Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 6/20/23: Hunter Biden Pleads Guilty, Biden Campaign Freaks Over RFK, Jordan Peterson Nuked By YouTube, Putin Claims Peace Deal Signed, Trump Fox News, Epstein JPMorgan, Meghan Markle Spotify Grift, Dr Hotez JRE Debate, Legacy of Daniel Ellsberg

Episode Date: June 20, 2023

Saagar and Ryan discuss Hunter Biden being charged with a gun felony, the Biden team worried about RFK Jr., YouTube nukes an interview between Jordan Peterson and RFK Jr., Putin claims a Peace Deal was signed years ago, Ukraine counter offensive slows to a grind, Trump hangs himself in Fox News interview, internal JPmorgan documents reveal Epstein's deep connections, Meghan Markle leaves Spotify while an Exec calls her a Grifter, Saagar looks into the debate challenge between Dr Hotez and Joe Rogan, and Ryan remembers the legacy of Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? and subscribe today. his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024.

You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it.

Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. 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. Ryan Grimm is in for Crystal Ball. It's good to see you, man. Good to see you, too. Yeah, bro show. First bro show here on the new set. I hope everybody likes it. We're still playing around and doing lots of fun things here on the camera. So let us know what you think about that. But we've got a

lot of great topics for everyone today. You can tell this is difficult for me. Crystal usually does this part. I just sit here nicely, look pretty and drink coffee. So we're going to talk about 2024 RFK Jr. headaches for Joe Biden. We're going to be talking about the Ukraine war, some new extraordinary claims by President Vladimir Putin of Russia about a peace deal and what he alleges happened there behind the scenes. And then give everybody an update about the counteroffensive. We'll be talking about Donald Trump in an absolutely bonkers Fox News interview. Good time. So good. We were reviewing everything before we started the show, Ryan and I, and we were just cackling with laughter. So I think everybody will enjoy it. A new Epstein report out of JP Morgan that I know that a lot of

people will be very interested in. And then Meghan Markle, she truly does not disappoint. Some new updates, Ryan, about just how much of a grifter this woman was inside of Spotify. Yes, as podcasters. I honestly, I need tips from this lady about how to make $20 million and do zero work. So, you know, in many ways, it's the American dream. So we've got good updates. I'm doing a monologue on the whole Dr. Peter Hotez, RFK Jr., Joe Rogan debate thing going on. And Ryan, we saved this for you. You're going to be memorializing Daniel Ellsberg, one of the great heroes and whistleblowers of our time who passed away over the weekend.

And we're going to have a fun discussion for everybody. But before we get to that, thank you all so much. People have been signing up for their premium membership, breakingpoints.com, buying the new merchandise. It's moving well. The mugs are moving well, but we got to sell more of those bucket hats, right? Especially, we talked a big game. We didn't like them and they were selling well. Let's sell even more of

them. T-shirts, all that stuff. I love seeing photos of people wearing their hoodies. No, I do not approve of people wearing the hoodies with suits, but it is what it is. You can't control everybody and what they're doing out there. So anyways, you can sign up for that. You can purchase that. And also, we are getting dangerously close to 1 million subscribers on YouTube. So if you can help us out, hit the subscribe button on YouTube. We are only 10, 11,000 away, something like that, from 1 million. So let's put a nice gold plaque there right behind Ryan and Crystal's head. So I think it'll look nice. Okay. Let's start with this news, Ryan, out of the Biden campaign. Let's put this up there on the screen. Some

interesting new leaks from the Biden team about Robert Kennedy Jr. and why his bid is a, quote, headache for Joe Biden. So Biden apparently, quote, is on cruise control until the heat of the 2024 election. All the nation's top Democrats are behind him, but he is now facing his own version of a primary, a campaign to shore up his support among skeptical Democratic voters. Currently, the rivals include Robert Kennedy Jr. They could describe him as the anti-vaccine activist with a celebrated Democratic lineage who has emerged with unexpected strength in early polls. They say he is looking as high as 20 percent in some surveys, a bracing reminder of left leading voters, healthy appetite for a Biden alternative, a glaring symbol of the president's

weaknesses. It is clear there is a softness that is born out of a worry about electability in 2024, says Julian Castro, who attacked Biden on the debate stage. And he says there have been areas I think people feel like he hasn't delivered what he's promising on. And overall, Ryan, right now, what they see is a panicked team of White House advisors who did not anticipate RFK Jr.'s strength. If you combine RFK Jr. with Marianne Williamson, you're looking at almost 30 percent of one-third of the full Democratic Party. And the overall number one objection is I just want someone else. And that's very powerful, very potent, as Bernie Sanders found out in 2016. So what do you think? The very bottom of the piece references some focus grouping and polling done by this organization, Way to Win,

that asks Democrats basically, what's your problem with Biden? And the thing that keeps coming up is, particularly among black and Hispanic voters, what has he done for me? I don't know anything that has he done for me? I don't know anything that he's done for me. And so you've got all these Democrats saying the same things that they say for years. We just don't talk enough about all of our achievements and our accomplishments. Yes. They got the Scranton mayor is going to do a road show across Pennsylvania telling everybody, you know, all the wonderful things that they did for them. The problem is they need to do things that people don't need to just be told about. Two obvious ones they could have done, they

chose not to. One, raise the minimum wage. Done. You raise the minimum wage, you get asked the question, what did Biden and the Democrats do for you? They raised the minimum wage. Yeah, we talked about it. Some 4 million people make a minimum wage in this country. And then everybody above them that gets a raise, they're like, I wonder if I got a raise partly because the minimum wage went up. Thank you, Joe Biden. Thank you for forcing these terrible, stingy bosses to do a little bit more. And the child tax credit would be another example. People remembered getting $250, $300 checks every single month to help them get through what was a difficult time.

It made inflation a little bit easier to deal with. If things are getting a little more expensive at the grocery store, if you've got two kids, you've got a $600 check from the government. Like, what has Biden done for me? Boom, he gave me $600 every single month. So they actively decided not to do those things. And so now they're caught in a place where even though they have one of the most robust economies in the last, say, 50 years, I think because people feel precarious about it, that they're not able to really enjoy it and reward Democrats for it. Because if you're not sure it's going to be there a month later, if you're wondering if gas is going to go up to $4 a gallon, $4.50 a gallon. If you're wondering that there's going to be some type of recession around the corner, then you're not going to reward Biden for the fact that wages are going up and the economy is better. I think this is a very important point

because one of the things that it underscores is that if you don't feel like anybody has done anything for you, then you're just going to default to the intangibles. Well, not intangible per se, but more the non-material, like age, like, oh, I can't stand the way that he talks. I can't stand the way he's embarrassing. And, you know, RFK Jr. says, oh, he's saying some interesting stuff. Oh, the guy's a Kennedy. All right. I'll take, yeah, I'll take a listen. And that's enough for a lot of people. Marianne Williamson as well, always been a compelling speaker. So those two combined, I mean, one third is not nothing. In fact, it's potent enough that they very seriously, from the math that I was

looking at yesterday, Ryan, RFK Jr. could walk away with some 700 to 800 delegates in the convention. Could you explain why it is important for the Democrats to be serious about this? If they have a number of delegates, not a majority, but still some, what could they do with the DNC at the actual convention? Should they actually get some? Well, and we can put up a three because this fits with that. Basically, he could also get some momentum going because Biden is unlikely to be on the ballot in Iowa because Iowa has been told, you have to go after South Carolina. New Hampshire has been told, you have to go after South Carolina. And both of them are saying, well, no, we're going to go first. And they all have their reasons for why they're going to

continue to go first. And so as a result, Biden probably won't be on the ballot in either of those places. Plus all those voters are persnickety about their first in the nation point. So they might take it out on Biden anyway, even if he is on the ballot. So then you got, boom, RFK Jr. winning Iowa, RFK Jr. winning New Hampshire, coming into South Carolina, and then you've got Nevada Super Tuesday. And if Biden is stumbling at that point, you could plausibly see RFK Jr. bring genuine delegates to the DNC. Now, the DNC writes its own rules. And so—

So they can screw him out of the delegates. Yeah, especially if he has fewer than 50%. Yes. It'll be a nuisance. Right. And you'll have some fighting on the floor. Okay. And you also are going to have a spectacle if, you know, who are RFK Jr.'s delegates?

These are not your normie Democrats necessarily. Yeah, maybe they demanded anti-war stance on Ukraine or force a vote even on the- Or on vaccines. On vaccines, any of those issues. Or COVID origin. Oh, that'd be fun. These are not the kinds of questions that Democrats want to be grappling with in Chicago. I did want to raise this one piece in a portion of the New York Times. Go ahead. Which was so bizarre.

It says that he has a bunch of views that are Republican. And so he lists, okay, opposes an assault weapons ban. All right, check. Well, Bernie Sanders did as well. So we could argue that one out. Fine. Give him that one. Then he says he spreads pro-Russian

talking points on Ukraine. Ah, yeah. Always pro-Russian. Kind of a weird one. Okay. He says vaccine hesitancy and vaccine skepticism. Right. RFK Jr. has been one of these going back years. Right. That's traditionally a left-wing issue. I would say left-wing issue, not a right-wing issue. It's become kind of coded right-wing, but it started left. And then they say he suggested American presidential campaigns are rigged. What they're talking about is a big article he wrote about the 2004 campaign for Rolling Stone with the Dominion. Was it Dominion or what?

Diebold. Yeah, Diebold. That's right. He was alleging that the voting machines were moving votes around in 2004. That's not a right-wing. No. Hillary Clinton talked about that on the voting machines were moving votes around in 2004. That's not a right wing. No. Hillary Clinton talked about that on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

He's saying Bush stole the election. Right. So all of a sudden, all of these things, other than assault weapons ban, that are traditionally— See, even the assault weapons ban, I would contest. Yeah, yeah. I mean, like I said, Sanders was on the record against an assault weapons ban, like, not that long ago. After the NRA beat him in his first run. Yeah, exactly. I mean, that's something that Biden would hammer Bernie. He'd be like, he doesn't have a, you know, he hasn't taken on the NRA in the same way I have.

Let's put this poll up there on the screen. Look, the man's support is just completely undeniable. This is from The Hill. And they say in the new Harvard-Harris poll that was shared with the Hill, Kennedy received 15% support amongst Democratic primary voters, 21% of responders saying they have a positive view of him. And overall, like what you are saying is that this is a June 14 and 15 poll. He still continues to have double digit support in the Democratic primary. And I mean, he has a credible case to try and get on the debate stage. And so does Marianne Williams as well, polling over 5%. So the two of them really should be miffed that the primary is being so rigged by the party to keep them off the debate stage. And also from the media perspective, I mean, the only mainstream media organization to

my knowledge so far, or two, have interviewed RFK Jr. One was CNN with Michael Smirconish, and that was on their Sunday program, and they didn't hype it as well. And then, of course, ABC News, which quite literally edited out what he said. And, you know, look, that is just simply unacceptable. Like, we even told him, you know, before whenever we had our first interview, I said, hey, man, like no matter what, you know, like, you know, people get mad, whatever. But like this whole thing is going up as it should be. You know, you cannot be in this position of censorship. So, look, overall, I think the way the media is handling it is very foolish.

And I think the Democrats, Biden, their headaches over RFK. I mean, listen, like that's you only have yourself to blame. They're not doing an affirmative enough case of convincing people. So don't get mad at them when they have a wandering eye and they're looking elsewhere. Yeah. And he just had his interview with Jordan Peterson getting nuked. Yes. Okay. All right. Let's talk about that. We wanted to make sure that we talked a little bit about this because it's been like an ongoing trend. Let's put this up there on the screen, guys. So right now, the June 5th episode of the Jordan Peterson podcast, which is hosted by The Daily Wire called Rekindling the Spirit of the Classic Democrat, episode 363, has actually been taken off YouTube, the entire 95-minute podcast.

Now, RFK Jr. put this out there. Obviously, since we post our show on YouTube, we're not going to play the clip. But if you are interested in watching it, it is on Twitter. You can go and we'll put a link in the description. You can go watch it for yourself. And so what they say is, should social media platforms censor presidential candidates? My conversation with Jordan Peterson, it was deleted by YouTube. Luckily, you can watch it here on Twitter. What's really troubling about this is that they didn't actually list a reason as to why it was taken off. There's some skepticism and there is some, how would I say, there is some like theorizing that it might've been something he was talking about with regard to environmental

contaminants and water and possibly having an effect on sex change and gender identity. I don't know enough about the issue to be able to comment on it. Oh, the atrazine stuff? It's like something about it. Sometimes he goes around the bend. Listen, okay. Let him go around the bend. A lot of people go around the bend on YouTube. And you know what I don't understand is the capricious nature in the way that they're handling this. Because for example, we've interviewed the man twice. He said multiple, I mean, our videos were never taken down off of YouTube. I mean, whenever he was on our show,

like he said things similarly, whenever he was on past podcasts as well, there's a very strange way that they have decided to go back and retroactively police the content. So for example, there was a episode of the Theo Vaughn podcast from 2020 that was also taken down on you. But it was taken down now. It was taken down recently. And in it, I mean, I actually haven't even watched the full thing.

Again, there's no reason given whenever these things are taken down. They just say it's a violation of content policy. And Ryan, you and I, we have both been outspoken against this issue because we cover these issues for a living and we know how blurry the line gets. So, I mean, maybe you can tell people about when you were over at Rising, like the ridiculous standard that was imposed on your channel, which we have fought against vigorously here for that standard specifically because of what happened to you And Emily was on that day too. It was me Emily and Robbie Suave Yeah, and we were talking about an interview that Trump had given maybe was Brett with Brett bear again One of his right and he said something like, you know, Putin never wouldn't have invaded if not for the rigged election Yeah, and then we went on And then we made fun of Trump.

Yeah. I called him a maniac. And then we debated the point. Yeah. Would Putin have invaded if Trump had won re-election? But what we didn't do is go back and say, dear YouTube censors and dear audience, like even though Trump said there was a rigged election in 2020,

in fact, it was not riggedged and he lost fair and square. And that whole thing to me is so funny because it's like, who is the person out there who is gonna be influenced by hearing Trump say it was a rigged election and they're like, oh, it's a rigged election. And then Ryan Grim gets on YouTube and says, in fact, it was not stolen.

And they're like, oh, I was about to believe Trump, but now that Ryan says that it wasn't stolen So yeah So they they nuked the channel for a week if for a week took the whole channel down and that and the channel was salted Mm-hmm. They salted the earth of that channel like, you know, it was doing numbers that are like around a million a day Yeah, and it was when it came back a week later 200 300 Wow. Yeah, when we, that's about what it was doing. And look, we always had the same. I told them multiple times to your face.

I said, this is a ridiculous policy. How are we supposed to cover the news? If Biden plays and says something crazy, which he does all the time, you know what we do? We play the clip. That's it. You play the clip. We can talk about it. You play the clip. We can talk about it. But under what obligation am I to, quote, unquote, fact check everything that the man says or Trump or any politician? I have enough trust in the people who watch and who listen to this show for them to make up their minds for themselves.

And, yeah, if you think that the election was stolen at this point, nothing I say is going to have any impact on you. But it wasn't. Yeah, but it was. Okay. Yeah, thank you, Ryan. Actually, they did repeal the policy. Oh, really? Yeah. We applauded that. Thank you, YouTube, actually for listening to us and for so many other creators who told you how stupid this was. I've been outspoken about it. We talked about it on the Rogan pod. I talk about it every chance I can, because if you think about this too, it's a huge advantage for cable

news because they don't have sensors. Right. They don't have any – I mean technically I guess the FCC, but like that's not really the same. Especially when you're on cable news, not on network television. You can basically say everything you want. It's more advertiser pressure, which is its whole private censorship. But nobody's going to take your channel off the air for having an interview or something like that with RFK Jr. So look, I mean, the entire policy is ludicrous. They continue to do this to his candidacy. And of course, what's happening? It's a Streisand effect. More and more people are hearing about him. They're like, hey,

what is this censorship? You know, Jordan Peterson, that clip. Let me go ahead and take a look here. How many views now does the clip have after it has gone ahead? Yeah, I mean, look, 4.3 million. Yeah, 4.3 million views now. Now, of course, look, 4.3 million Twitter views doesn't mean 4.3 million watch it, but I can guarantee you a hell of a lot of people are going to watch it. And yeah, I'm sitting here talking about it. Probably wouldn't have talked about it otherwise if they hadn't done it. So look, Americans aren't dumb. And you know, other tech companies, I never thought I'd be in this position. Facebook, Instagram, they reinstated RFK Jr.'s Instagram account, even though they said that he had violated their policies because they're like, yeah, you know, he's an active candidate for president. Like, we can't be in this business of trying to censor these things. And just like people should know what Trump is saying about the election, People should know what RFK Jr. is saying about different things.

You had a case yesterday where on Rogan, he was talking about how Wi-Fi is causing all sorts of problems, etc. Without wading into the details of it, I saw some very Blue No Matter Who partisan Democrats clipping and sharing him, RFK Jr., talking about how Wi-Fi and the blood-brain barrier and all this stuff. And they were using it as a pretext not to vote for him. Right. And that's fine. They're saying, look at this. Look what he says. It's so absurd.

You should not consider this a serious person. You shouldn't. But what if you weren't allowed to share that? Then how would those people be able to make their case against him? Exactly right. I mean, we've made this point a million times. I tried to tell this to YouTube, which was like, hey guys, the number one thing of why people hate Trump,

especially in the midterms, was stop the steal. So wouldn't you, let's say you hate Trump. You should be playing him saying the election was stolen all day long. Like Democrats do. It drives people crazy. Yeah, that's what Democrats do. What do you think they're playing on cable TV? So look, anyway, it's a very foolish,

a very stupid policy. And yeah, I mean, look, I guess we're always on the lookout. Maybe they'll nuke our interview with him. Luckily, we have backups that are available, but this isn't gonna deter people from interviewing, nor should it, really. It's in the public interest to get this stuff out there.

Let's go to the next part here. Speaking of danger from YouTube and all this, you never know with some of these clips. So I guess let me preface this by saying this is not an endorsement. This is simply trying to get the news to the public about something which is potentially of the interest to you about how to think about the war in Ukraine. And this is a clip that has come out from Russian state television. Again, I'm being clear, it's from Russian state television. I would get it from somewhere else, but guess what, Ryan? There is no free media in Russia. So sometimes whenever you play President Trump or Biden, you have to get it from C-SPAN or public access because that's the only feed. So it's not because we went out of our way.

We are simply trying to show you the words of President Putin. Now, let's go ahead and put this up there. I'm going to read a translation of President Putin. He says Russia has never rejected negotiations. He says, I want to draw your attention to this, that with the assistance of President Erdogan of Turkey. As you know, Turkey hosted a whole series of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to develop. Here is the document. It is initialed by the Kiev delegation. The signature is there. Well, after we, as promised, withdrew troops from Kyiv, Kyiv authorities, in the same way owners usually do, threw it all away. To the garbage dump of history. What he is talking about there and alleging is a previously unpublished document,

of which we are unable to verify, of which it has not been released, that was during a meeting with the South African president in which he said that Ukraine and Russia in the spring of 2022 had initialed and signed this alleged peace agreement, which would have ended the conflict. Now, the reason why this is of interest is because it matches previous reporting that we have brought to everybody from August of 2022, not by an independent journalist, by Fiona Hill, who is a, you know, how would you best describe her? A former diplomat to Ukraine. You know, well within established in the effort, a member of the Washington establishment on this issue. Somebody who would know. Inside of foreign affairs. Let's go and put this up there,

please, on the screen. I have the article here in front of me. It's called The World Putin Wants, How Distortions About the Past Delusions About... There we go. All right. Let me just pretend. I'll put this up. All right. Three, two, one. It's called The World Putin Wants, How Distortions About the Past Feed Delusions About the Future. And in it, Ryan, she specifically says that Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev in 2022 specifically to try and stop a Ukraine and a Russia peace deal. And we also know that because this actually came out in September of 2022, let's put this please up on the screen from the BBC News, that Boris Johnson had publicly warned against the Ukraine and a Russia peace deal. And not only that, actually Ukrainian media and sources at the time also said that they had not supported a Ukraine and Russian peace deal and that Boris Johnson specifically was one of the NATO ambassadors to come there and to tell them that wasn't a good idea. So we are not cherry picking. We are simply looking at this clip in interest to say, wow,

okay, this is something that President Putin and the Russians had long been talking about. There's no evidence. He's alleging it in this meeting with the South African president. Is he lying or not? I mean, listen, what are we doing? We're calling on the Russian government, release the document. I would love to read it and to hear exactly what it is. It's possible he's lying, right? It's possible that the document was some sort of like quasi ceasefire around Kiev, you know, in terms of withdrawing tubes. It wasn't a full blown peace deal. If it was, then they, you know, that actually would bolster what the Ukrainians have said, which is that they're liars and false negotiators. But at the very least,

something went down with Ukraine and Russia in spring of 2022. And Boris Johnson came and was very upset with it on behalf of NATO. So that's what we know right now. And the reporting on that document fairly matches the reporting from what was coming out at the time. And the deal as it was being constructed, and now we're gathering this from both sides at this point, was that Russia would retreat back to the February 23rd, 2022 lines. That's what Fiona Hill says. Basically, Donbass and Crimea would become Russian territory. And in exchange, the war would be over. Ukraine would agree not to pursue NATO membership, but would cut security agreements with countries like Germany and the United States, which gives

you as much comfort in a situation as being in NATO. Because if the United States is going to back you in it, that's why Saudi is not trying to get into NATO. Saudi wants a US security guarantee. They don't need NATO. They're like, what, NATO? We don't need that. Here's the irony, Ryan. What you just described is very likely what is going to happen anyway. That Crimea and the Donbass, or at least part of the eastern Donbass region remains part of Russia, that you're going to get a security guarantee, but it's not going to be part of NATO. Because guess what? Hungary, Turkey, all these places, there's no way they're going to allow Ukraine into NATO, no matter what the Poles and the Latvians and the Lithuanians and all of

them say. It's not going to happen. Worse than that, if they don't take back a lot of territory during this counteroffensive, we're going to talk about that soon, it'll actually be significantly more than just Donbass and Crimea. Exactly, yeah. And hundreds of thousands of people are maimed, wounded. Tens of thousands of people are dead on both sides. And if that was what you're going to get anyways, then yeah, history will look upon that as literally as they do upon those.

Remember those secret agreements from the First World War when they had territorial? And you'll look at some of the initial proposals from August, not August, like a few months into the war in 1914. And it ends up that the deals that ended up being cut were way worse than that after millions of people were dead. It's basically what we've been saying here from the very beginning. So look, once again, we are not saying that this is necessarily true. I would love for the Russian government to release it or Ukrainian government, if they believe that Putin is lying, you release it too.

You are welcome to release this because it is a great matter of public interest. Boris Johnson specifically, their allegation here has already been made. And remember this too. I believe that you guys talked about it. The Israeli prime minister, Naftali Bennett, after he left office was on that podcast in Israel where he also confirmed that NATO and the West came in and specifically targeted and shot down this peace deal. So there are multiple pieces of corroborating evidence here to back this up. And according to the reporting, the reason that the Ukrainians didn't have a choice in whether or not to make this deal

was that, and this is what the reporting about Boris Johnson says that You may want a security agreement with us, but according to this deal Okay, you're you're saying you won't join NATO But the US and UK and Germany will back you in a security deal in order to end this war. We won't and so therefore Ukraine Can't go to Russia and accept the terms because they can't force the United States or UK or Germany to agree to it. Which goes back to, if you remember this question that I asked Jen Psaki back in March of 2022, what is the United States doing to push peace negotiations forward? And is Zelensky empowered to, if he reaches a deal that the United States will back a deal, she didn't really answer that

question. And it seems that we know the answer at this point, which is no, that the US felt and the UK and others in NATO felt that this was a chance to punch Putin in the nose, that his military looked weaker than they expected. So they were going to draw some blood. They literally were going to draw a lot of blood. And so they decided that it was in the national interests of the NATO countries to continue the war, regardless of what the Ukrainians might want to do at that point. Well, we'll find out whether that was the right gamble or not. Personally, have never thought so, and specifically not worth the risk relative to any potential reward.

Okay, let's go to the next one here. And this actually underscores what you're talking about. Let's put this up there on the screen. This is new dispatches from journalists on the front line in Ukraine. Wall Street Journal, quote, Why Ukraine's offensive likely will be a slow and a costly grind. Kiev and Moscow have spent months preparing for fighting along a vast front line. And specifically what they talk about here is that Ukraine has not had the option because they have not been able to have overwhelming ground assault flying beneath gunships blasting open on a path. Right now, Kiev troops are running into Russian air superiority along the front line, which has been unable to give them the offensive advantage of combined tactics that basically would be a feature of advancing warfare ever since the Second World War.

What they point to also is that, quote, they have been preparing for a long time. They have learned from some of their mistakes in Kharkiv, but that the fighting unfolding now, which is effectively just a slugfest on the battlefield, is fundamentally a battle of readiness. Both sides, since the middle of last year, mustering weapons, troops, and defensive positions for what they knew would be a pivotal moment. Unfortunately for them, despite amassing billions and billions of dollars, Moscow still has called up over 200,000 soldiers. They have dug trenches. They've prepared fighting, firing positions to stop the Ukrainians. And they have spread, quote, millions of landmines

in place by mine-spewing rockets fired from mobile launchers. The Ukrainian unit, which was driving these advanced equipment earlier, which drove into those, was incapacitated several tanks and armored fighting vehicles. And other units have faced multiple aerial attacks from helicopter gunships, missiles launched from both the air and the ground. All of these defensive capabilities of the Russians

are making it more difficult than the original spring offensive for the Ukrainians because, frankly, the Russians just had a long time to prepare for it. They had just as long. And they had the mobilization. It also gets to something we pointed out here, which a lot of people didn't want to hear, but clearly the Ukrainian effort to waste tens of billions of dollars in their latest campaign, effectively in a complete battle of attrition street by street, of which they ultimately lost after being pushed out of the city, was obviously a colossal mistake. Because that's exactly what U.S. generals told them not to do. Repeatedly, they said, hey, you need to save all this ammo

and all these men and all these weapons for the actual coming counteroffensive. And instead, they spent somewhere upwards of $10 to $15 billion simply on the defense of a city that they ultimately completely lost, which was strategically a massive mistake. They said they were bleeding the Russians dry. It's like, well, the Russians have more troops. They have an unlimited number of men. They have an industrial base. They have a real military that they're able to resupply and able to manufacture. They have all of the defensive capabilities of a real nation state. You're a nation being literally invaded right now. It's very difficult for you.

Right. Ukraine can't win a war of attrition against Russia for the reasons that you pointed out. One, just the immense population advantage that Russia has and its willingness to kind of grab people and throw them into the meat grinder of the front lines, as well as, as you said, the Ukrainian economy is absolutely destroyed because they are currently the scene of a gruesome war. Russia is not. Russia, there was a fire in Moscow yesterday that was making news. There have been sporadic kind of attacks across the border by Ukrainian-linked independent

pro-Russian, anti-Russian groups or whatever. But that's it. They're not facing a full-scale war. So it's- It's not the same thing as your Capitol being literally bombed multiple times overnight. Constantly. Yeah, I mean, dig a trench and lose electricity.

Thousands plus mile, front overnight. Constantly. I mean, dig a trench and lose electricity. A thousand-plus mile front line. So, yes. So, as a result, they need big sweeping victories like they had with that surprise counteroffensive. And there just isn't the space for a surprise. Now, we're early. You can put up this next element from Peter DePennant, Kiva Independent, which is just brutal news for the Ukrainian forces here, saying that they're going to be pausing and reevaluating. Possibly pausing. Possibly pausing. information from basically the most loyal news outlet to the Ukrainian forces in Kyiv

that is trying to convince the Russians that what you're seeing is true, or it is true, and they are actually pausing and reevaluating based on just the structural disadvantages that you mentioned. For 150 years, this has been warfare that the dug-in side, the defensive side, has a massive advantage over the side that is having to leave their trench. Yeah. I mean, look, right now, look, the best case for the Ukrainians is the Russians. I laid this out previously why I thought it was wrong, but here's a good case, which is Russia spent also billions of dollars and exhausted a lot of men, special forces in Bakhmut. All these guys got blasted to death for basically a smoking scrap of ground. Their forces are very tired after having gone through this advancement. They were the attacking force, and now they're on the

back foot. While it is easier to defend, their lack of morale, being tired, watching their friends die, they're not in the fight. They don't want to be there. Yeah, I tired, watching their friends die. They're not in the fight. They don't want to be there. Yeah, I mean, they literally don't want to be there, most of them. Can you imagine being put in that situation? And so they're the ones who are more likely to flee, and all it takes is one. You just need one breakthrough. The pushback that I've seen to that is just simply that given the defensive capabilities

of the Russians and their current air superiority on the front line, that it's just very, very difficult for them to be able to push through. Part of why the Ukrainians, what do they want more than anything? F-16, specifically to try and challenge this air superiority. But of course, they claim they won't use it inside of Russia, right, Ryan? We should totally believe that. Let's go and put this final one up there on the screen just to show you the expanding consequences of this. The New York Times put together a story where you can believe it if you want saying why the evidence suggests Russia has blown up the Kakovia Dam. The dam in Ukraine was designed to withstand almost any attack imaginable from the outside. Evidence suggests right now that Russia blew it up from within. They used some forensic analysis and

analysis of what the quote-unquote Achilles heel inside of the dam was that was built during Soviet times. Because Moscow had the engineering drawings and knew the exact place where to blow up the dam, they say it was more likely that they did it. And because they had control of the dam at the time, that it was obviously going to be easier for them to be able to plant an internal device. You know, at the same time, it's not like the Ukrainians hadn't had control of the dam, so they possibly also had access to that. And it's also not like blowing up infrastructure by infiltrating it through spy plots, like as in the case of the Crimean Bridge, that they have done that before, or mounted attacks inside of Russia. So look, the evidence they say was it was likely crippled, set off an explosion by the side

that controls it. But of course, they haven't proven it by any definitive way. Yeah, and it's difficult to know what and when and how to believe the media in normal times. When it comes to wartime, there's so much propaganda that you have to sift through to try to get to the truth. But I do encourage people to read this piece because, you know, we don't know. Information is good. Yeah, I learned a lot about the dam.

I was like, oh, that's interesting. Whoever did it, I was like, all right, well, the dam clearly blew up from the inside. Well, very likely blew up from the inside. The argument does seem strong that in order for this dam to get blown up, because it was Soviet era, you know, intended to be able to withstand an attack from the United States, basically, or from Germany,

that there was only one way to blow it up, and that's with massive amounts of explosives, you know, put inside the dam, way down below. Then they have some corroborating evidence that there are massive explosions, if you believe that corroborating evidence that there are massive explosions, if you believe that corroborating evidence. And maybe the most telling detail is that you ought to have been able to see the foundation all the way across it if the foundation wasn't blown,

but there's this area where you can see that the foundation is missing. And so it does seem that somebody blew that. How Ukraine would get in there is difficult to imagine, like how they could possibly get. So to me, the logic and the evidence does point in that direction, but we're still too early in the fog of war to be able to say definitively for sure. Here's what we can say. Definitively, it was a disaster for a lot of people. For millions of people.

For millions of people. They got flooded out of their homes. They think disease is now going to proliferate. And, you know, war is hell. It truly is. All right, let's go to the next part here. We're going to talk about Trump in this new interview. We did our best here.

Trump did a one-hour interview on the Fox News channel that aired last night. And there are so many good moments. We will start with the newsier elements. Then we will play you our personal favorite clip. Ryan, let's start with the newsier elements. Then we will play you our personal favorite clip. Ryan, let's start with the news asked about the documents case of which he certainly is not doing himself any favors in this, some politics and more. Here's what he had to say. That you had a document detailing a planned attack on another country that was prepared by the US military for you when you were president. The Iran attack plan, you remember that?

Ready? You were recorded. It wasn't a document. I had lots of paper. I had copies of newspaper articles. I had copies of magazines spread. There was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or may

not, but that was not a document. I didn't have a document per se. The suggestion was that you wanted this as evidence that the military, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Milley, had preemptively sent you plans for a possible attack on Iran and that you didn't order that to happen. That's the suggestion. I never ordered it to happen,

no. But that's why you wanted the document. I don't think I've ever seen a document from Milley. Milley, frankly, was incompetent. The last one I'd want to attack with as my leader would be Milley. Continuation. More independent voters watch Fox News than any other TV source. A lot less than you used to watch it. A lot less, Brett. We couldn't help but put that in there. It was just too good for him to go after him. A lot less than you think. I mean, hey, he's right. Trump is certainly right. Let's talk about the documents thing, though. What did he, he did not do himself any favors, Ryan,

because he both admitted having possession of classified information and then withholding it from the grand jury, which I don't think a lot of people are understanding this. Trump is being charged with a process crime. Like, he's being charged specifically with a set of facts where they're like, we asked for it, he didn't give it all to us.

He's on tape saying that he knew it was classified, not declassified properly, and that he didn't do it. That's it. I mean, they don't have to litigate the political nature. They don't even have to litigate what's in the document at all. It's literally like, did you do it or not? It's very narrowly defined as an offense. And what they have now is basically his explanation. Now believe it or not, but his explanation for why he was withholding the documents

was that he wanted to go through it himself and he didn't wanna be rushed, he's very busy. And as he says, there's T-shirts and other golfing memorabilia that are in all these boxes. And he wants to take his time and sift through these, make sure he doesn't accidentally turn some golf trophies back to Nara. Because he worked hard for that. He cheated hard for those golf tournament trophies.

And so, therefore, he then kind of stalled. Like that's basically what he's saying. And you can't do that. Because that's not a legal defense for why. Exactly. This you can't do that. Yes. Because that's not a legal defense for why. Exactly. This is what I keep trying to say. What he could say is write a letter back to them and say,

I want to go through the documents myself. You relax, Nard. Is that okay? You will get your stuff when you get your stuff. I have it, yes. Just chill. That would have been a defense that he could make. Instead, he lied and said, we've given you everything.

There is nothing left. Hey, go hide everything over here. And then because he's incompetent, a bad criminal, they learn about this and then they raid. Look, I mean, people should know this. You've been watching us for years. Like, you're not looking at people who ever trumped up Russiagate claims, who think most of the stuff brought against Trump was BS and not, or at the very least did not rise to the proper way that he should have been impeached. And I'm telling you right now, this is a serious one simply because of the way that it is narrowly defined as an offense and that the facts of the government presented thus far have

not been refuted on the actual facts themselves that is going to fly in a court of law. Politically, you can make all the cases you want about selective prosecution, of which, by the way, I think is true. I think Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted. I think that there is a double standard. I think this is political in nature. All of that is true, but that's not going to fly in a court of law. In a court of law, you have to argue on the merits themselves. And once a case was brought, it's a tough one, Ryan. It really is a tough one. Politically, there was a hilarious moment, everyone, where Brett – I have no idea how Trump actually let Brett Baier get through all of this.

Baier reads off lists of all these people who used to work for Trump who now say that he should not be president again. It literally goes on for almost a minute and is one of the most hilarious montages of television I have ever seen, including Trump's response. Let's take a listen. Okay. In 2016, you said that I'm going to surround myself with only the best and most serious people. Well, I did do that. And we had tremendous, look, we had the best economy we've ever had. This time- The world has ever seen. Your Vice President Mike Pence is running against you. Yeah. Your Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, she's running against you.

Your former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said he's not supporting you. You mentioned National Security Advisor John Bolton, he's not supporting you either. You mentioned Attorney General Bill Barr, says you shouldn't be president again. Calls you the consummate narcissist and troubled man you recently called, and Barr, a gutless pig. Your second defense secretary is not supporting you, called you irresponsible. This week, you and your White House, called your White House chief of staff John Kelly weak and ineffective and born with a very small brain.

You called your acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, a born loser. You called your first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, dumb as a rock, and your first Defense Secretary, James Mattis, the world's most overrated general. You called your White House press secretary, Kayleigh Kennedy, milquetoast, and multiple times you've referred to your transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, as Mitch McConnell's China-loving wife. So why did you hire all of them? How good is that? He's like, so why'd you hire them? He's like, so why did you hire all these people?

And what I love about Trump is he just nods along. He's like, yeah, you said that. I said that. He said he had a small brain. That was a good one. He's like admiring his work. He's like, that's good material. I always say this to the people who,

you know, we had on a Trump guy here on the show during the panel with Ryan Gerduski. And I was like, man, look, why do you have confidence it's going to be different this time around? You know, he doesn't care. Like, at what point are people just going to get that through their heads? You know, I've told this story before. I interviewed Trump several times. He literally acts like a child, you know, whenever you're in the Oval Office. I remember I was asking him a question, and he was sitting there there and he literally got distracted by a piece of paper on his desk and

he like picked it up in a tactile way that, you know, like a child would. It was like mystified, like what this certificate was that he had to sign as president. And I'm like asking him about Kuwait or, you know, like bases in Bahrain or something. And I was like, wow, dude, you don't care about this at all. I mean, maybe that's my fault. You know, like I should have been engaging him whenever I was talking to him. Certainly, I was like, you know, you don't care about this at all. I mean, maybe that's my fault. You know, like I should have been engaging him whenever I was talking to him. Certainly, I believe that you should try and do that. But more so in terms of his personal character, like that's who he is. He doesn't care about staff and governing.

In the moment, as long as you're willing to kiss his ass, he'll hire you. He'll happily, you know, and then the moment you depart, it's like, oh, he was always a loser. You know, and it's just, but at the same time, who are we, Ryan? People don't care. At this point, seven years, everybody knows what they're buying. Everybody knows what they're getting. And the Republican base has made clear we love Trump. We don't care about that.

And I just think a lot of people don't need to be honest when they're like, oh, he's going to select the best people. And he's really going to get done what he says. I'm just like, okay, if that makes you sleep better at night, that's fine. But you know, it's just not true. I get what they're really saying is, well, the one thing you promised me is to make libs mad. And guess what? He's very successful at that. Yeah. Yeah. And the other element of his answer is that, well, 10 of the people that I hired were good for every one bozo. And the result is that we have this incredible economy. It's like, basically just list all of your top people over the course of

four years. But again, like, yeah, his people, if you're a Trump supporter, you're like, who cares? He's right about it. He's right. The guy does have a small brain. The guy is like the worst general, most overrated general ever, whatever. Yeah. I mean, you know, over and over again, you see what Trump, he's like, I believe in X. And we'd be like, well, okay, well, why are you hiring people that don't believe that? And he'd be like, well, you know, they're working against me. I'm like, yeah, but you hired them. Like, we're not talking about permanent people in the bureaucracy, right? Like we're talking about people you literally hired. Why did you do that? And it just, he never has a good answer. He'll blame it on somebody

like, oh, that was Reince Priebus' guy. I'm like, yeah, but you're the president, dude. Like, you can decide whether you want to hire somebody or not. And I love, too, he's got all these Twitter videos that are coming out now. He's like, you know, we need space travel and flying cars. I'm like, dude, you're just talking. Like, you were the president, man. Like, we know exactly what you're going to do. The one piece of good news for if he does potentially win the presidency, guys, can we put this up there on the screen? This is the best news for the country I've ever seen. Would you want Jared and Ivanka to serve in a second Trump administration? No, I said that's enough for the family. You know why? It's too painful for the

family. My family has been through a lot. So he's not firing Jared and Ivanka for the right reason. But you know what? I think we're all better off than little boy wonder playing diplomat, playing criminal justice reform, and playing whatever the hell else he was supposed to be doing in the White House at the time. Genuinely one of the most unimpressive people to ever habit the residence of the White House. And he'll find a way to cash in. Yeah, I'm sure you're right. He's already cashed in. What are you talking about? He's got $2 billion from Saudi Arabia. So yeah, you're right.

Why should he come back? He got exactly what he needed. All right, let's go to the next one. This is very interesting. I want to spend some time on this. Guys, can we put this up there on the screen, please? J.P. Morgan's internal report about its ties to Jeffrey Epstein actually just leaked out yesterday. This was a 2019 report that was compiled around the time of the Epstein arrest and whenever he died in prison. Note, I said died in prison, not committed suicide in prison. And in that report, they reviewed its ties to Jeffrey Epstein. They found, quote, that he had regularly given business advice to the one-time J.time JP Morgan executive, Jess Staley, and invited him to meetings with senior officials in foreign governments.

So that's why I wanted to spend time on this. Anytime we get, I mean, of course, you know, Staley's disgusting behavior. I've talked to you about before. He sent Epstein an email after he left the island. He said, that was fun. Say hi to Snow White for me. Okay, disgusting. And you know what Epstein an email after he left the island and he said, that was fun. Say hi to Snow White for me. Okay. Disgusting. And you know what Epstein replied? He said, which character would you like to try out? And it's just like, it makes me want to throw up. But importantly, it's not just the crimes, the heinous crimes that were committed against these young girls and some

of these women is the level of penetration penetration they had with not only our business elites, but our foreign governments and possible intelligence services. And actually, we got some of the names of these government officials of which had come out here. I'm going to go ahead and say some of them here for you. So they include the Dubai Sultan Ahmed bin Suleiman, so a senior member of the Emirati royal family, the British politician Peter Mandelson. So – or Mandelson. Mandelson, importantly, is not just a member of the House of Lords. He's actually a very wealthy businessman.

And Epstein was trying to connect associates for the bank and to finance international expansion, he wrote emails actually to bin Suleiman and to Staley to set up meetings between them and advised him, Staley, the banker, on how to conduct himself, what to expect from him. And in one email, he said that the Sultan is laying the groundwork for you to establish a serious presence. They need your reputation in the region right now is poor. So bin Suleiman, importantly, is the port operator for one of the largest companies in the Emirates and, quote, had several visits scheduled to the Epstein townhouse between 2011 and 2014. Which is after his conviction. After. I mean, of course, all of this happened after the conviction, after he was a registered

sex offender. When it comes to the House of Lords member two, he says, I very much regret ever being introduced to him. That's what they always say. I never had any business or professional relationship. But they say and actually show emails, private bankers advise Epstein's on how to structure a deal for an unnamed client to actually buy a painting from the Lord. That client was actually Leon Black, who was the head of Apollo Management, who was one of the wealthiest financiers in the entire world, and a great friend of Jeffrey Epstein who had funneled some $100 billion, $100 million or so to him for quote-unquote tax advice,

which I'm sure that's what he needed from him. And look, I mean, I just think that this is really, this is pure speculation. It's not a confirmation, but you know, his, his benefit to foreign intelligence services and his ability here to clearly, to not only connect business elites and financial elites with foreign governments does show you that there was something going on else behind the scenes. Because of course, foreign intelligence service would have a tremendous interest in the comings and goings of members of the House of Lords, of Emirati princes and their business dealings, things like that. And then even more so, Ryan, what we would see is that

his ability to connect and to influence the said policy through money and all that would, of course, also be of great interest to them. Right. And we should never forget a couple of things. One, that the prosecutor who went soft on him said, I was told that he was intelligence. So therefore, I should go soft on him. We have a remarkable number of just on the record, you know, confessions around this. And then there was that critical reporting from when his townhouse was raided that the FBI had told CNN or somebody else that they had gotten a safe that was filled with CDs that had name of high profile person and then girl and age. And so they found his compromise. They found his blackmail. We already knew that it was the most wired up townhouse ever.

You can imagine that his plane, boats, islands, all these other venues are also completely wired with video and audio. And so then we know that there are these CDs. Where are those CDs? Like what happened with that? Like that was, like if you're a credible law enforcement agency that is actually trying

to unravel this child sex ring, you just opened a safe and found all of the evidence that you need to round everybody up. Not one single person gets rounded up as a result of all of the evidence that you need to round everybody up. Not one single person gets rounded up as a result of all of those leads. My bet is that whatever that CD is doesn't exist anymore. It probably was set, it was a fire or a flood or something.

Real shame. There's a really crazy stuff happens in some of these evidence rooms. It's shocking, you know? Don't they have disaster plans, something going on? Unlike with Trump when they fake flood something and they actually flood the right area. Hey, that has never been confirmed, Ryan. They've never confirmed that they flooded that. And also,

it turns out it didn't even do anything, funnily enough. So I guess they're even bad at covering it up. But listen, that's the latest from the report inside of JP Morgan. I think it just confirms multiple things. They knew exactly he was a sex offender. They kept doing business with him for existence and ties to foreign clients. But the foreign government piece to me is the single most important one because that shows you a much higher level of involvement, not just of corruption amongst the high financiers and the highest elite on Wall Street, but of direct ties to very, very senior government officials, former presidents of the United States like Bill Clinton, and more impossible compromising information. So the more that we get on that, we'll keep everybody updated. It remains one of the most important stories in the entire country. Okay, next part. This, I cannot tell you, Ryan, how obsessed I am with this. Guys, let's put this up on the screen, please. Pod News, an industry trade journal, gives us a little bit of the scoop on Meghan Markle and her breakup with Spotify. So for those who don't know, the Duke and Duchess, as they style themselves,

have a podcast company. It was called Archowell. They are not having their contract removed from Spotify. Not only that, they may not actually, actually even get the full $20 million full of the contract because they did not meet their productivity clauses. What they now say is one of the most insane things I've ever heard, Ryan. This woman was paid $20 million for 12 episodes, even that she could not do the work in the correct way. Pod News has heard from multiple sources that some interviews on her show were done by other staffers with her questions edited in afterwards. So mechanically, let's explain this to everybody. It would be as if there were only two shots in this show, one of you and one

of me. You talk, you know, you give answers and all that. And somebody, one of our producers, let's say Griffin is standing in here for me. And then they were, I, because my schedule is so important. I would come in later after I got my beauty sleep. And then I would sit here like I am right now. And I'd be like, yes, Ryan, I'd be looking at you. And nobody would be, people would be none the wiser, right? Especially if we're only doing audio. I mean, what is this, an animated movie? Like, what are we doing? We're doing a podcast. You don't have an hour to sit down and to interview somebody. And here's the thing. It wasn't even good. It didn't even chart well. Somebody can write your questions. Yeah, somebody will write questions. When you're this rich,

and you're famous, and you're doing 20 million, you know, for some BS deal, plus a Netflix deal, and also the nonsense. You could pay people. All you've got to do is sit down in the chair. You don't do anything. Put a prompter up in front of you. We do so much work over here. And I just want to know, Ryan, how do I get paid $20 million to not do anything?

What is happening? You've got to be former royalty. You're right. I have to be a divorcee who breaks up the royal family. But this is going to be very difficult news, I think, for the Breaking Points community

because you can go into the back end and see which shows your audience also listens to. Yes, that's right. And there's about 100% overlap with the Meghan Markle podcast.

So all of you out there, we know. We know how devastating you're going to be. You actually loved all 12 of these episodes. Five stars across the board. You know, I will tell you. You actually loved all 12 of these episodes. Five stars across the board. You know, I will tell you, I love looking at our Also Listens To.

It is all over the map, man. It's like Ben Shapiro and some crazy leftist channel I literally had never heard of. And I was like, man, I bet you there's no other YouTube channel on Earth that shows you so many different. Yeah, and then Meghan Markle, of course. Look, the reason why this is so hilarious is that it has been an open secret inside of the company apparently now for months about how much of a grifter this woman is. Enough for Bill Simmons over at The Ringer podcast, which was acquired by Spotify, to call Harry and Meghan, quote, a fucking grifter on his latest podcast. Here's what he had to say.

I wish I had been involved in the Megan and Harry leave Spotify negotiation. The grifters, that's the podcast we should have launched with them. So Bale actually reveals that not only did he call him that, he reveals that he did a private Zoom call with Harry about ideas for how their podcast could go. And Ryan, this is the latest in a series of, I don't understand how these people get these deals, like Bruce Springsteen and Obama. Nobody, listen, guess what, guys? Obama, he's never going to let his hair down. He's got way too much riding on this. That is Obama with his hair down. He's a multi-million dollar enterprise. He can't be talking for real because he's not a man, he's a brand. Him and Michelle becoming,

the tour and all of that. All right, So that's Obama and Springsteen. I just saw this morning Trevor Noah's getting a big Spotify deal. He literally flamed out and failed on The Daily Show, one of the great platforms that exists in comedy. And now apparently it gets a great big deal. This isn't even necessarily out of envy. Look, it's fine. We love our business. Just a little bit. Yeah, I mean a little bit. Here's the thing.

We work very hard here over at Breaking Points. Our business program, our premium program, we're constantly monitoring and very proud of the fact that we built this set 100% with a premium subscriber. Yeah, it's for real though. I mean it never ends here for us. We take it very seriously and we take our customers and we, you know, we look at them. We, you know, every, every time somebody has a complaint or a connection issue or something, we're always doing our best in order to make sure that it gets resolved. And then I watch these people printing, you know, tens of millions of dollars doing no work. And, you know, we see, and it's not just us, I see so many

different independent podcasts in the top 10, especially on Spotify. Our show is very popular on Spotify in the news and politics category. And, you know, I'll watch these people rate at number 55 and all that, but we know what they're getting paid. You don't think Meghan Markle's taking the ticket requests and trying to help people out? Exactly. Thank you. Yeah. It's like, you know, we personally are running down and be like, hey, why is this person's premium feed not good? Oh, man. You know, we sent our email at 1118 a.m.

And I'm like me and you, you know, I'm riding this stuff. I'm like, all right, guys, we got to get this out at 11 a.m. This is what people are promised for. But apparently, you know, that's not the great line of work. What I need to do is move to the UK, marry a princess, get them to divorce or prince. Yeah, maybe. Honestly, you're right. Interracial couple, interracial gay couple who leaves, you're probably right. That would be even better branding. Fake a paparazzi chase and claim a near-death experience and then sign a $20 million deal. So look, I don't even know what

else to say. Because the crazy thing to me is that this era has not ended. You would think that this would be some zero interest rate phenomenon. We're actually in the middle of an ad recession apocalypse. If you look at the way that ad rates have plunged, this is why the news media, which is generally, other than us, who is predominantly reliant on advertising revenue, they're making a hell of a lot less money right now. We lost more media jobs in 2023 than we did in all of 2022 already. It's only half the year. Hundreds of people, thousands of people actually lost their jobs in the industry. And yet people like this always seem to be able to squeeze money out of executives at big companies. And it has nothing to do with whether people like it or not.

It's stunning. It really is. Just do your own podcast if you're going to get $20 million. Yeah, right. I don't even understand. I'm not even asking you to write the questions. All right, so.

Just be there when it's happening. That's our Meghan Markle update. Our next podcast should be called We Want Privacy. What about Harry here? Is this a Harry podcast too or is this just supposed to be Meghan? I don't know, actually.

I think it was a Meghan Markle podcast. I'm sure he had some- Our audience knows because they obsessively follow this podcast. Drop a comment. Let us know how Prince Harry did in his podcasting journey, creator journey. Isn't that what they call it there online?

Breaking news, everybody. Just as I was about to do my monologue, this came across the wire. Let's put this up there on the screen. Hunter Biden pleading guilty to three federal charges. So I have the charges here in front of me. The information charges the defendant with tax offenses, namely two counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax in violation of 26 USC 7203. The defendant has agreed to plead guilty to both counts of tax information. The second information charges the defendant with a firearm offense, namely one count of possession by a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to

a controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922G3 and 924A2 2018. This defendant has agreed to enter pretrial diversion agreement with respect to the firearm information. The parties jointly request the court schedule a consolidated appearance on the firearm and initial appearance on the charge, the plea hearing of the tax information charges. Ryan, can you break this down for us? What are the specific charges that we should remember and relate to here? So in the midst of Hunter Biden's bender, he went and bought a firearm. Yes, that's right. And when he bought the firearm, there was a form that he was required to fill out that asked if he was a drug user, basically. Okay. Was he using

drugs? Right. He checked, no. He has said in interviews, he left a crack pipe at a rental car. Well, we have multiple evidence, you know. There's no question. It's all over the laptop. Yeah, there's no question that he was using drugs. And so, boom, he lied. And that is the felony gun charge because by lying, he then becomes an illegal possessor of a firearm. They're going to allow him to enter into pretrial diversion, which basically says, look, you're going to take some courses. You're going to do probably some community service or some probation, some other things, and if you successfully complete all of these tasks for you, you stay sober, sometimes you have to go to AA or NA as a result of these, then the charges might not ever actually be filed.

Then there's the two tax charges, which are misdemeanors, which are willful failure to pay taxes, which suggests that it's not just as a result of his bender that he had some. This tax investigation is one of the most insane things that I've ever read, because I remember covering this at the time. Hunter had two million dollars. Do you know how much money you have to make to pay two million in income tax? That's 30% of your income. So you guys do the math here. And that was just over two years. That's a hell of a lot of money here that Hunter found himself. It's good work if you can get it, isn't it, Ryan? It sure is. Yeah, you can buy yourself a little

Malibu mansion with your latest female love interest. The craziest part the craziest part too is how shady this all was because all of the tax was paid, was paid back, delinquent taxes, not by him, by a Hollywood lawyer who apparently was just a friend and supporter of President Biden and decided the entertainment attorney, his name is Kevin Morris, novelist who earned a fortune representing, quote, the creators of South Park and the Book of Mormon, decided to pay the overdue taxes totaling over $2 million for Hunter Biden, the previous. The problem for him, though, is it seems that the IRS was able to basically prove, or at the very least was able to show you, that they were able to show, Ryan, that they had made, that he had willfully not paid that tax.

So it wasn't just a matter of, I forgot to pay the tax. He knew he hadn't paid the taxes. And only after that he needed to pay it, that he had to come forward and to find this two million, you know, miraculously somewhere. I mean, who, what is, this is the sweetest gig on the planet Earth. You get to make millions of dollars. You get to make so much money, you got to pay $2 million in federal taxes.

And then when you don't pay your tax because you spent all the money, you go to one of your rich friends who's a supporter of your dad as the president, and he pays your tax bill for you. And presumably, you'll eventually pay him back, but you never, ever have to. I mean, what a good fortune that this man has

fallen. He's doing better than Meghan Markle. Yeah. But what's as important as what's being charged here is what's not being charged. Yeah. And this is coming after all the heat around this, the confidential human source that was relaying to the FBI back in June 2020 that a Burisma executive that's said to be the CEO was claiming that Hunter Biden was splitting a $10 million bribe with his father, Vice President Biden. And Republicans have been asking the question, where is this? And the FBI has been saying, well, this is part of an active ongoing investigation. So therefore, we can't comment on it. So clearly, they did not charge in connection with this bribery scandal that's been alleged.

It also suggests that now they should be able to comment on it, that they can no longer say that there's an active ongoing investigation unless there is another one that they're going to say that they have going on. But I doubt it. And here's the other thing. In terms of the plea agreement and all of that, I mean, can you imagine what – what did Wesley Snipes do? Let's go ahead and get this up there, right? Like Wesley Snipes – Did they put him in jail? I believe he actually did serve a sentence here. So they charged that Snipes had spent

fictitious bills of exchange for $14 million to the IRS. The government charged that Snipes failed to file tax returns for the years 1999 through 2004. The government charged him with this crime. He responded to this indictment in 2006 saying that he actually wasn't a citizen. There was all this other stuff. He was sentenced to three years in prison for willful failure to file federal income tax. Now, obviously, it does look like he went out of his way to make sure that he didn't pay his taxes. And it was a little bit of a different situation because he didn't actually plead guilty. He was found guilty as a result of this. But at a very basic level, you and I, you know, I was just at a gun show this weekend.

You go into, if I walked into there and I filled out that form and I lied, and I also didn't pay, you know, if I didn't even pay a fraction of my income tax, you know, whatever, and all of that to the IRS, there's no way. And then I went to some shady character and had them pay the bill for me.

You think the feds aren't gonna lock me up? Of course they are. Any normal person who doesn't have this level of connection to the elites, to the people in power, wouldn't be getting off scot-free. So if he doesn't serve a day in jail, I would say it's a complete injustice. But it also shows how easy it is to get away with a lot of this stuff too. Because if it weren't for the attention that was brought about by the fact that his, right, if his father didn't run for election in 2020 and he just continued doing what he was doing, yeah, the chance that they actually, I mean, maybe the algorithm catches that he didn't pay his taxes, but because he's got so many different bank accounts and income

from so many different countries that, you know, probably the IRS is not catching that. Oh, I bet you're exactly right, which is the more complicated your taxes are, the less likely you are to get audited because the IRS, instead, they audit poor people who make less than $25,000 a year, five times the rate. Yeah, exactly.

Cashing in on, they're like, oh, you're falsely cashing in on the EITC. This guy can't pay $2 million and he doesn't even get caught until years later. So, look, I mean, we'll stop talking. We'll just let you digest the news, I guess, for yourself. But it's certainly, look, we'll find out whether he actually serves any time in jail or not. That's what we know so far.

We'll see you guys later. after RFK Jr.'s recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, not from the podcast itself, but from the fallout of a previous JRE guest, their criticism of the RFK interview. The previous guest, as you've probably heard by now, Dr. Peter Hotez, at one point appeared on the JRE to publicize his book, refuting claims that vaccines cause autism. Since though, it has morphed into a full-fledged warrior

for the establishment view on COVID. Now, Hotez, despite his previous appearance on the JRE, has criticized Rogan vociferously for airing a different view on COVID and now for platforming RFK Jr. himself. Hotez reacted to the interview by advocating for censorship, by quoting a Vice article saying, quote, Spotify has stopped even sort of trying to stem Joe Rogan's vaccine misinformation, to which Rogan lit the flame with the response, I've rarely seen him engage with someone else on Twitter. He responded, quote, Peter, if you claim what RFK Jr. is saying is misinformation, I'm offering you $100,000 to

the charity of your choice if you're willing to debate him on my show with no time limit. The offer was then increased by subsequent offers from billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, venture capitalists, and others, nearing some $600,000 to charity. So the question is, will Hotez do it? Should he do it? Two questions. Those are what everyone's talking about right now. And it raises a lot of interesting questions. First and foremost, will he do it? The answer appears to be no.

Hotez has offered himself up on Rogan's show, but it only seems as a singular guest. He doesn't want to do a debate. He explained himself on MSNBC to Mehdi Hassan on Sunday night. Let's take a listen to what he said. That's why we have to have that discussion. And I offered to come and talk to Gondjo Rogan again.

I've been on a couple of times and have that discussion with him, but not to turn it into the Jerry Springer show with having RFK Jr. on. So Hotez says going on with Rogan's podcast with RFK Jr. would be like Jerry Springer. I'm assuming because he thinks that the format wouldn't be right.

Now, as a debate, the issues are a few. Number one, Rogan has already hosted multiple debates that were fair. They have borne fruit and actually show him offering grace to those that he disagrees with. The one that really comes to mind is the 2019 debate on marijuana and whether it is dangerous or not. That included Alex Berenson and a doctor who advocated for cannabis use. Joe, obviously an avid cannabis user, but he gave Berenson and a doctor who advocated for cannabis use. Joe, obviously, an avid cannabis user. But he gave Berenson the time to talk to air his views. In some cases, he even agreed with him. Not that narrative that most people would think going into that. Now, Joe has already offered to go as long as he needs for the debate, so there's no problem in terms of timing, as when RFK appeared

on our show, for example. He had a set time that he had to go. That's the mechanical objection. But now what about the moral one? This is where things get interesting and actually very, very revealing. The elites who back Hotez are united in their view that he should not deign to debate RFK Jr. The so-called experts should not do so. This view was now best shown

by Tom Nichols of Resistance fame. He says, quote, no medical professional should ever agree to do this. Never. It elevates the conspiracy guy. It demeans the medical professional. We'll only convince the kooks out there RFK Jr. is right because a real doctor took the time to debate him. Interesting. No medical professional should ever agree to do this because it elevates RFK Jr.? First of all, RFK is polling at some 20% in the Democratic primary. He's got one of the most famous last names in American history. He is a bona fide political candidate no matter what they do. He doesn't need Hotez to elevate him or anyone else, but more so it gets to the fundamental

hypocrisy of Hotez and the other vaccine scientists who are refusing to debate RFK Jr. In one breath, they say that the science does not happen by debates. It happens by peer review and by journals. And thus debating that person would be inappropriate. It's not the way that science is done. But then in the same breath, these people are appearing on public shows like Mehdi Hassan on MSNBC or Hotez in the past on Rogan to push a specific line of argumentation and talk to the public in public policy debate. Hotez not only has been a vocal opponent of claims that vaccines cause autism, but he has literally been going on TV now for three years, constantly advocating for the establishment view of COVID. He defended lockdowns. He defended masks for children. He pushed booster

shots on kids and COVID vaccines with underlying claims that have turned out to be flat out false whenever it comes to efficacy. He cannot use his so-called secret knowledge of science to advocate for public policy and effectively enter the public square, then take his toys and go home when he's challenged by someone else who wants to talk in that square. It is that view of the scientific establishment right now, that when it's time to debate, oh, then they're scientists. But they're just scientists. They're doing review. But when it comes to advocacy for something that they agree with, oh, forget the scientific method. I'll end with this. Vinay Prasad observed this nearly two years ago.

The scientific establishment has nobody but themselves to blame for vaccine skepticism today. People like Hotez use their credentials to push childhood masking and lied about efficacy, and they justify their lockdowns, all of which were anti-science policies. Though don't be surprised a few years later, there's a huge proliferation of questions around vaccines and about the approval process for drugs generally. If someone has told you a lie once, the odds are they've probably lied to you before. That's a natural human judgment. And if they want to see their trust restored and their authority, they owe it to the public, make their case with one of their opponents. If you can't, well, it tells a hell of a lot about them. And Ryan,

Ryan, what are you taking a look at? So when Daniel Ellsberg made the decision to leak the Pentagon Papers, he did so believing that he would spend decades, if not the rest of his life, in prison. And one man did everything he could to make sure that happened, and ironically, in the process, accidentally assured that he remained free. That man, of course, was Richard Nixon. And because he recorded everything he did in the Oval Office, we actually have tape of him first learning of the leak in 1971. Here's Richard Nixon being briefed by General Alexander Haig. Nothing else of interest in the world? Yes, sir. Very significant, this goddamn New York Times expose of the most highly classified documents of the war.

Oh, that. I see. I didn't read the story, but... You mean that was leaked out of the Pentagon? Sir, the whole study that was done for McNamara and then carried on after McNamara left by Clifford and the peaceniks over there, this is a devastating security breach of the greatest magnitude

of anything I've seen. Well, what's being done about it then? I mean, I didn't... Did we know this was coming out? No, we did not, sir. Yeah. There are just a few copies of this volume report. But what about the, let me ask you this, though. What about Laird?

What's he going to do about it? Now, I'd just start right at the top and fire some people. I mean, whatever department it came out of, I'd fire the top guy. Yes, sir. Well, I'm sure it came from defense and I'm sure it was stolen at the time of the turnover of the administration.

Oh, it's two years old. I'm sure it is. And they've been holding it for a juicy time and I think they've thrown it out to affect Hatfield McGovern. That's my own estimate. But it's something that's a mixed bag. It's a tough attack on Kennedy. It shows that the genesis of the war really occurred during 61.

That's Clifford. I see. And it's brutal on President Johnson. They're going to end up in a massive gut fight in the Democratic Party on this thing. Are they? But also massive against the war. Against the war. But it's a Pentagon study, huh? So after the New York Times was briefly blocked from publishing the Pentagon papers, Ellsberg managed to get them to the Washington Post, which pushed ahead in the face of the White House demand that newspapers cease publication. From there, Ellsberg went to the St. Louis Post

Dispatch and elsewhere, making sure that no matter how successful the administration could be against an individual paper, that somebody could keep pumping them out. Eventually, he turned himself in. own initiative of delivering to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate the information contained in the so-called Pentagon Papers, including the several studies on negotiations which have not been given to any newspaper. I could only regret that I had not at that same time released that information to the American public through the newspapers. I have now done so. I can no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I can no longer participate in concealing this information from the American public. I want to pause on that last point

because it's often said of whistleblowers that they deserve prosecution because they didn't take legal avenues available to them to disclose the information. If you remember, that was said repeatedly about Edward Snowden, that he should have gone to Congress or to the Inspector General or some such. But Ellsberg tried everything, and all those institutions did is sit on what he gave them. That's worth remembering the next time a senator asks why somebody didn't come to them first. Now, when asked why he finally decided to go to the press, Ellsberg pointed to a factor not many people may remember. While his ultimate goal was indeed to end the war, his real fear was the cycle of escalation Nixon had ratcheted up.

Why did I put it out at all? Because by the spring of 1971, I was feeling that with the attack, actually from the fall of 1970, with the Sante raid, I saw the escalation which had been foreshadowed in Cambodia as speeding up and moving toward probably an all-out escalation, which I wanted to avoid at all costs. Asked if he regretted his decision, Ellsberg offered what has become the model answer for whistleblowers. You're not having any second thoughts about your action now, is that right? Oh, certainly not. Dr. Ellsberg, at a recent press conference, you said you were willing to accept any responsibility

or anything that came for your part in the Pentagon Papers. The latest indictment says a 115-year prison term and a $120,000 fine, the maximum. Are your thoughts still the same, that you're willing to accept any consequences? I have two thoughts about that. I go back to my earlier answer. How can you measure the jeopardy that I'm in? Whether it's 10 years, 20 years, 115 years or other ludicrous amounts like that to the penalty that has been paid already by 50,000 American families here and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese families. It would be absolutely presumptuous of me to pity myself in that context, and I certainly don't, and I'd be ashamed of myself. And meanwhile, he never forgot two things. First,

the extreme nature of the threat that he faced from the Nixon White House, which broke the law so severely in its pursuit of him that the federal courts threw out his charges, and also that systematically things have gotten much worse for whistleblowers since then. Caught there. But I'm saying I was the subject of a White House hit squad, in effect.

And when I asked their prosecutor later, what do those words mean, to kill me? And he said, well, the words were to incapacitate you totally. But he said these guys never used the word kill. They all worked for the CIA. They used euphemisms, neutralize, incapacitate, terminate with extreme prejudice. That was one term. They don't like the word kill.

He thought that the intent was to kill me. So my judgment, in short, that Snowden or Manning, had she been not arrested right away, she was probably safer being arrested than simply being eliminated. I think if Snowden went back to the United States, the idea that he'd be free to speak to the public, as I was out on bond for almost two years before my trial, my charges were dismissed. I was able to speak freely at rallies everywhere else. Manning was held in isolation for 10 and a half months until a public protest got her into a general prison population. I think Snowden would be in isolation for the rest of his life.

Very interesting stuff. Thank you, Ryan. Appreciate it. And thanks for sitting in today. We had a lot of fun. We had the Hunter Biden news break during the show. It's always fun to do breaking news together. We will have counterpoints. You guys will be in the desk tomorrow and then Crystal and I will be back on Thursday. We'll see you then. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week

early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible. It's customizable. And it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room.

You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.