobody knows how this thing is going to go until they officially kind of call it off. Military analysts have been very wrong at different times in this conflict, so we've got to keep that in mind. The last thing that I think it's always important to bear in mind with regard to our proxy war against a nuclear-armed superpower is they say, while U.S. officials have set the risk of Mr. Putin's using a nuclear weapon have receded,

American intelligence agencies say total defeat in Ukraine or a loss of Crimea are two scenarios under which Mr. Putin could potentially order the use of a nuclear weapon. This again is consistent with what we've been saying from the beginning. If his back is really against the wall and it really looks existential, that's when you end up in extremely dangerous terrain and it's important never to take our eye off of that. Yep, very, very important reminder as always. All right, let's get to some new disturbing economic indicators here. We've followed as closely as we can the housing market on this show because it's so important to the economy. It's so important to all of you and your lives. And let's go ahead and put this up on the screen.

We now have home foreclosures rising nationwide. Florida, California, and Texas are apparently in the lead. You've got May foreclosure-related filings. That includes default notices, scheduled auctions, bank repossessions, all up 7% from April, 14% from a year ago. Nationwide, you're talking about over 35,000 properties. You also have actual foreclosures up 4% month over month and 5% from a year ago, as I mentioned before, leading the way you have Florida, California, and Texas. Now, they do sound a note here to keep in mind the context, which is that in spite of the increase, these overall foreclosure rates

actually remain about level with where we were pre-pandemic. So part of what happened is you had a lot of forbearance programs during the pandemic. Well, those have now lapsed and now they've gone. So in some ways, you're back to business as usual. However, there's still a lot of reasons to be concerned. Workers' incomes remain below their pre-pandemic highs. Of course, the cost of consumer goods and services remains elevated. That puts workers at a greater risk of falling behind on payments. We've talked here

about how credit card debt and other types of debt have surged to all-time highs. And of course, inflation continues to bite into incomes and makes it very difficult to keep up on your house payment. So some warning signs here that are a little bit troubling about the direction of the economy. Yeah, it's always important too. And also, we'll recall, this is Florida, California, and Texas. Florida and Texas are two of the most booming states in the entire union. So their economies are very important to overall GDP. Also, they have the biggest housing growth market. So if you do see foreclosures that are happening there, we should recall during the 2008 crisis, the foreclosures in California were like 40% or whatever of the total.

So the housing markets in those two states are very important for the overall national trends. Another thing I think it's very important, Crystal, to understand here is the role of the Federal Reserve. And we have this piece that we can go and put up on the screen from Bloomberg, which is that they are not currently have any real plans to do anything about this. The Fed is going to keep rates high thanks to inflation fueled by corporate greed, which here's another one, which is very interesting, showing pretty definitively that a key piece of inflation, not all of inflation, does show you that there's a lot of profiteering that is going on right now, according to the majority of investors themselves.

Yes. Not according to people, according to the actual people in the market right now. Yes. Yes. And, you know, greedflation was considered like this fringe crank, silly theory that was to be dismissed by all the serious people here in DC. Now they are having to reckon with the fact that this was a real phenomenon and it made up a significant chunk of inflation. In this survey that they put out to investors, 90% of investors said companies on both sides of the Atlantic have been raising prices in excess of their own costs since the pandemic began. So using the excuse of inflation to price gouge

is part of what's going on. And that's why inflation has come down somewhat. But that's why it's been so sticky and hasn't responded as much to the Federal Reserve hiking rates as they thought that it would. And because it's not a particularly effective tool for dealing with the problem of corporations using their monopoly power in many instances to price gouge consumers and raise prices way beyond the inflation that they were actually experiencing. They asked this group of respondents also, hey, what should we do about this? And a good chunk of them said, hey, tighter monetary policy is the way to go, which, you know, to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense given we've had tighter monetary policy.

It doesn't really seem to be solving the problem. It doesn't directly get at that issue of corporate greed. But the ones who said, you know what, it's not tighter monetary policy. We need to do something else. The things they suggested were better enforcement of antitrust laws around mergers, makes a lot of sense, along with efforts to stimulate more competition, support for higher corporate taxes, potentially including windfall charges in areas where price gouging is identified, something I definitely support. One blunt recommendation was to, quote, tax them to oblivion. Now, to show you just what we're talking about here with regard to greedflation, I actually thought this chart was really told the tale quite effectively. Put this up on the screen.

So you can see profit margins of U.S. non-financial corporate businesses leading up to 2020. And then during the pandemic, when you start having the ability of companies to claim inflation and jack up prices, those profit margins just absolutely skyrocket. And they haven't come anywhere close to back to what the levels were previously. So it shows you it really is an anomalous period, that this really is a significant part of the story. And Jerome Powell, again, they're considering what they're going to do in terms of interest rates. They're meeting this week. There is starting to be some dissent on the direction that they should go in Sagar, because you're now at a point where the economy is really on a precipice. We've already seen, of course, a number of banks fail. Many would argue, okay,

that was anomalous. Other banks are fine. It's stable. It's not a problem. That is not really clear. And then you also have things like the foreclosure rate ticking up. You have signs that there's increasing softness in the labor market. You have indications that the economy really might be starting to crack and on a bit of a, you know, at a bit of a breaking point, no pun intended. And so if you continue hiking rates or even leave rates as high as they are, you risk sending us into a deep recession with catastrophic consequences. Yeah, we actually got some breaking news literally just right now about consumer inflation. So I'm going to go ahead and read this off. The consumer price inflation report from the Fed just came out,

from the government just came out. Inflation continues to cool, offering relief to customers. Consumer prices rose 4% in the year through May 11th, consecutive month of declines in the pace of inflation. That's 11 months so far. That may support plans by the Federal Reserve to pause interest rate increases just because we have a cooler, quote unquote, inflation report. That doesn't mean, though, that things are rosy because it's still 4% of year over year, only slightly less than economists had expected, cooled down from 4.9% last month. So basically, they have been saying is that this could give Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve a pretext to at least pause interest rate increases, but does not necessarily mean that it is a guarantee. And it's not like they're going to bring them down. They would just simply

pause. So high mortgage rates, high borrowing costs, all of that here to stay and continue to put downward pressure on the economy, at least for right now. Yeah. And so one window into some of the impact that the Fed's actions are causing, And this is not just about the Fed. This is also about the broader economy. This is also about commercial real estate. This is also about issues regarding crime and homelessness. San Francisco is really in a bad way. I mean, I just think there's no denying it at this point. Put this up on the screen. They're losing some of their hotel owners of some of the most prominent properties in the city. I mean, these are places that if you've been to San Francisco, you've very likely seen in key shopping districts. They say that this is according to Wall Street Journal, their once thriving hotel market is

suffering its worst stretch in at least 15 years, pummeled by the same forces that have emptied out the city's office towers, closed many retail stores. Just to give you a sense of the carnage here, you've got the owner of the city's Huntington Hotel. They sold their property after foreclosure. The Yotel San Francisco sold in foreclosure. Club Quarter San Francisco has been in default on its loan since 2020, may also be headed to foreclosure. Other lodging properties in the city also vulnerable. More than 20 additional, 20 San Francisco hotels facing loans due in the next two years. And their biggest potential hotel default yet, Park Hotels and Resorts, last week said it has stopped making loan payments on debt secured by the Hilton San Francisco Union Square and Park 55 San Francisco. Those two hotels alone have 3,000 rooms between them. They are right in the heart, you know, Union Square. I mean, this is the heart of San Francisco. Those two hotels alone have 3,000 rooms between them. They are right in the heart,

you know, Union Square. I mean, this is the heart of San Francisco. These are iconic properties. And part of what happened here is a broader story about commercial real estate in general, which is so much of this debt is coming due. And San Francisco is really particularly hard hit for a number of reasons, the tech session being among them, issues concerning quality of life, homelessness crimes I mentioned before have really hit them hard as well. And you've had so few tech workers going back into offices that these offices are completely vacant in many instances. So as hotels are coming up on they need to refinance these loans, the fact that interest rates have been increased so much by the Fed makes it wildly unaffordable

to start with. Lenders are looking at the state of affairs and saying like foot traffic and travel to San Francisco is way down. So we don't think that this is a particularly good bet. So it looks increasingly like San Francisco is in that so-called doom loop that so many cities are terrified of entering. It makes sense that San Francisco and L.A. are probably going to be the first heads on the chopping block because you referenced they've got the quality of life issues, they've got crime, and they've got the debt problem, and they've got reducing population. So that just shows you that they were already, of course, like in the middle of all this downward pressure, the ones that are most

out there in terms of the risk are the ones going to be first to fall. One of the indications, let's put this up there on the screen. You found this this morning, Crystal. The Westfield Mall is actually giving up its namesake after the Nordstrom closure and given plunging sales and foot traffic. For those who have not been, I mean, this is a pretty famous shopping center. It's the biggest one in all of San Francisco. It's downtown. It was known not even a decade ago as kind of a thriving retail location. And they say for 20 years, Westfield proudly and successfully operated San Francisco Center, investing over that time in the vitality of the property. But given the challenging operating conditions in downtown San Francisco,

which have led to declines in sales, occupancy, and foot traffic, we have made the difficult decision to begin the process to transfer management to our lender to allow them to appoint a receiver to operate the property going forward. I mean, this is thousands of square feet of office space, of retail space, and more, which was a huge get for them, Crystal. And they're basically giving it to the bank and being like, it's your problem now. We're not even going to try and make our debt servicing. So look, I mean, we've got the current problem that they are citing is unsafe conditions, lack of enforcement against rampant criminal activity. And then you combine that with the overall property debt crisis that

is hitting them. This is going to happen again soon. San Francisco is just, I mean, like, you know, it's so far out there. But, you know, as the crisis loops in, LA will be next. We already did that entire piece about LA commercial real estate selling at $155 a square foot, debt financed at 200 something. At a certain point, reality is going to smack these people in the face. Huge swaths of cities, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, DC, right here in Washington, DC, New York City, they've got an occupancy rate in New York City of some 40% or something like that whenever it comes to full, like, actually back in the office. So work from home is great for workers, but it is nuking commercial real estate. I don't

personally have a lot of sympathy for some of these people. But also, whenever you hear people like Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochul, they're like, we need to have people back in the office. They don't care about, like, your quality of life or whatever. They care about the commercial developers who are lying in their pockets full of campaign contributions. Yeah, and who are pretty worried about what's going to happen here. I mean, San Francisco is an outlier. I do want to be clear about that. So with regards to Westfield Mall, San Francisco foot traffic was down 42% between 2019 and 2022. So in just a few years' time, San Francisco foot traffic has dropped by almost half.

If you look at all of the other Westfield-owned U.S. malls, foot traffic was only down 2%. So it is a dramatic outlier because it is the beating heart of Silicon Valley and the tech world. And those are the companies that, first of all, they've had massive layoffs. While there's a tight labor market in a lot of industries, in the tech industry, they've seen huge layoffs. And they were also at the bleeding edge of work from home and hybrid work. So the office space there is just wiped out. They say the Chronicle office building, which is a block from that mall, has a 60% vacancy rate. As tenants Yahoo and Autodesk's leases expire, the neighboring office tower, 415 Natoma, also owned by Brookfield, is, you ready for this?

97% vacant. Oh, my gosh. 97%. Dead. Yeah. So San Francisco in particular, but really every city is going to be grappling with some level of these post-pandemic changes. They got to come up with a plan fast. Yeah, it's sad.

And, you know, you think about San Francisco, like the cost of housing is so wildly unaffordable. They have to deal with their affordable housing crisis in order to try to bring people back into these cities before you really can't escape this loop. And it is sad because, I mean, it's an iconic city. It's a beautiful city. The setting, it's historic. You know, I have always, like, I think San Francisco is a really cool place. I always enjoyed visiting it. It's very unique. So to see it in this kind of trouble is, it is very sad, and I hope they can figure it out.

Yeah, for those who watch the show a lot, you know the purple tie I have. I actually bought that at that Nordstrom in San Francisco. Oh, for real. I was attending a wedding and I literally forgot to bring a tie. And I was like, man, where do I, first of all, people in San Francisco, you guys all need to wear ties. They abandoned the tie a long time ago. So I was like, where do I even get a tie in this like worst dressed city in the entire country? And someone was like, oh, you should go to Nordstrom. I was like, oh, that's a good idea. And I went to the Nordstrom in this mall, this exact one that had closed in Westfield.

I remember it very vividly. I've been in this mall too. I mean, it's really central. If you're in downtown San Francisco, it's really central. It's really visible. So when you lose – now, I do want to be clear. It's not at all clear that it's going to close altogether. It can stay open during the bankruptcy process.

But, you know, we'll see. We'll see what happens here. Things ain't going great for them. Yeah, indeed. Let's go to the next one here. This is an important story, one that we promised to stay on. We said we wanted to bring more details if they arose about the Biden bribery charges. So yesterday, Senator Chuck Grassley, who has been kind of at the forefront of this along with the House Republicans, investigating the FBI and the claim that there is a form which exists inside of the FBI, or inside of the FBI, which details distinct corruption allegations and specific bribery charges against President Biden from when he was the vice president of the United States.

Chuck Grassley, who apparently has seen some of these documents or given an indication of the document around this former around this allegation, gave more details yesterday on the floor of the United States Senate. Here's what he had to say at the foreign national who allegedly bribed Joe and Hunter Biden, allegedly has audio recordings of his conversation with them. 17 such recordings. According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses 15 audio recordings of phone calls between him and Hunter Biden. According to the 1023, the foreign national possesses two audio recordings of phone calls between him and then Vice President Joe Biden. These recordings were allegedly kept as a sort of insurance policy for the foreign national in case that he got into a tight spot.

The 1023 also indicates that then-Vice President Joe Biden may have been involved in Burj Meir employing Hunter Biden. Based on the facts known to the Congress and the public, it's clear that the Justice Department, the FBI, haven't nearly had the same laser focus on the Biden family. So that's the important detail. Basically, what he's given us there, Crystal, is allegations around, and at least specificity around, quote unquote, 17 recorded calls between the Burisma executive and then Joe and then Hunter Biden, specifically the two of them talking. Now, in terms of the believability of this, I mean, we should always remember this is coming from an FBI document which they fill out. It's not necessarily verified. It's just an allegation.

As in, I could go to the FBI and be like, I have information about Crystal Ball. I have that 25 recording. And they would whip out the same form that he's alleging exists here, which is unverified information from a confidential source. Now, that being said, it doesn't mean that it doesn't need to bear scrutiny. We don't need to know about this. Who is this foreign individual? Is there a recording around this? And it's always been central to the, really the entire case around Hunter Biden, which is look for people who don't know, why does Burisma matter? It's not just about the hundred, what, $50,000 a month that Hunter was receiving. It's that

Ukraine, this energy, Ukrainian energy company hired Hunter Biden specifically at the time that his father, Joe Biden was the head of Ukraine policy for the Obama administration. It was an explicit attempt to try and buy political influence because Biden was the decision maker on all things Ukraine policy while he was the vice president of the United States. And then, of course, given what's going on right now with the Ukraine war, how can you not say that that didn't have at least some impact? You know, when the history books are written, it's going to be one of the most obvious connections of all time,

at least in terms of somebody who literally had portfolio of Ukraine and then literally has a war breakout there whenever that person becomes president. Kind of crazy. Now, was there any influence by the Ukrainian regime, by, you know, these bribery charges, and did any of that money make its way

in any form, in any benefit, to the current president of the United States? I mean, it bears scrutiny. Yeah. And it bears possibility. I mean, how can you, more what it is, how can you possibly rule that out? I don't think you can. No, you can't.

You absolutely can't. You definitely can't. I mean, we already have the type of disgusting and disgraceful but probably legal corruption and shadiness in this case. Yeah, you're right. Like, that's already there. Yeah. You know, having Hunter Biden, come on. Yeah, you're right. That's already there. Having Hunter Biden, come on. It's very clear, that piece. The question that these allegations from Grassley and Jamie Comer and others get to

is whether you have actually out-and-out direct illegal bribery, which is a very high bar now according to the Supreme Court. Now, I've been trying to follow this thread, and there are a couple pieces of it that I'm struggling. So I'm going to try to lay this out, and sorry, you tell me if I have this right. So my understanding is Grassley, the reason he's speaking out is because he actually saw this full document unredacted a while back. Then there was a push from the House Subcommittee on Weaponization of Government to get access to this document. They were threatening to hold Christopher Wray, who's the head of the FBI, in contempt over not providing this document. So he partially relents and gives them access to

the documents. However, pieces of it are redacted. And what Grassley is asserting is part of what was redacted were the, you know, the allegations that this foreign national had these audio recordings of both Hunter and of President Joe Biden. And so what Grassley is doing here is saying, hey, FBI, OK, sure, you showed us a part and you showed the House a part of this. I saw the whole part, the whole thing. And here's the piece that you're leaving out. So you need to explain why you're leaving that out. And you need to come clean about everything that is contained in this document, both to this committee and to the American people. That's an excellent summary. That's effectively what's going on. Now, we have a contempt vote that could be coming up in Congress

where they'll be voting whether to hold the FBI director directly into contempt. That's to try and force their hand to give them the full unredacted document. We should also remind people of what you brought up, though, yesterday, Crystal, which is even whenever Comer was asked about this, the head of the committee, they said, do you have evidence he committed crimes? He said, well, they should have been crimes. So they're not yet definitively declaring that an official crime has happened here. Now, look, I don't even care whether it's technically a crime or not. I just want to know, did the guy take money from the Ukrainian energy company or not? Very simple. We know Hunter did. We know that Hunter floated Biden's brother, James, many times. They have all kinds of crazy and insane schemes together where they profited

a hell of a lot from the Chinese regime, from a lot of other different companies around the world, Romania, all these other, one of the richest women in Moscow, Wiring Hunter, all this money. These all apparently just get swept under the rug. I mean, just as bad as Jared Kushner's Saudi grift is, which I guess is probably more monumental in terms of an overall dollar scale. Two billion dollars. Yeah, two billion dollars. It's still just as bad as what's going on with Hunter. And it's actually a perfect view into why all of this should be straight up illegal.

But, you know, I'm not going to hold my breath on any of that. That's basically what we know so far in terms of the details. Chuck Grassley says he saw the document. One of the reasons why they didn't even get the document earlier is because they didn't have subpoena power. The Democrats had control of the Senate. The Republicans didn't have control saw the document. One of the reasons why they didn't even get the document earlier is because they didn't have subpoena power. The Democrats had control of the Senate. The Republicans didn't have control of the House. So now that they do, this is something that they've been wanting to zero in on for quite some time. Jim Jordan, Comer, many of these others trying to get to the bottom of it. Whether any of it will actually come out, I remain skeptical,

just because even if it does, Crystal, the line is going to be, yeah, but where are the actual recordings? I mean, do they even exist? And all of this is, quote unquote, unverified. I mean, also, it could give us insight. If they had this information and they ruled it out, well, on what basis did you rule this out? And what investigation? Did you even launch an investigation? That would be a scandal in and of itself. How did the FBI handle this whenever they learned about it? A hundred percent. And we deserve answers on all of that. I don't think there's any doubt about it. And there's like I said, there's already enough shadiness and probably legal, unfortunately, corruption that is in the public record for us all to, you know, doubt the veracity of the Biden version of this story. But it's also important to keep in mind. I mean, Comer is effectively out and out, admitted that the purpose of this committee is to ding Joe Biden so that Republicans can be in the white back in the White House. So it's not like these people don't have a partisan motive as well. So just remember, we're dealing with dishonest actors all the way around.

Yeah, that's what makes covering this always difficult. Yeah. You know, it's and you know, we always we always try and preface that, too, with FBI. We're like, look, we're not saying we trust the FBI here. I don't trust any of the actors that's with FBI. We're like, look, we're not saying we trust the FBI here. I don't trust any of the actors that's going on. I want cold, hard facts. If they're saying there's a recording of Joe and Hunter talking business, I need to hear that phone call. I need to hear it yesterday. So, by the way, if you're out there, let us know.

I'd be happy to take a listen to it. Whoever you are, foreign national, we will protect you and we will play it here on the show. I don't care what the political consequences of that one are. Okay, let's go ahead and talk about Tucker Carlson and this new development in the war between him and Fox News. Let's put this up here on the screen, guys. Fox News escalating its actions against Tucker, saying they have sent a cease and desist letter to Tucker as he ramps up the competing series on Twitter that has drew a combined, quote, 169 million views for its first two episodes. Now, it's important to note here, Fox did not actually release the cease and desist letter. It's very likely Tucker's legal team, because in bold at the very top of the letter is quote, not for publication. Tucker and his legal

team have really hidden back at Fox News, maintaining that it is his first amendment right to be able to continue posting on Twitter. And he says that Fox has already committed material breaches of his own contract, which frees him up to do this. Fox, though, is continuing to pay Tucker Carlson. They say that the contract keeps his content, all content, exclusive to Fox all the way through December 31st of 2024. So currently, right now, the Tucker Carlson on Twitter show, Crystal, is scheduled to return actually today. On Tuesday, Tucker said that Tucker's executive producer, Justin Wells, his former producer on his original show, Tucker Carlson Tonight, said that they would be returning on Tuesday so that Tucker gave his thoughts on the Trump

indictment. Now, why I think this is important is no signs of stopping. The original Tucker Carlson on Twitter show was released. Fox News came to them and said, hey, you need to stop doing that, or we're going to say that you're in breach of contract. He released a second show. Then they've officially sent this now cease and desist letter. Well, the legal team also is saying that this is not going to stop. Let's put this next one up on the screen. Harmeet Dhillon, a well-known Republican lawyer, she is also representing Tucker Carlson as well. She tweeted this out yesterday. My friend and client Tucker will not be silenced by the far left or by Fox News. And Harmeet actually was a very frequent guest on the Fox News program. She said she will no longer being a peer on the network at all as this war continues. And really,

it reveals kind of the war that's going on behind the scenes and also in terms of this whole non-compete. I mean, take Tucker out of it. You and I have also been at the center of this nonsense before. These things should be straight up illegal. They should be illegal. There's no reason people should be bound by this. They can fake pay you not to work. I mean, yeah, it sounds like a decent deal, but to me it is a violation of First Amendment right. It's like what a company owns, not only your image, your likeness, but your ability to say anything about what you think whatsoever.

He's not even making any money off this. It's not like he charged anything. It's not like Elon is paying him. It's straight up his ability to put thoughts out online. Yeah, it has major implications way beyond Tucker because every single media contract has these non-competes in them. And by the way, I mean, this is like the super highbrow version of this problem where it's like you can't work, you can't go to work for any other network for some period of time and we're going to still pay you millions of dollars.

Just like that's the highbrow version of this problem. Right, you're right. These non-competes are also becoming rife, you know, throughout our society. Even like sandwich shop workers. I believe it's Jimmy John's. Yeah. Having to sign non-competes. They can't go down the street and work for Subway or whatever. I mean, it's just completely it's gotten wildly out of hand. And so, as I said before, you've got sort of like Tucker aligning with the Biden administration and the most unpredicted horseshoe

of all time to do away with these non-compete clauses because it is really abusive. And the ones in media contracts are particularly bad because they lock you up for a long period of time. And if Fox is arguing now, as they clearly are, that even being able to put out a video on Twitter, that that's banned by your non-compete, I have no idea how the courts are going to view this. I'm sure it will depend a lot on what judge you get and all that kind of stuff. But it could have really far-reaching consequences for the entire media landscape if a judge comes

in and says, no, this non-compete is either unconstitutional to start with. I mean, that would be an earthquake in media and across the entire economy. But if they even specifically say, you know, no, Twitter, that it doesn't apply to Twitter. It doesn't apply to social media. It doesn't apply to these other platforms. That would be huge as well, because then any creator who feels like they have that pull with an audience, they can at any point that gives them a lot lot more power to say screw you to their bosses when, you know, they want them to wear the sweater or whatever it is and go and create their own product. So it could be quite significant if that is the case. Fox News clearly wants to keep him off the air through the election. I totally understand why. I mean, he was a huge ratings

generator for them. They have not been able to even come close to filling his shoes in that slot, just in terms of audience numbers and ratings. Now, he had become somewhat of a liability for them with regard to advertisers. So the business piece of it is a little bit less clear cut, but there's no doubt they want him disappeared at least through the next presidential election. And I think it's going to be quite consequential what happens here. Yeah, absolutely. So Tucker is scheduled to interview Ron DeSantis at an event in the near future. Interesting. The Turning Point USA conference where he was already scheduled to speak. I'm told that he will still likely be appearing there. He remains on the schedule.

There's another event and conference put on by ISI where he's also scheduled to continue to speak. So those comments I think we'll all be watching close because that's the first time he'll have been speaking outside of a produced environment, especially the DeSantis one. He's going to be at a conference and be interviewing DeSantis there on the stage. I'm interested to see why DeSantis even agreed to be interviewed by Tucker because I'm hoping it gets him on Ukraine on the complete waffle that happened whenever he submitted an answer to Tucker and then changed his answer completely in an interview later on. So what do you believe, man?

Are you pro-Ukraine aid or anti-Ukraine aid? Give us a straightforward answer on what he believes on that. So overall, it's not like they are 100% silencing him in terms of his show just yet, and he is still scheduled to have some sort of electoral impact, which I think is what they were scared of in the first place. Yeah, I'm a little surprised DeSantis is doing that, to be honest with you, because he's very careful about his media appearances, and it's unlikely that this will be entirely comfortable and 100% softball,

so that will be interesting to watch. With regard to Tucker on Twitter, it does really beg the question, what is the limiting principle of these non-competes? Because even him live streaming an interview with Ron DeSantis, is that a breach of his contract? Does Fox News consider that to be in violation of non-compete? I mean, just in the modern landscape, where does it end? Can you do a podcast? Can you send a tweet? Can you do an Instagram live? Can you post a YouTube video? Can you go on Rumble? Can you go on somebody else's show on Rumble? Like, what are the constraints? And it does give credence to his First Amendment argument that if they're saying basically, no, no, all of that is off the table, then you are completely quashing someone's ability to speak.

So I do think it's important. I am far from a Tucker fan. I have a lot of issues with his politics and a lot of the things that he says. But if you take him out of it and consider just what this means for independent media, what it means for the media landscape, it's actually a really important case. Yeah, well, we believe in free speech no matter what. We were personally impacted by these BS non-competes, and you can't even imagine the level, the amount of BS that we had to go through just to be able to put this show

on the air. We were basically held hostage for a period of time. Yeah, we can't go into too many details, but there are a couple guns to the old heads here of Crystal and Sagar, who, by the way, were the crazy ones, because we were like, okay, we'll walk. You know, and it's like we really kind of put it up to the edge and we're willing to basically be unemployed for a while, which is the only reason things worked out on our end. But, you know, not a lot of people have the luxury of saying, okay, you know, we won't get paid and to take the big risk kind of that we did here. So anyway, that's actually always a good reminder.

Thank you all so much. You guys helped make the show a success because without it, you know, we'd be starving in a ditch. Yeah. It's easy to forget that, all of that when we're sitting here on our beautiful news. Right. But it took a lot to get here. And you guys, you guys made it happen. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? There is a huge fight brewing as we speak that you definitely have a stake in, but probably do not even know about. UPS workers, organized by the Teamsters, are voting right now on a strike authorization. We're talking about nearly 350,000 workers,

casting ballots to indicate whether they are ready to walk if contract negotiations fail. By sheer numbers alone, if these workers were to actually hit the picket lines, it would be among the largest strikes in U.S. history. And of course, these aren't just any workers. Especially post-pandemic, our nation runs on package delivery. These are the men and women who do all the labor of getting those goods to your doorsteps. And they happen to work for a company that has been posting record-breaking profits thanks to this new reality. UPS and their Wall Street owners, Vanguard Capital and BlackRock,

they have been making money by the billions in recent years. They brought in a record haul of $13.1 billion in 2021, only to make even more money in 2022. But have the workers shared in this stunning prosperity? Of course they haven't. Instead, the company has nickel and dimed them, denying them hazard pay during the pandemic, forcing them to work overtime, squeezing part-time workers like crazy. And to add insult to injury, the company refused to install air conditioning in their trucks, even as their workers suffered heat strokes from extreme temperatures and in some instances even died. Somehow, however, UPS did find the money to install driver-facing surveillance cameras to track their workers' every move as if they were criminals.

Now, the roots of UPS worker discontent actually go back for years, as they have watched their middle-class profession eroded into precarity by greedy bosses and unaccountable union leadership during a neoliberal era that saw union density collapse. As UPS package car drivers Sean Orr and Elliot Lewis write for Labor Notes, quote, UPS jobs were once considered Orr and Elliot Lewis write for Labor Notes, quote, UPS jobs were once considered a yardstick of secure union jobs. Now 60% of the workforce is part-time, making around the minimum wage in many regions.

Drivers in many locations are forced to work six days a week and up to 14 hours a day with forced overtime. Managers follow drivers in personal vehicles and relentlessly harass workers to scare us into working faster. Many rank-and-file union members were outraged during the last contract negotiation when a concessionary contract that they had actually voted down was nonetheless forced upon them. Among other issues, that contract created a two-tier system, a common tactic deployed by companies and agreed to by union bosses who were too cozy with the boss class, which allows new workers to be paid less and seeks to break the union's greatest strength, that would be solidarity. Now, this time around,

workers just elected a new reformist union president, Sean O'Brien, who ran explicitly on taking a tough stance with UPS and striking if necessary. And with a tight labor market, the workers go into the negotiations with quite a bit of leverage. UPS and their Wall Street owners would be hammered by a strike. And at the moment, for many of their workers, the company actually needs them more than they need the company. The UPS Teamster contract, literally the largest private union contract in the entire country, that is set to expire at the end of July. A yes vote on the strike authorization, which is expected,

would make it very likely that if that period passes with no contract, UPS package delivery will grind to a halt. Now, the mainstream press is starting to cover the negotiations, and their framing should serve as a reminder of what these workers are actually up against. You'll recall that during the rail worker negotiation, corporate press articles routinely took the side of capital. The framing of nearly every article asserted that workers were risking economic calamity rather than explaining how corporations were willing to risk a catastrophe in service of their greed and desire to prevent their workers from having basic rights like paid sick days. Here is CNN's coverage of the looming UPS strike with very similar framing. Their headline, quote,

Run lead with how workers have been screwed while UPS makes money hand over fist. Actually, they don't quote a single worker in the entire piece. They start their piece by limiting the plight of retailers. The strike, if it happens, couldn't come at a worse time, they say, for retailers stocking up for back-to-school shopping season and preparing for the end-of-year holidays. You can bet there will be many more articles like this, and many that are even far worse, all designed to undercut the leverage workers have in the negotiation and to marshal public opinion on the side of UPS and their Wall Street owners. Don't forget the basic facts. UPS has made billions off the backs of these workers. They can afford easily to treat

them with humanity, and it shouldn't even take the threat of a strike to achieve this basic level of fairness. We're going to be following this one really closely because the stakes are extremely high. They're high for these workers, of course, who are trying to earn a decent living without falling out from heat stroke in the middle of their shift. They are high for an economy, which is fragile and just overcoming supply chain issues already. And the stakes are very high for all workers and the labor movement writ large, because the only reason these workers are in a position to push for more at all is their union. And if they succeed, it shows the power of organizing. When unions were at their height, they didn't just lift wages for their members, but for all workers, because even non-union shops had

to compete with them on wages and on benefits. Right now, there's lots of jobs, which keeps the labor market tight, but far too many are low-paying jobs that are not even coming close to keeping up with inflation. This fight could point the way back to a healthy middle class. And this one is hanging out. 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, I've said it here many times before. The most interesting part of the Epstein story had very little to do with him or even with the paltry charges brought against his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell.

In many cases, it didn't even really have to do with his intimate relationships with high-level billionaires like Bill Gates and Leon Black. It always had to do with two things. Who was he working for, and who was he working with? The for part is one that we still don't know, although there are many suspicions around his connections to Israeli or US intelligence, but the who he was working for with question is one where there seemed at least a small chance of potentially learning the truth. The most insight came into this question, largely from court documents and financial records

relating to Epstein's financial dealings with two major U.S. banks. How did he get all this money in the first place? And then also, what was he using it for? We're getting a small glimpse into just how much was at stake with the latest news that J.P. Morgan has decided to pay nearly $300 million to settle Epstein Accuser's lawsuit against the largest bank in the US and one of the largest in the world. The details of the settlement are stunning. JP Morgan agreed to pay the historic sum for a sex assault case hours after a federal judge ruled that dozens of women abused by Epstein all had

standing to join the lawsuit against J.P. Morgan. That ruling could have opened up J.P. Morgan to even more discovery evidence that has already been released about the relationship to Epstein, and it reveals just how deeply enmeshed the bank was in his financial machinations even after he became a convicted sex offender. Already, court documents show that J.P. Morgan was aware of shady stuff going on with Epstein, including a compliance officer who said, quote, there's lots of smoke, lots of questions about Epstein, and another which referred to him as a, quote, sugar daddy. The documents

released so far also show that the bank was fully aware of his convicted sex offender and continued to do business with him. One of the most damning revelations was that the current head of JP Morgan's $4 trillion asset and wealth management business visited Epstein properties in the past and was aware of problems around him in multiple meetings. Furthermore, internal documents show that lower-level employees filed multiple suspicious activity reports on Epstein that were ignored. The number of employees flagging suspicious activities, numbers, quote, nearly four dozen,

showing just how pervasive knowledge within the bank was. One of the real tells within the revelations was that two senior executives at the bank advocating for keeping Epstein's business despite his sex offender guilty plea because Epstein was seen as a conduit to other super rich clients that he could bring in. It's also no coincidence the settlement comes just two weeks after Jamie Dimon himself sat for seven hours of testimony over Epstein. All of this is even more twisted by the fact that J.P. Morgan is actually suing one of its own former employees, James Staley, who was for a time

the CEO of Barclays, another massive financial institution. J.P. Morgan said that if the bank does have to pay, it should be Staley who pays, even though he doesn't even work there anymore. They allege that he concealed all of the worst Epstein behavior from the bank and the compliance office. While this doesn't exactly pass scrutiny, it's likely Staley is the fall guy. He was, though, caught exchanging very gross emails objectifying young women with Epstein. The email in question showed him emailing Epstein after visiting his private island, saying, quote, that was fun. Say hi to Snow White. I'll let you decide how to interpret that one. The maddening part with this entire case after covering it for four years

is that each one of these stories is another piece of the puzzle. One of the first clues into how vast the conspiracy was, was the early 2020 Deutsche Bank fine by New York state authorities. That and a recent settlement by the bank showed that the victims showed a same culpability, a bank that knew he was a convicted sex offender and knew he was tripping all sorts of crazy compliance tripwires and continued to do business. So where do we even go from here? It's a good question. Maxwell's behind bars. No client list ever really came out. We get some dribble and dribble here and then a high level meeting with people like Bill Gates or Noam Chomsky. But let's be honest, it never really goes anywhere.

This J.P. Morgan lawsuit was a real opportunity to get things out there so that it's no surprise that they're paying more than a quarter billion to keep it quiet. The next, and perhaps only hope, is the ongoing lawsuit between the U.S. Virgin Islands and J.P. Morgan, which remains active. J.P. Morgan is fighting this case harder because it alleges that the U.S. Virgin Islands, where many of these sex crimes took place, are actually the ones responsible because of their possible cozy relationship with Epstein by past government officials. The Virgin Islands, on the other hand, they say J.P. Morgan is the financial nexus of

Epstein's abuse empire and was the main conduit for much of the money that changed hands, which he used to fly women around and to himself to abuse and to then be abused by others who visited him. We'll see if either of them even make it to trial. We get even more information, but sadly it does feel like things could be winding down there too. The more that they settle and the bigger the dollar amounts, the more of an admission how explosive the truth is. And it shows us why we should keep pushing. Somewhere, on some server somewhere, there is a lot of damning evidence for a lot of very rich and powerful people. All of us know it's true. We just need the confirmation. And to not

stop until any of it actually comes out for good. So there you go, Crystal. And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagar's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Very excited to be joined by actor James Van Der Beek. He is of Dawson's Creek fame, but has done a lot besides that. So great to have you, James. Welcome to the program. Good to see you. Thank you.

Thanks for having me. Yeah, of course. So you came to our attention because you decided to speak out about something we've been talking about, which is the Democratic Party's refusal to host any primary debates. This in spite of the fact that you have majority Democrats who say they would love to have those debates, who are interested in evaluating what alternatives are out there. So what made you feel compelled to speak out on this issue? You know, I rarely speak out on anything political. On my Instagram page, it's mostly like thoughts on parenting

and homestead adventures and my smart ass sense of humor. But it was Memorial Day and I do tend to be pretty heartfelt on my platform and I was just trying to think of what I could say to thank the families who have made that sacrifice. And I just was so pissed

off by the fact that the DNC was willfully and arrogantly ignoring the will of the people and their people, you know, the people who voted for their guy last time. And so I just thought, man, the best thing I could do to thank the troops would be to speak out about the fact that they're deciding unilaterally to not hold a debate. I just think it's ridiculous. Yeah. You know, James, I know that we talked a little bit about it. Let's put this up there on the screen. The media kind of took this

and almost ran it as some sort of right-wing reaction. They were like, he becomes Fox News' favorite actor. I know that that wasn't what you intended at all. That's part of the reason we wanted to talk talk is I know that's not what you think. Give us your reaction to that and, you know, why they're casting you as right wing for wanting a debate. That's not really your intention at all. Not at all. And if they dug through, you know, the years of my Instagram feed, they would find a lot of things they disagree with over at Fox News.

Yeah, to become a Fox News darling overnight over simply saying that we should have a debate. I mean, clearly they're using it for their purposes, which is to make Biden look bad and make the Democrats look crazy. But I mean, in fairness, the Democrats do look crazy. The DNC does look crazy right now for not listening to their voter base. And listen, it's been pointed out that there's a precedent for not having a debate. Obama didn't debate. A lot of incumbents don't debate challengers.

But I think that's a terrible precedent. And I really, it was not in any way an anti-anybody rant. It's a pro-democratic process rant. And that's what I feel like we're being robbed of. I mean, you know, if some of the responses were really strange, there are a lot of people who are just so in fear of who the perhaps inevitable Republican nominee is going to be, that there seems to be this theory that everybody should just go easy on Biden. Let him just put him up there and just by virtue of the fact that he's not the other guy, that everybody, then go easy on Biden, just put him up there,

and just by virtue of the fact that he's not the other guy, then he'll win and everything will be okay. And I just think that's a terrible strategy. And I think the country really deserves better. And so if a debate where you stand up for your record and you hear ideas from within your own party and you talk about where we are and where you're going to take us in the future, if that's going to hurt your candidate,

is that really the candidate you want to run? Yeah, it really betrays an actual lack of faith in the American people, an actual lack of faith in democracy. And this from a party that has spent a lot of time talking about how important the values of democracy are and how, you know, democracy is on the ballot and they're going to be the defenders of democracy. So I think it's really well said that they point all the time to, well, there's, you know, there's this historical precedent where, you know, Biden's just going to follow the historical precedents. Like, well, because you did something bad and anti-democratic in the past, it doesn't mean that we should continue along that trajectory. On the

other hand, with regard to Fox News' adoption of this, they're pretty silent on the fact that Trump has also said that he's not particularly, he hasn't committed himself to debates either. And so, James, to your point about, you know, speaking out and trying to honor the troops, it just seems like we're in this really depressing situation where you've got two guys that the overwhelming majority of the country is like, we really don't want either one of these dudes. Like we really would like to have a whole variety of other options. And I think it shows a true decay of our democracy that there are basically that we're basically locked into this Trump versus Biden situation come to the fall.

Yeah, I think Trump should debate. I think everybody should. I think we should probably pass something that guarantees us a primary debate. I agree. No matter what, because without that, then people are also designing the debate to suit themselves. And it's just ridiculous. And it's been pointed out, yes, this is not a direct democracy. This is technically a republic. But still, I mean, the will of the people deserves to be heard. I mean, and I am optimistic as well. I'm optimistic.

I believe in the American people. I really do. I believe in the people, my neighbors, people I meet at the hardware store. I believe in my friends back in LA that given all the information, given true information, we will all kind of eventually make good decisions. But within that optimism, man, the older I've gotten,

the more I've come to see the virtue in seeing things as they are, not as we wish them to be, not as we just know they could be given the perfect set of circumstances, but actually seeing things as they are. And I've yet to hear an argument that would convince me that a debate would allow us to see less of the truth that we're seeing right now. That's really wise. James, I'm curious, you still work in the business. Have you

had any repercussions as a result of this? I mean, to me, it was very courageous for you to come out and say this. And I'm curious your thoughts as to how to navigate that process for, as you referenced all your friends in LA. Well, thank you. When people say it's courageous, it kind of terrifies me. Yeah. To me, this is a no brainer. This is just to say, hey, I could be wrong. I'm not saying to vote for my guy. I'm not saying the other guy is terrible. I'm not coming out in favor of any candidate or against any candidate. I'm just saying let's put them on a stage.

And instead of making decisions and bringing ideas to some back room somewhere, let's put it in people's living rooms. That's really all that I'm saying. I mean, right now there's a writer's strike and I'm a writer. So I'm supporting my WGA, my guild. Good. So there's no work happening right now. But I have had a lot of friends on the left reach out to me privately and say, thank you. Thank you for saying what we've all been thinking. And so it's this funny dynamic where what you're saying with any normal person

in the entire country is wildly uncontroversial. Right. Right. I mean, among Democrats, it's like 80 percent of Democrats are like, obviously, we should have a debate. It's not really a controversial position except among these like small elite media circles. But you mentioned that you felt kind of like terrified by the reaction to it. Were you surprised that your comments went so viral? And has this encouraged or discouraged you from taking future political stances? You know, I was just speaking from the heart. I was pissed off, and I was being honest, and I was speaking from the heart.

Had I anticipated that the audio alone would be played on radio, I probably would not have done it while pulling a weight sled backwards down my driveway. It sounds a little angrier and a little more breathless than I think would have been optimal. It added dramatic effect. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I'm really much more interested in, in the way, I mean, as a creative, you know, in, in the ways in which we're all similar in the triumphs and the challenges that we go through. It's what I've done as an actor, it's what I've done as a writer. But, you know, sometimes truth is just so obvious it needs to be said. And the reason I spoke out about this was that I, a lot of friends of mine didn't even know that it was happening. You know, you guys are one of the few people that I've seen report on it, but it never comes up in my regular news feed on my phone.

Right. But there's not a debate. And I don't see any outcry that there won't be a debate, despite the desire for it. Yeah. And finally, James, I did want to ask you about the writer's strike. You said, you know, you're standing in solidarity with your brothers and sisters. What do you personally see as some of the key issues that need to be resolved there? It's a little bit of inside baseball, but they're really reasonable.

I mean, writers want to be able to write at multiple shows. It used to be a writer would write on a staff for 24 episodes in a season. So there really was no time to write for another show. Now, they're shooting eight-episode seasons, six-episode seasons. So writers need to be able to write on multiple shows throughout the year as long as there's no time conflict. Gotcha.

AI has also come up in a big way. And so... What do you mean by that? Let's see. I'm not really qualified to get into all the the nitty-gritty but essentially the writers guild is saying to the studios you can't use ai to write a script and then ask us to rewrite it because a rewrite costs way less than an original draft and just that amount of taking the human out of the creative process i think is going to be devastating for the

entertainment industry devastating for writers. It's something that we really need to win if we want entertainment that reflects humanity and that can reflect the truth and the heart of what people are actually going through. If it's to be a true expression, a human expression that you're going to see reflected on the screen, it's an issue that we really need to get right. Yeah, I could not agree with you more. I mean, you know, these AI models, they're not capable of generating creativity, of creating new products. They're fed all the cultural products of the past. They can recombine them and regurgitate them. But I agree with you that I think it's a real threat to creativity, not

to mention, of course, the livelihoods of many people. So James, super grateful for your time. So great to chat with you today. Thank you for speaking out and thank you for answering our questions. We stand with you, James, and we appreciate you, man. Thank you. Oh, thank you guys. Thanks for the work you're doing. I really appreciate you. It's our pleasure. Thank you. All right. Thank you guys so much for watching day two. We're still experimenting, changing the angles, all this other stuff going on day two. We're still experimenting, changing the angles, all this other stuff going on over here. We want to get it absolutely.

We are going to nail it. So just bear with us. We're going to be experimenting over the next couple of weeks of what we feel comfortable, what we think looks the best, what you decide, giving your feedback on all of that. We love you. We appreciate you. Counterpoints is tomorrow.

And do not forget, we'll be interviewing RFK Jr. later on today, and we will post that interview as soon as it is available. Premium subscribers, check your inboxes. Everybody else, just stay tuned on our YouTube feed or on our podcast feed. Otherwise, we will see you all on Thursday. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes.

But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there.

Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. High key. Looking for your next obsession?

Listen to High Key, a new weekly podcast hosted by Ben O'Keefe, Ryan Mitchell, and Evie Oddly. We got a lot of things to get into. We're going to gush about the random stuff we can't stop thinking about. I am high key going to lose my mind over all things Cowboy Carter. I know. Girl, the way she about to yank my bank account. Correct.

And one thing I really love about this is that she's celebrating her daughter. Oh, I know. Listen to High Key on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.