Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 6/8/23: Trump Indictment Imminent, Chris Christie And Pence Trash Trump, Golfers Defend Saudi LIV, Portnoy Attacks PGA, US In Possession Of UFO's, New Vegas UFO Footage, Instagram Enables Predators, Fox Targets Tucker, Wildfires Rage In Canada And MORE!

Episode Date: June 8, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss the imminent Trump classified documents indictment, Chris Christie and Mike Pence trashing Trump, Doug Burgam launching 2024 run, Bryson DeChambeau says to forgive Saudi Arabia for 9/11, Dave Portnoy attacking the PGA Commissioner, reports of 12 alien crafts in US possession, stunning new video of a UFO in Las Vegas, Instagram caught enabling child predators, Fox News targeting Tucker after Twitter launch, smoke from Canadian wildfires engulfing the eastern US, and Biden knowing Ukraine plotted to blow up Nordstream. To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. 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. Stay informed, empowered, and ahead of the curve with the BIN News This Hour podcast. Updated hourly to bring you the latest stories

shaping the Black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones. The Black Information Network delivers the facts, the voices and the perspectives that matter 24-7 because our stories deserve to be heard. Listen to the BIN News This Hour podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. What up, y'all? This your main man Memphis Bleak right here, host of Rock Solid Podcast. Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. So whatever I went through while I was down in prison for two years, through that process, learn, learn from. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. 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 Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?

There is a lot going on. So indeed, we do have a huge show for you. So first of all, we are back on Trump indictment watch. Looks like that could be coming really anytime. So we'll give you all of the details, everything we know at this point. We got some new contenders in the 2024 race. Mike Pence and Chris Christie both taking some big shots at Trump. We'll play that for you. Also, the latest fallout from the PGA Live Golf nightmareisy Disaster. We'll play that for you as well. We got some news from the UFO world

that is actually for real tripping me out on multiple fronts. Additional confirmation of that whistleblower report. A new inexplicable sighting in Las Vegas, including some body camera footage that you're definitely going to want to see. We also have a new escalation in the war between Tucker Carlson and Fox News. So some big developments on the media front as well.

And we have some new major developments here at Breaking Points, which we are very excited about, which is after we wrap here, Sagar and I are going to go over to the shiny brand new studio and we're going to record a special video for our premium subscribers with their sneak peek reveal. You will get to see what this new set we have been obsessively talking about actually looks like. That's right. Okay, so for the premium subscribers,

look for an email. It's going to be sometime in the afternoon, Eastern Standard Time. We will have a video revealing the entire set, all of the new technology, everything that you guys helped pay for. You helped build this set. It's literally your hard-earned money that you helped us out with to build this. We are so, so proud of this. We've got, Crystal, the new logo. We've got

some new cameras, some new angles, new graphics, everything. We are also going to reveal exclusively our launch week guests. We have a huge guests that we really want to announce it, which I'm still can't believe that happened. We're really excited. Um, again, all of that will be revealed to our premium subscribers. So check your guys' email. Um, if it's not too late, actually, you can still sign up from whenever the show comes out, breaking points.com, to go ahead and get on our email list to be able to see it. We also will be releasing our new merch store and make it available only to our premium subscribers who are going to get a 15% discount for the next 72 hours. So, again, if you want to see the new logo, buy merch with the new logo. We worked very, very hard. Every piece that we sell on our website, Crystal,

made in the USA by union labor, which we're so proud of. It was very difficult to put all this together. I want to give so many props to our team. But if you're not a premium member, you can wait till Monday. Then you can see the new set and you can see all of the new merch. Yep. And Sagar and I even did a little modeling uh all of the new merch yep and saga even and i even did a little modeling photo shoot yes the new merch yes you can see how much of an idiot i look yeah i thought you looked good in the hat sorry yeah the bucket hat was a little tougher for either one of us to pull off the bucket hat is tough but we have we have gen z people who watch the show you got to give them uh what they want to watch anyways breakingpoints breakingpoints.com. It's not too late.

Okay. So why don't we get to the breaking news just this morning? Yeah. So we've got a major Trump indictment watch on once again. A number of outlets are reporting that he has been officially informed that he is the target of investigation of those grand juries. We now know there is a grand jury in Florida as well as the one in DC. Now, this is not like a big surprise that Trump was a target of these investigations. But the fact that he's being officially informed is one indication that they may be moving close to an indictment. There's at least one outlet that has gone even further than that. Let's put this first tear sheet up on the screen from the Independent. They say that an indictment is actually imminent.

Prosecutors ready to ask for Trump indictment on obstruction and espionage act charges. Let me read you a little bit of this report. Now, I have not seen the specifics of this report confirmed anywhere else. So just keep that in mind in terms of the details here. But what they say is the independent has learned prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against Mr. Trump for violating a portion of U.S. criminal code known as Section 793, which prohibits gathering, transmitting, or losing any information respecting the national defense. They mentioned, and this is something that we talked about at the time. Section 793 does not actually make reference to classified information

specifically. That is seen as an attempt to short circuit Mr. Trump's ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents. So that is also very noteworthy. And also in this report, they indicate that there would be charges with regards to obstruction as well. We told you earlier in the week, there's this new report about like the pool flooding and that potentially compromising surveillance footage, potentially intentionally, and they may have even lied about whether the surveillance footage was actually damaged. And we already knew that they had subpoenaed some of that surveillance footage that showed people moving boxes away in a way that was also very suspicious. Let's put this next piece up on the screen from Maggie Haberman, who, of course, speaks to Trump regularly as well, source within Trump World.

She says, Trump tells me minutes ago he has not been told that he's getting indicted when contacted. It's not true, he said, adding again, he hasn't done anything wrong. When I asked if he had been told he's a target, he demurred, saying he doesn't talk directly to prosecutors. So you can take that as basically a confirmation. John Solomon, who is a close Trump ally, he's the one that had that report that the feds had informed Trump that he is the target and likely to be indicted. So Trump is denying those claims specifically. Put the next piece up on the screen here as well. And he weighed in on truth social. The man himself, Trump said, no one has told me I'm being indicted and I shouldn't be because I've done nothing in all caps wrong. But I've assumed for years that I am a target of the weaponized

DOJ and FBI, starting with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, the no collusion Mueller report, impeachment hoax, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So what we know this morning, Sagar, is that he's been informed he's a target. He's denying that he's been informed that he's actually imminently going to be indicted. But there are a lot of indications that are headed in that direction, including the fact that a lot of his top aides at this point have either been testified or have already testified. You have Steve Bannon, who's now been subpoenaed. We know Mark Meadows has also testified. So, um, it feels like this thing is building to a crescendo. Yeah, it certainly does. I mean,

we're all on tea leaf watch. This is basically exactly what happened last time around. We know the grand jury has been, you know, been, has been, has been called to action. We have seen multiple instances of grand jury witnesses being presented. There's a lot of speculation, as you said, around Mark Meadows, the information that he might've provided, um, to the grand jury, what that will look like, whether he has gotten either reached some secret plea deal. We had the Trump lawyers that were spotted at the department of justice where they direct met, met directly with Jack Smith, the special prosecutor. So everything is pointing in that direction.

And also with terms of Trump and what he told Maggie Haberman, whether he has been informed he's being indicted or not, that's actually really not the question. As you said, the targeting is the question. And the Times, I believe, were able to confirm via Trump's own legal team that he had been informed of that. And usually you're not informed of that until I wouldn't say imminent as in 24 hours, but very close to what a potential indictment would look like. So it looks like they're zeroing in on indicting the former president, zeroing in on the documents charge and all that. So our team will be on the watch over the weekend just to make sure and make sure that everybody can get coverage of that if needed, should something break on Friday. I did hear that Friday may be even more likely just because they like to do these things on the weekend, apparently. So that's something that a friend of mine familiar with some

types of proceedings informed me. Yeah, I mean, if you'll remember how this unfolded last time around, there were a lot of rumbling. And then there was sort of like a pause in the action where people even started to say, like, maybe this was not actually maybe this is not even going to happen. Maybe at the last minute, you know, the grand jury said no, and maybe they're not moving forward with an indictment. And then out of nowhere, the indictment came down. So very hard to predict the timing on these things. But, you know, I think it seems very, very likely that Trump is going to face charges with regards to the classified document situation and with regards to obstruction. You know, it's interesting because in terms of the politics, we've talked about it before, certainly in terms of the Republican primary, I think it probably only helps them, you know, much more ambiguous impact in terms of the general election. I do not think it helps them in terms of the general election, how much it hurts them. It feels like the impact, like the bombshell impact that might have been if these were the first charges to Trump has been somewhat blunted.

And on the other hand, it's possible that if the other charges hadn't been dropped first, there was a lot of nervousness around indicting him at all. When that happened and the country didn't like come apart at the seams that may have encouraged them to move forward with it. That's good point. That's yeah, that's everything we know at this point. You know, we're watching it super closely. It certainly seems like things are building and they're coming close to some sort of conclusion here. Of course, that's just really the sort of like, you know, end of the beginning and then there'll be a whole trial process, et cetera. But we're going to be following it closely and bringing you everything that we know as soon as we know it. So we now have former Vice President Mike Pence officially jumping into the 2024 race. And it's kind of

interesting, you know, prior to this moment, he mostly hasn't said a lot about the whole January 6th situation and, you know, the fact that he didn't do Trump's bidding on that day and incited a lot of anger to the extent that there were people running around the Capitol saying they wanted to hang him. He did make some comments previously that were, you know, a little critical of Trump, but very, very carefully, very, very gingerly. Interestingly, in his launch, he was much more direct with regard to how he felt about it and how he felt that he did the right thing on that day. I would certainly agree with that assessment. Let's take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say. As I've said many times, on that fateful day, President Trump's words were reckless. They endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol. But the American people deserve to know

that on that day, President Trump also demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution. Now voters will be faced with the same choice. Four years earlier, I swore an oath with my hand on my Bible and on Ronald Reagan's Bible to support and defend the Constitution. The Bible says he keeps his oath even when it hurts. And I know something about that.

My son, the Marine, once reminded me, you took the same oath I took, Dad. So I did. What do you think of that, Sagar? Well, it's an interesting strategy. I mean, there's, here's the thing. I mean, on the merits, I think he's right, like, you know, in terms of recklessness, in terms of whether he did the right thing. Do I think that GOP primary voters agree with him? No. And that's just the biggest problem for all of these, you know, almost anti-Trump candidates. DeSantis, you know, is leaning into an anti-Trump case, which has nothing to do with kind of the liberal

case against Trump, which is part of why I think it's more interesting and may have a chance at success. Although I'm still, you know, kind of dubious of that. With Pence and with Christie, who we're about to talk about, there is literally no evidence at all that the people who are with Trump aren't going to be swayed in any way by his critique because they've heard it a million times for the last two years from CNN and from the mainstream media. I mean, we should all recall that panel that happened that we played for everyone from Newsmax, where whenever Josh Hammer, who we've had on the show, was advocating for DeSantis, was talking about, you know, relitigating the last election, immediately the Trump person just came over the top and said, you sound like a Democrat. You sound like a Democrat. And to a lot of primary voters, that is an attack that is going to ring very true. They're going to cast Pence as

like an agent of, you know, the democratic establishment. And even though it may sound ludicrous, that's just how this type of rhetoric is going to code. So politically, any voter who is swayed by this is already not with Trump. There's just not that many of those people. We know that from the data. I mean, on the politics, it's impossible to disagree. Like you just look at the numbers. I mean, an overwhelming majority of the Republican base still thinks that the election was stolen. They're with Trump on this.

They agree with him, et cetera. I guess what I would say is Mike Pence is not going to win the nomination anyway. So he may as well conduct his campaign in an honorable way that allows him to be honest, to maintain his dignity. I mean, it was so embarrassing when he was so nervous about calling out Trump for January 6th, given that not only himself, but his family was legitimately like put at risk on that day. And Trump didn't seem to care whatsoever if anything, he reveled in it. So if you are most likely going to lose anyway, you might as well go out with your

dignity intact. So that was sort of how I felt about it is. And I do think, you know, these things are complex. Does the GOP base agree with Mike Pence on this? No. But is it also sort of emasculating and embarrassing for him, given the events of that day, to be unable to condemn Trump for his actions. Yeah, that is the case too. So I do think it's definitely not helpful to him politically, but he was also not really in a position to win anyway. On his message, he's obviously very much a throwback. He talked about Ronald Reagan's Bible. You know, he's really trying to reclaim that sort of like Reaganite conservative brand, both in his affect and also in a specific policy positions. Like Ron DeSantis, in terms of policy, he is to the right of Trump on issues like cutting

Social Security and Medicare, certainly on the issue of abortion. I suspect that those are things that he will talk about a lot. And we should also say to play devil's advocate here and make the best case for Mike Pence that we can. Iowa has a history of looking, Iowa Republicans have a history of looking very favorably on candidates that are from the religious right. So, you know, Mike Huckabee does very well there. Rick Santorum does very well there. So he has that ideological, social, cultural positioning that some Iowa conservatives will find very appealing and he has deep ties in that community. So that's kind of the best case that I can make for him. Do I think that that's a case that will enable him to defeat

Donald Trump? No. Do I think that that's kind of a problem for Ron DeSantis, though, that he's in the race and will have some modicum of support in the critical early state that Ron DeSantis really has to win in order to have a shot? Yeah, I do actually think that that is an issue for DeSantis. No question. Pence, Christie, anybody who is having a critique of Trump directly is stealing from DeSantis's lane. And this also really hit home to me with Chris Christie and the way that he's been going after because he's also going after Trump. Here, he's not going after him on January 6th, although he did also as well. He's going after his personal conduct, which one of the ways that DeSantis has been trying to sell himself is I'm a serious person. I'm actually focused on policy. Me and my family are not trying to enrich ourselves.

This isn't just about me. This is about you. Christie really hit with that against Jared and Ivanka, calling them grifters on the campaign trail. Here's what he had to say. Let me tell you something, everybody. The grift from this family is breathtaking. It's breathtaking. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Kushner walk you think it's because he was sitting next to the president of the United States for four years doing favors for the Saudis? That's your money. That's your money he stole. And gave it to his family. You know what that makes us?

A banana republic. That's what it makes us. So, he may get 30% again. I'm not sure. Maybe he'll get more. Maybe he'll get 30% again. I'm not sure. Maybe he'll get more. Maybe he'll get less. But let me tell you what he'll know in 2024 that he had no idea of in 2016. He's in for a fight to get it.

I mean, look, you can never deny the Christie magic. I guess he always is. Undeniably, I think he's always been a talented politician. He's just played many cards completely the wrong way. Again, I just got to come back to. And look, I think he's always been a talented politician. He's just played many cards completely the wrong way. Again, I just got to come back to, and look, I think he's 100% correct. We've done multiple segments here about Jared and Sally Raby. I think it's outrageous. We'll talk to a little bit about, and PGA, yeah, it is gross.

It is banana republic-esque. Do people care? Not a lot of evidence, unfortunately. Again, it's like many Republican primary voters, many Republican voters, they've heard it all before, and they just decided, I don't care. They'll just say, but what about Hunter Biden? And I would say, well, you know, two wrongs don't make a right. I agree. We cover Hunter Biden a lot here.

There's a whole whistleblower thing going on right now. We'll cover it soon. thing always to understand is you need to read these, not in the way that they resonate with you, but in the way that it's going to resonate with all of the primary base who gets to decide who the actual nominee is. I also, you know, it's always so complicated and difficult to cover these things, Crystal, because, you know, Pence and Christie will make two good points. But then also in the very same night, he goes and he says that Putin is just as bad as Hitler and basically advocates for like unhinged US support to Ukraine. And so it's one of those where it's like on some policy or Mike Pence, like pushing a national abortion ban, you're like, you're just as out of your mind on different things. But then on these critiques of Trump, then, okay, that's the one where you sound reasonable.

So it's almost like it's a total no-win scenario in so many of these, especially also on areas where the base and where primary voters are, too. They arguably are going to be way more with Trump on some of those issues than they are with Mike Pence and with Chris Christie, which is probably why he's going to win. Yeah. with Mike Pence and with Chris Christie was probably why he's going to win. Yeah, I mean, on policy, I personally think and the Republican base also like Trump is better on policy is more moderate on Social Security and Medicare and very consistent saying he doesn't want to cut either one of them. Either one of them has been very clear on Ukraine, although his foreign policy when he was in office was very different from what he said it was going to be in the way that his defenders try to portray it after the fact as

well. So you never know what you're going to get with this guy in office. But in terms of how he's positioning himself, he's also always understood, instantly understood what a problem abortion was for the Republican Party and has tried to be as moderate as he possibly can be on that issue, given the fact that he put in place the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe versus Wade. So he has this advantage of because he does have so much grassroots support, he can afford to be at odds with the Republican donor base. And that's a real advantage because that just gives you freedom to move around the ideological field to the position that you think is actually ideal.

And I really thought it was telling. We mentioned this. There was a poll that came out that asked voters where they consider themselves to be on an ideological spectrum. And the Ron DeSantis team is trying to make the case that like, oh, well, voters see Ron DeSantis as being more conservative than Trump. And so that's a real advantage for him. And that's why he's going to run to Trump's right in terms of the issues, in terms of ideology. And that was true. But the problem for him was that even voters who said, I'm very conservative, they still were majority going for Trump. So even voters that may disagree with him on some of the issues, he's just one of these

politicians who can kind of get away with it. Now, let me, just as I play devil's advocate for Mike Pence and his best case in this race and how he could be impactful in this race, let me make the best case I can also for Chris Christie, which is that he is a talented person. And again, do I think that he has what it takes to win a Republican nomination? No, but he's pretty explicitly gotten in this race as an attack dog to try to ding up Trump. And if anyone, given that he has very little credibility with the Republican base, if anyone, given that they have that hand to start with, could ding up Trump and create problems for him and kind of muddy the waters in a way that Trump famously is able to do, I do think that Christie is the type of muddy the waters in a way that Trump famously is able to do.

I do think that Christie is the type of political talent who has a shot to be able to do that. And then maybe that bolsters Ron DeSantis' case that this guy, you may like him, but it's just chaos. It's just a mess. It's just exhausting to have to deal with him in the news cycle every single day. And so maybe that does play, in a sense, into Ron DeSantis's hands and the implicit case that he is attempting to make against Donald Trump. It's possible. That's my only, you know, I personally don't see it. Like I said, I'm trying to make the best case I can. It's just tough.

I mean, you know, it's at a certain point, you know, with these guys are so delusional. It's like, guys, we ran this whole experiment. Chris Christie, you literally ran in 2016. You got fifth in New Hampshire. You imploded. Your whole shtick, it didn't work. And that's when people were uncertain about Trump. People are even more enthused about Trump today.

You're at a same divided field. Do you think Christie actually thinks he could win? Or you think he's just in there like, I'm going to mess up Trump? I don't think you can ever underestimate the egos on every single one of these people every they are the they all think they're god's gift to the world they really do titanic and you know whenever you have that type of ego you can convince yourself of anything you know being humble is uh one of those where if you are even a little bit compared to the other guy, they're probably going to win, you know, in the long run to get to the point of where they are. They've all had to sacrifice and give up so much, you know, that they all think like, hey, there's a shot and the shot is enough, you know, if you care about power.

So, yeah, that's the way I see it. True. Very true. And then in modern presidential politics, the worst that happens is like you lose, but you get a lot of media attention and then you can go work for CNN or Fox News or whoever, however you position yourself. There's some internal DeSantis polling that they gave to the New York Post that is interesting in a number of ways. Let's put this up on the screen. So they say that DeSantis is gaining on Trump, that he's in a virtual tie in Iowa. This is according to his internal polls. Okay. So first of all, with regard to internal polls, you always got to, this is like the best of the best case scenario for the candidate that is leaking the polls. So keep that in mind to start with. They show if you had in Iowa, a head to head matchup, DeSantis is still losing to Trump, but within the margin of error. They have Trump at 45% support in Iowa and DeSantis at 43% support.

This is an improvement from a previous poll that they say had Trump at 53% and DeSantis at 39% before he entered the race. This is clearly an attempt from the DeSantis camp to regain some kind of momentum, some kind of media narrative after most of the polls showed his launch resulted in no poll gains for him, which is a real, you know, that's a real problem for him. But the problem is that it's not going to be a head to head race in Iowa. So this very same poll, when you open it up and you include the full cavalcade of candidates who are actually running in the race, you still have Trump winning. You've got Trump at 39%

support, DeSantis at 29%, Tim Scott at 7%, Nikki Haley at 6%, Pence and Ramaswamy at 4%, and nobody else cracking 1%. So even in the best case scenario, internal poll from the DeSantis campaign that they're putting out to the press in the state where he is probably performing the best, even with all of those factors still going his way, you still have Trump on top by 10 points. Yep. There you go. That's the ultimate Gordian knot, as we will continue to describe it. Yes. I will say, I'm again trying to make the other side of the case this show, but DeSantis did get handed one positive piece of news, which is that the governor of New Hampshire, Chris DeNunno, is taking a pass. He is not running. And that's important for DeSantis

because New Hampshire is obviously a very critical. And that's important for DeSantis because New Hampshire is obviously a very critical early state as well, where DeSantis also needs to win. Chris Sununu nationally may not be all that well known, but in the state of New Hampshire, he has very high approval ratings. I think I consistently see him rated as one of the most popular governors in the country, even though New Hampshire, you know, at best is a swing state, is really more sort of leaning towards the blue. a Republican governor. He's very popular there. So he would have probably done pretty well in that primary. That would have been a problem for DeSantis. So he did get that piece of good news. But we got to bring, you know,

the real big breaking news. We're sort of bearing the lead here for all of the Doug Bergen bros that are out there, which is that the governor of North Dakota, whose name is Doug Bergen, he has officially jumped into the race as well. Let's take a listen to a little bit of his pitch to the voters. My dad died when I was 14, freshman year of high school. They pulled me off our basketball team bus and told me the news. I grew up in a tiny town in North Dakota. Woke was what you did at 5 a.m. to start the day. A place where neighbors rally around you.

My mom was our rock, our hero. I started a shoeshine business, worked at the grain elevator, and as a chimney sweep. Paid my way through college, then earned an MBA from Stanford. I ignored those who said North Dakota was too small, too cold, and too remote to build a world-class software company. So I literally bet the farm to help build a tiny startup into a billion-dollar

company with customers in 132 countries. So this guy also trying to do the like Reagan throwback pitch. And I will say he does have one thing going for him. I asked my 15-year-old what her take was on this video, and she said that he looks like a patriotic eagle and that that seems like a good thing in terms of presidential candidate, that he looks the role. So he does have that going for him. But this is another one where it's like, where does your confidence come from? Because no one knows who you are, right? Yes, you're governor of a state.

It's a state with a very small population. And word of your doings there haven a state with a very small population. And word of your doings there haven't really escaped the North Dakota corridor. But I think not only is he a governor, which certainly seems to feed these people's egos, but he's also a wealthy tech executive. And a lot of times these business guys think like, oh, well, if I could start a company, I can do absolutely anything. Let's go to the last element in here, A6, and put up on the screen. One question that I think a lot of Republican primary voters are probably going to have for him is there was a big controversy within North Dakota about his dealings with regard to Bill Gates. So go ahead and put this

tear sheet up on the screen. So they say this North Dakota farmland purchase is stirring a lot of emotion. The sale of a couple thousand acres of prime North Dakota farmland to a group tied to Bill Gates has stirred emotions over a depressionary law meant to protect family farms and raise questions about whether the billionaire shares the state's values. They go on to talk about how Gates is considered the largest private owner of farmland in the country with some 269,000 acres across dozens of states, which is something we've talked about here on the show as well. And Sabra, the rub comes in because Burgum is a former Microsoft executive. He received campaign contributions from Bill Gates. So he has direct ties to Gates and then allows this massive farmland sale to go

through. And North Dakotans are very uncomfortable with this. Obviously, the Republican base, not a big lover of Bill Gates at this point. So I think there will probably be some questions about these dealings in terms of his prospects in the race. They should be. And, you know, where does this confidence come from? I looked it up. It's worth one point five billion dollars. So, you know, again, you can never underestimate the egos on some of these people. I made a billion, so that means I can do this. And it's like, well, you know, sometimes those skills are not linked.

And the sale of this farmland is no joke. We're talking about thousands of prime North Dakota farmland that was given to this Gates-aligned group and helping him become one of the largest private owners of farmland in the entire country, entire question, but like, what do you want that for? He's been tied, you know, previously to like the whole meatless agenda and like, what does he want? Why is he controlling all of this? He's got enough money. Um, the agricultural commissioner and others

said that people were in North Dakota were very upset by this because they felt like they were being exploited by out of state, you know, the ultra rich who are acquiring these very precious assets. And he's somebody who is intimately and deeply linked to it. So if I was him, I would want to keep my head down amongst Republican voters being some, you know, tech billionaire with ties to Bill Gates and direct like at least shady, you know, sales of land. But again, you can never underestimate just how titanic the ego is for these people.

I think that is right. So anyway, that's all your, your Bergen bro news. That's what we got for you. We'll see if the launch, you know, gives him a big bump in the polls from the 0% he's at to maybe like 1% as people learn about him. But that's what we got for you on the 2024 watch.

Okay, let's go to the PGA. So I don't golf. I've been to the driving range twice. But, you know, obviously we've covered PGA, live golf, and everything that's been happening there now for quite some time here, especially the hypocrisy of so many of the players and others who say that they want to stand up. You know, they're American, all the hypocrisy of so many of the players and others who say that

they are going to stand up, you know, they're American, all America, all of that. And they're willing to take millions of dollars from the Saudis. One of those individuals, uh, Bryson. Okay. I want to make sure I say this correct. The golf guys are otherwise we'll get mad. You can check me Bryson day Shambo. Did I say that correctly? Yeah. So Bryson D Shambo star golfer star golfer attached to the Live Golf, I guess, tour, took a huge payout from them. Appeared recently on CNN after the announcement of the PGA and Live Golf potential merger. He was asked about Saudi Arabia and its ties to 9-11 and specifically the criticism of 9-11 families. And his response is everything as to how people can get completely bought off and start talking in circles and just sound like complete idiots.

Here's what he had to say. Well, I think we'll never be able to repay the families back for what exactly happened just over 20 years ago. And what happened was definitely horrible. And I think as time has gone on, 20 years has passed, and we're in a place now where it's time to start trying to work together to make things better together as a whole. I have deep sympathy. I don't know exactly what they're feeling. I can't ever know what they feel, but I have a huge amount of respect for their position and what they believe, nor do I ever want anything like that to ever occur again. I think as we move forward from that, we've got to look towards the pathway to peace, especially in forgiveness, especially if we're trying to mend the world and make it a better

place. Yeah, I mean, look, it's unfortunate what has happened, and that's something I cannot necessarily speak on as I'm a golfer, but what I can say is that what they're trying to do, what they're trying to work on is to be better allies because we are allies with them. And look, I'm not going to get into politics of it. I'm not specialized in that. But what I can say is they are trying to do good for the world and showcase themselves in a light that hasn't been seen in a while. And nobody's perfect, but we're all trying to improve in life. Nobody's perfect. We're all trying to improve in life. We got to find the path to forgiveness for helping support the murder

of 3,000 American citizens on 9-11. How did these, listen, just say they paid me a ton of money. I'm not going to sit here and talk about 9-11. That's it, just say it. Exactly. Yeah, see, that's the thing that drives me crazy is that

there is no justification for this, right? They asked him about, uh, Caitlin Collins there asked him about nine 11 also asked him about Jamal Khashoggi, you know, the brutal dismemberment of, by the way, a Washington post journalist. I think that was the answer when he gave like, yeah, nobody's perfect. Like, dude, there is no justifying it. Just be honest. It irritates me so much when they pretend to have all these high-minded values like, oh, we really want to grow the game and make it a global sport. And they really have these high-minded ideals about like expanding the, no, they want to use you to sports, wash their reputation and you want the money. You want your bag. Okay. It would be a lot

less gross. If you were just honest about what is clearly the nature of your dealings here. Now, as you know, Sagar, I've become an accidental, like golf expert because of Kyle. Um, he tells me that Bryson is kind of an odd dude, even with regards to like his game is unusual. He was one of the, he's one of the sort of earliest, most aggressive live golf sellouts. And I would also recommend to live golf. Like this guy is not doing you any favors. Clearly he's incapable of doing the spin that you need him to do. You should definitely not encourage him to do these sorts of appearances because he's not helping out live golf. He's not helping out the PGA. It's just creating even more embarrassment and making manifest and making even more plain

the insane hypocrisy here, especially listen on the PGA side with Monahan. It's unbelievable because he was willing to use these-11 families back when he was at war with Liv to say, look at, you know, the human rights atrocities and no PGA golfer has ever had to apologize for their association. And then just discards them and makes clear that he actually had no human rights concerns. It was just all about the money all along. And it's so gross to see the whole thing unfold. Yeah, Bryson, Bryson, uh, DeChambeau got 125 million. He should just say, listen, this is an opportunity to accumulate generational wealth for me and my family. And I'm not going to pass up on that. I understand that

some people are upset, but if you were in a similar position, I bet you would do the same thing. Guess what? You should have just said that. Uh, and I think a lot of people would have been like, okay, yeah, you know what I get, I get where the guy's coming from. It's the government's job to keep Saudi Arabia out. If they're going to be in, well, no, don't hate the player, hate the game. Let's move to the next part, as you alluded to, with the PGA commissioner. And the way that these guys have twisted themselves into knots, Jay Monahan, around 9-11, is they used these people, as you said. They literally used the 9-11 families as props. They held them up in their criticism of Live Golf. They said no PGA players ever had to apologize. They alluded to the immorality of Live Golf beforehand and before they announced their surprise potential merger between the PGA

and Live, also going for profit, again, showing that it is all about the money. And what I want people to understand is we're not exaggerating when we say that they use them. They said it multiple times on camera when they were at war with Live Golf. Here's what Monaghan had to say. Well, I talked to players. I've talked at a player meeting and I've talked to a number of players individually for a long period of time. And I think you'd have to be living under a rock to not know that there are significant implications. And as it relates to the families of 9-11, I have two families that are close to me that lost loved ones. And so my heart goes out to them. And I would ask, you know, any player that has left or any player that would ever consider leaving,

have you ever had to apologize for being a member of the PGA Tour? Okay, so that's what he had to say then. That was his original criticism of golf. Which, by the way, okay, so that's what he had to say then. That was his original criticism of golf. Which, by the way, okay, he got people close to him who lost people on 9-11. So immediately after the merger, he goes on the Golf Channel where they ask him, like, hey, what about these 9-11 families who are pissed off? Look at him now. Look how much he's changed his tune. Jay, the 9-11 Families United made a strong statement yesterday. They said you co-opted the 9-11 community in taking a moral stance against Liv.

How would you respond to that group? I read Terry's comments. I, you know, obviously acknowledge her loss and completely understand her position. And to the question that you were just asking, you know, I wish I think about the fact that I allowed confidentiality to prevail here and in allowing confidentiality to prevail. I did not communicate to very important constituents, including the families of 9-11. And I regret that. I really do. But as we sit here today, you know, I think it's important to, you know, to reiterate that I feel like the move that we've made and how we move forward is in the best interest of our sport. We've eliminated those fractures. But for any difficulties I've caused

on that front, again, I have to own that as well. And that comes back to communication. Just tell the truth. Don't just say, listen, it was about the money. They paid me a ton of money. We're all going to get filthy, fantastically rich. There was no way to outspend them. And I apologize. Or maybe don't even say that and be like, I have nothing to apologize for. I did what was in the best interest of myself and of the players monetarily. But because that is such a disgusting and immoral thing, he can't find a way to actually tell the truth. He just obfuscates and goes around like, well, understanding, and I have empathy. But it's like, what are we doing here?

This is just all so gross. Right. And what it shows you is, you know, these guys who are high level sports executives and running major sports leagues, part of how they get in that position is by being very effective spin masters. So when even someone like him cannot do anything other than stumble and bumble around and fumble over his words and offer ultimately zero justification, it tells you what a grotesque hypocritical place they've gotten themselves into. Because part of the issue for him, Sager is he can't now go and say, well, we just couldn't beat him, so we'll join him. And there's a lot of money at stake,

so that's what we're doing. Because he tried to take the moral high ground so aggressively when this was all unfolding and when it was to his benefit. So for him, it's an impossible position. There really is no going back. And I you know, I have no insight into like the internal politics of how this all works, but I wonder if he's going to be able to hold onto this position because, and we're going to get to this in a minute, but if you're one of the players that didn't take the bag that got offered hundreds of millions of dollars, and you actually believed in the principles and you thought that Monaghan was sincere in his sort of like virtuous stand against just taking this money from this,

you know, authoritarian human rights abusing regime. And you said no to that. And now the guys who did sell out, who did take the bag, like they're laughing all the way to the bank and, you know, ultimately like winning this whole exchange. I don't know how you, I don't know how you get over that. I really don't. I'm a hundred percent with you. One thing that has given me some hope is the, I would call it bro media, the sports guys, they are livid with him, with Moynihan. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Dave Portnoy put this out, a quote, again, I don't know how Jay Moynihan sleeps at night. He co-opted 9-11 victims for the moral high ground. He clearly didn't give a shit about them. He's just using their pain as a marketing

tactic. Special type of hell for guys like that. Clay Travis over at Outkick also came out, you know, just savaging the PGA commissioner. And I think that is what, you know, really grinds a lot of people is that you use these people literally as pawns, as props for your business dealings. And for somebody like that, yeah, you should burn, you should absolutely burn in hell. And, you know, for exact, for example, as you alluded to, let's put this up there, you know, Tiger Woods turned down between 700 to 800 million dollars to play for live golf. Now, we don't exactly know why exactly he decided to do so, but it's very possible that one of the reasons that he did so was not only out of, you know, loyalty or whatever to the PGA where he started his career. But, you know, Tiger is an American

icon and has one of the most famous. He's probably one of the most famous athletes in American history. And, you know, you can't say that the Saudi connection didn't have at least some sway, maybe in his decision not to do so, you know, from an overall branding perspective. And by the way, look, it's not like the guy, you know, it's not like the guy wasn't, you know, he's on his second act. Like he's lost a lot of his blue chip sponsors and all that. Obviously he's got a turmoil, um, in his personal life. So he would be within his rights to secure another bag for his family

and just say, look, you know, this is it. I'm going to die. I'm multi-billionaire. Um, this is my last chance is guaranteed cash. And he decided not to do it. And, you know, he turned that down at least somewhat of the decision, hopefully, was about principles. So how can they look them in the eyes? How can they look any of the PGA players that turned down massive offers in the eyes? Because now they missed out on a generational payout, and they might end up working for the same boss. That is just not right. You're forcing all of these guys to get in bed with this dirty money. And at least if they were going to sell out, they could have sold out for

the much higher price that they were being offered up front. So, um, yeah, I mean, Tiger, obviously already very wealthy man, you know, but even for someone who's already very wealthy, 700 to 800 million dollars is a whole lot of freaking money that he turned down, you know, to stay loyal to the PGA tour. You know, there's one more piece of this that we wanted to make sure to note. And our friend and partner, Matt Stoller, has certainly been highlighting, which is that there are questions about how this deal is structured and whether it is going to survive antitrust scrutiny. Put this last part up on the screen. This was a report from Bloomberg. They say that this marriage risks scrutiny from antitrust authorities, both here and also in Europe, because there's a European PGA tour that is involved in this

transaction as well. One of the things, Sagar, that's interesting is they've gone out of their way not to actually call it a merger. They also note in this report they didn't even consult with an antitrust lawyer, which seems kind of foolish, if we're being honest. And you also have a lot of Democratic senators and other representatives who are already saying they've got a problem with this and they've got a problem with it from an antitrust perspective. We know that the Biden administration and with Lena Kahn involved and other, you know, trust busting type regulators have taken have been much more skeptical of major mergers and have pursued legal action in a much more aggressive way than past administrations in recent memory. So there is still an open

question of whether this thing, at least in its current form, even ultimately goes through. Right. Yeah, we want to make sure we flag that. There's no guarantee that this actually goes through at all. But regardless, the 9-11 families were betrayed, and so were many of the players. I hope that they revolt, at least in some way. I don't know what recourse that they have, but they've got to have something somewhere. And yeah, I hope they get rid of it. I know there was some talk of maybe the players will form a union now and have more power in any of these future negotiations. So we'll see where it goes. Okay, now let's go to the next part here. I have been salivating to get to this. Michael

Schellenberger over at his newsletter, publishing an absolutely shocking new report. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Quote, US has 12 or more alien spacecraft, according to military and intelligence contractors. So Michael is reporting this after Dave Grush came forward to give us the broad contours of the program. He said the United States government is lying to the American people. There are multiple alien spacecraft which are in the possession of the United States government, of which they have covered up now for decades and which they have obfuscated from Congress. Crimes themselves have been committed. Here is why this is very important. Michael writes, quote,

multiple sources close to the matter have come forward to tell public that Grush's core claims are accurate. The individuals are all either high-ranking intelligence officials, former intelligence officials, or individuals that we could verify were involved in the U.S. government,

UAP, aka UFO, efforts for three or more decades each. Two of them have even testified as recently as last year to both the committee investigating this inside the Pentagon and to the United States Congress. The individual says they have been presented with credible and verifiable evidence. The U.S. government and U.S. military contractors possess at least 12 or more alien spacecraft, some of which have been shared with the Pentagon office

responsible for testifying before Congress and which they have refused to currently provide. Now, this is very important. They are putting a number, 12 or more. That is either true or it's not true. That's something that Congress can look into and tell us whether this claim is accurate or it's not accurate. The more specific that these things get, the more it becomes difficult for them to deny or not. This also comes on the heels of a statement, actually, from the Pentagon directly refuting this claim. Let's go ahead, guys, and put the Fox News tear sheet here up on the screen, because after Dave Grush came forward, the Pentagon released a very lengthy statement. Susan Goh, who UFO people will be familiar with, said directly, there is, quote, no verifiable information to substantiate the claims. She says, quote,

to date, Arrow, this office, has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate the claims. She says, quote, to date, Arrow, this office, has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession of reverse engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently. She also said that they welcome the opportunity to speak with any former or current government employee or contractor who believes they have information relevant to the historical review. Now, the reason why I think this is important is there was the one caveat word in there, verifiable. And the reason why is because verifiable is one where as long as there is plausible deniability, at least somewhere baked into the documents, they can come forward and

say there's no verifiable information that this program has existed or whatever in the past, as long as it's even 1% in their dispute. There are always holes in these words and in their denials that have come forward around this office that they say they haven't been presented to. But also, there's a formal presentation process. They can say that it wasn't done in the right way. There are all many different holes that they can jump their way through, Crystal. So I think if you pair a couple of things together, Dave Grush is obviously an incredibly highly credible person. Rush is grilled. He's asked very specific and difficult questions. He handles them well. People who knew him while he was in the office have come forward to testify. This is not a crank. This is a real person. You need to take what he's saying very seriously. On top of that, we have this new report from Michael Schellenberger making things even more specific,

saying multiple intelligence former contractors coming forward, talking to them, talking to him about what has inside of this office. And we continue to see the Pentagon. They're not budging at all. And look, someone is lying. Either Grush is lying and the sources to Michael Schellenberger are lying or the Pentagon is lying. And I'll let people make up their minds. So what do you make of this, this new breaking material from Michael Schellenberger, Crystal? I mean, I'm trying as hard as I can to keep my skeptic hat on because I think it's important to do that. And it's becoming very difficult. It's becoming very difficult because, okay, it's one thing if it's just, if it's just one guy, right? That's one

thing. You can dismiss him. Oh, sure. You know, his colleague said that he was upstanding. But you never know. People can like lose their marbles and you can or indulge some sort of fantasy or whatever. Like you could potentially dismiss one person and the U.S. government could potentially dismiss one person. Lord knows, I'm sure they're in the process of digging up every, you know, rent bill that was laid or time he didn't mow the lawn or whatever they can find on this man. Right. So one person is one thing when you start to have other people who say, yeah, he's right. I, you know, saw evidence of the exact same thing. And when you start to get

this level of specificity, I don't know, it becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss, especially given some of the things that we're about to show you new reports coming out, you know, as we speak. And just, you know, the number of to rule in that this is extraterrestrial, but they haven't been able to rule it out either or explain what these objects specifically are. So I think the job of the skeptic is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain over time. And listen to the level of specificity

that they gave Michael. Quote, every five years, we get one or two recovered for one reason or another from either a landing or that we catch or that they just crash. A different contractor says, quote, every five years we get one or two recovered for one reason or another from either a landing or that we catch or that they just crash. A different contractor says, quote, there were at least four morphologies, different structures, six were in good shape, six were not good shape. They were cases where the craft landed. The occupants left the craft unoccupied. There have been high level people, including generals who have placed their hand on the craft. I have no reason to disbelieve them. One source described having

seen three kinds of craft, including one shaped like a triangle. Hmm. I wonder where I've seen that one before. Another that quote looked up like a chopped up helicopter with the front bubble of a Huey with the plastic windows or like a deep sea submarine with a thick piece of glass bubble shaped and where the tail rudder should have been. It was black, egg-shaped pancake, and instead of landing gear, it had upside-down ram's horns that went from the top to the bottom and rested on the ends of the horns.

Wow. I mean, look, this person is either schizophrenic or they're telling the truth. And it's one of those where, I don't know. I don't know. I mean, the most common, again, let's play the skeptic hat. It could be that Dave Grush and all of these other people are delusional, are literally psychotic. And I think anybody who has ever who has ever interacted with someone who generally has mental illness,

Crystal, a lot of them send us emails about things that we just have to report on. It's possible they believe it. It's one of those where, you know, you can look in their eyes and you're like, yeah, you, you believe what you are saying. It doesn't mean that it's true, but this is such a credible person, evidence coming forward with their resume. I mean, just listen to the level of specificity that I just gave everyone. And the problem is, is that for people, you know, the radar just has to go up of like, come on, you know, this is so fantastical. And, you know, look, I agree.

And I was that way for a long time. But, you know, so many of these people are so credible. People like Commander David Fravor, people like Ryan Graves, who we've had here on the show. I mean, you really want to tell me that they're crazy? I just don't believe you. And this is where, you know, the human instinct has to come into play. And then we also have to combine all of the knowledge that we have outside of the UFO issue about the way the Pentagon lies,

they obfuscate, you know, obfuscate information. They withhold things from the American public for decades, like the Pentagon Papers, like Afghanistan, you know, Afghanistan, Vietnam. There's no reason to believe that on a highly secret topic like UFOs, something that would literally shatter the earth if something came forward, you know, in terms of our understanding of consciousness of human nature, that yeah, they could pull it off and they absolutely would lie to us. So I don't know, you know, I continue, I try my best to play skeptic, but I don't see the holes in the way that a lot of other people do. The part that's the hardest, maybe, well, I mean, just the whole idea is pretty hard to wrap your head around. But in terms of our knowledge of our government, how our government operates,

et cetera, we know certainly they will lie to you every day of the week and not think twice about it and typically do lie to us every day of the week and not think twice about it. But we also know that there's an operating level of incompetence. And that's the piece that, you know, does keep me somewhat skeptical because what they're positing here is a multi-decade, multi-generational cover up, not only from our own government, but in concert with other governments around the world, again, over decades and decades. Would they really be able to orchestrate that? Would they really be able to keep everybody silent? Would they really be able to keep all of this hidden, all of these 12-plus craft that they have, and those are just the ones in U.S. government possession, who knows what, you know, Russia, the former Soviet Union, or Brazil, or whoever else, whatever they've been

able to get their hands on. That's the part where I'm like, it's just hard for me to imagine that they would be able to so effectively keep this all under wraps for all of these years. So that's the part that I always get tripped up on is that it's hard for me to believe that they could really effectively do that over all of this time. Again, you know, I agree. And then, you know, I point back to Charlie Manson point back or think about this. If you want an international conspiracy enigma, the enigma program from Alan, the Alan Turing cracked the Nazi code. They didn't reveal that they had cracked that till the 1973 or something like that, the decades after they had done so.

And that was literally an international conspiracy spanning multiple different governments, and a lot of people worked on it and knew that it existed and never came out till the 1970s. There's a lot of stuff like that where, look, if you do it the right way, you can keep it a secret.

I mean, we spent $10 dollars or whatever on the Manhattan program. It didn't leak until we dropped the bomb. So it's not like things can't be done. It just takes a high level of sophistication, the right people in charge. And, you know, maybe they can't do it at a huge government wide scale. Maybe they were able to do it on a UFO wide scale. In other words, Transformers was a documentary. It's a joke.

All right. Let's go to the next part here. UFO wide scale. In other words, transformers was a documentary. This is, it's a joke. Uh, all right, let's go to, uh, the next part here. This is this again, I keep getting pulled in. This one is stunning.

We have a shocking nine one, one call made by Las Vegas residents about a craft and alien beings that apparently landed in their vicinity. And once again, don't keep keep my reminder. Some people are crazy. Some people are psychotic. But you have body camera footage of a police officer in the Las Vegas area who actually sees something up in the sky that lit light up and actually coming down. And then you also see the police officer go and verify this information with some of the people who called in the 911 and said that

they had seen something. And I'm going to let you all judge this for yourself. We've got the clip here from local news from Las Vegas media around what happened. Let's take a listen. I swear to God, this is not a joke. This is actually, we just get terrified. So there's two people or two subjects that are in your backyard. around what happened. Let's take a listen. I swear to God, this is not a joke. This is actually, we just get terrified of it. So there's two people or two subjects that are in your backyard? Correct. And they're very large. They're like eight foot, nine feet, ten foot. I don't know. They look like aliens to us. Big eyes. They have big eyes. Like I can't explain it. And big mouth. They're tiny eyes and they're not human. They're 100% not human.

Okay. Well, the A-News now investigators obtaining video as officers then responded to the call you just heard. You'll see the officers also saw something in the sky that night. But the big question is, what was it? And is it all connected? It's almost midnight on May 1st when a Las Vegas Metro Police officer's body cam catches this. Something flashing low in the sky. Minutes later. Someone calls 911 reporting two large figures in their backyard.

The 8 News Now investigator is obtaining another officer's video as he's sent to the Northwest Valley home. I have butterflies, bro. I've only thought of shooting stars, and these people say there's aliens in their backyard. By now, it's more than an hour after that bright light, officers meeting up with the caller and his family. What'd you see? It was like a big creature. A big creature? Yeah, like a little tiny dog.

I'm not going to BS you guys. One of my partners said they saw something fall out of the sky, too, so that's why I'm kind of curious. Did you see anything land in your backyard? They see like a big, that's what they say. they see like a big, like a big something like. But I saw right now, I do believe in it. Police walk into the backyard to investigate, but Metro blacked out that part of the video because it's considered private property. What's clear, they're taking this call seriously. Hey, this might sound like a really dumb question, but did you guys see anything fall out of the sky? Asking others what they saw.

I would normally discounted as nothing. However, seeing as one of my partners said they saw it too, only reason I'm actually investigating it further. That investigation turning up no concrete answers as of Wednesday, whatever or whoever fell into that yard long gone within minutes. Okay, Crystal, once again, you know, look, maybe all these people are crazy. Maybe it's a highly secret government black program from Area 51. But let's combine it with all the other UFO lore that we know.

Obviously, Area 51 is nearby. Bob Lazar himself, you know, he's somebody who was in the area who allegedly at the or sorry. Sorry. Yeah. Allegedly, you know, saw some of these craft and tests and all these other things that were being flown in and thrown about there. It's a long part of UFO lore, this area of the country. Or it's a highly secret government black program. But what gets me is the level of seriousness with which this family is describing this incident. And also the fact that the Las Vegas PD kind of blacked out, you know, whatever they did see there in the backyard. So I don't know. What did you make of this one?

I mean, what can you make of it? Like the only thing you could maybe it's like an elaborate hoax and we're just being totally taken in by it. Right. Between these cops and the local family. I don't know. That's the only explanation I can come up with. That isn't just what they claim that it is on its face. So that's a weird one. That's a hard one to dismiss.

And, you know, you've really brought me into this world. And the more that I see these, like what happened in Varginha, Brazil, and all of this Varginha, all these corroborating accounts and all these just regular people, like not

weirdos who are obsessed with UFOs not that you have to be a weirdo to be obsessed with UFOs, no offense UFO community but these aren't cranks, they're normal people who didn't even want to talk about what had happened, had to be like dragged to it and then their stories all line up and you know, you see this one and it's the

same thing, you've got it, you're literally seeing the body cam footage of something happening. And then in the same area, family being like, there's these nine foot tall things in my backyard. I don't know what to do. I don't know, Thogger. I don't know. Don't know either. Yeah, look, they could all be nuts. It could be a hoax. They could completely mistaken could be an animal could be you know burglars the mind wants to think linearly the mind wants to think yeah you know in terms of what easily it's fit into and most of the time that is true but some things are fantastical and actually do happen and have happened you know in the past and you know at a certain point you gotta you gotta take people also at their word you You got to disprove and you got to or at least you got to prove and rule out all

those other explanations. And clearly L.A. or Las Vegas PD, LBPD or whatever they're called. They also were very struck by what was happening there. And enough so that the community there is clearly, you know, they think that something happened. So maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Every once in a while, these things come across our radar. Like the pilots, you know, the 787 pilots, 737 pilots, it's like, man, there's something crazy going on up here. And then the audio gets leaked

and everyone's like, oh my gosh. And then everyone moves on. So look, you know, maybe we'll find out. Can I ask you? You probably thought this through. Like, let's say it's all true. Crafts, investigations,

you know, the sighting in Las Vegas, whatever. Let's say it's all true. Crafts, investigations, you know, the sighting in Las Vegas, whatever. Let's say it's all true. Like, what does that mean? Like, what happens then? I don't know. Yeah, I mean, I just, I haven't gotten there yet. Because I actually think too many people focus on that. And, you know, like, what is it?

I have, there's no way to predict, you know, some people predict like a great coming together. I actually don't believe that. I believe too little of humanity. Um, I think, I think, um, it will obviously a lot of people won't believe it. Um, some people, it would just have to be so ironclad the way that it comes through. Again, I honestly have not spent too much time thinking about that because I'm just so focused on whether it's true or not, and actually getting that information out. And I just think that humanity is too complex of a system to actually predict. I've read enough sci-fi to see it go multiple different ways. My personal favorite, if anybody wants to know, is The Three-Body Problem, the book out of China, which to me, that one actually kind of nailed the way that I think

some of this might all go down. But who knows? We absolutely have no idea. Yeah, because you have people, obviously, there's a lot of people who already believe, who already feel like we have enough evidence to say, like, this is happening. It's an ongoing reality. You have a lot of people who, even if the government was like, all right, you got us, like, here's the craft. Let me put it on TV. they'd still be like no no way not possible so um yeah wild times wild times it does literally feel like we're living in a simulation sometimes it's hard to wrap your head around especially when you look outside and the sun is like blotted out and it looks like we're literally living on Mars. So possible.

All right. Let's talk about a very depressing and very human earthly story here about the social network, Instagram, and a new report about the way that they have made it very easy and enabled a massive ring of pedophiles to seek out, you know, horrible child pornography on their service. Go ahead and put this up on the screen. This is from the Wall Street Journal. Their headline is Instagram connects vast pedophile network. Let me read you a little bit of this. They say Instagram, the popular social media site owned by Meta Platforms, helps connect and promote a vast network of accounts openly devoted to the commission and purchase of underage sex content for an investigation by the Wall Street Journal and researchers at Stanford University and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. So this is hardly some crank conspiracy. This was serious

research and test accounts were set up. Researchers found that if they viewed a single account in this pedophile network, they were immediately hit with suggested for you recommendations of purported child sex content sellers and buyers, as well as accounts linking to off-platform content trading sites. Following just a handful of these recommendations was enough to flood a test account with content that sexualized children. The Stanford Internet Observatory used hashtags associated with underage sex to find 405 sellers of what researchers labeled self-generated child sex material or accounts purportedly run by children themselves, some saying they were as

young as 12. According to some of the data that was gathered, 112 of those sellers collectively had 22,000 unique followers. Current and former Meta employees estimate the number of accounts that exist primarily to follow such content is in the high hundreds of thousands, if not millions. They used this thinly veiled lingo and emojis. They'd share an image of a map, which is shorthand for minor attracted person. They'd share the cheese pizza emoji, which is, you know, CP, child pornography. Many declare themselves lovers of the little things in life. And what makes this report, I mean, everything about it is just deeply disturbing and grotesque. Obviously, this is a problem that every single social media site has to deal with.

But what they go to great length to point out, Sagar, in this report is that the problem appears to be far worse on Instagram. They were able to search for all of these blatantly horrific hashtags with no problem and turn up all sorts of content just immediately. Then the Instagram algorithm would kick in because it's learning like, oh, this is the kind of content you're after. Well, here's a hundred more accounts that you can go to to find exactly what you want. And after the researchers turned over all of this information to Instagram and they went about taking down a bunch of these accounts and doing what they could to clean it up. Well, they haven't fixed the algorithm. So the minute that the accounts reappear, which they oftentimes do, the algorithm is helping the people who are trying to view this type of

content and purchase this type of content. They're helping them in real time, rebuild out that network by serving them. Okay, well, here's, you lost that account. Here's the new account that's gonna give you exactly what you want. So they have apparently done a horrific job of trying to tamp down on this type of child sex abuse and exploitation. You know what really shocked me was that they have almost, they even say in here,

documents previously reviewed say that they have actually done work like this successfully in the past to try and suppress accounts on elections like the January 6th denialism. So they basically did more work. They can do it when they want to. Yeah.

So they did more on January 6th and preventing like election denialism on Instagram than literally cracking down on child on literal child predators. I don't know. I mean, it's sickening. And the fact that this even exists is gross. Matt Stoller had a joke. It's like, yeah, we have an economy of scale for mass pedophilia. Apparently, you know, congratulations to Instagram. Some of this is probably intrinsic to the Internet. And, you know, sickness is going to breed sickness and people are going to

congregate. But you obviously need to make it as difficult as possible. And also, I will say there's actually good laws on the books specifically around preventing this type of behavior and making sure that social media companies, websites, and others do their absolute best. The fact is, if you can get around calling yourself a seller of this type of repulsive content just by putting a three instead of an E, that's insane. How is it that easy to make it on, uh, on the internet? I mean, that's just absolutely absurd.

So look, I mean, uh, I'm personally a member of the T cap community for anybody who doesn't know what that is as to catch a predator fans of the, to catch a predator, uh, franchise that was back in 2006. And, you know, people were like, Oh, you know, things have gotten better since then. I don't know. I mean, reading stuff like this, maybe it's just gotten way worse and people are better at covering their tracks using the dark web. Um, but it's just, look, the FBI, I hope that you people are all over this. Um, you know, instead of doing, you know, instead of, I don't know, focusing on whatever BS, you know, entrapment schemes around politics and all this other crap, folks, this is your bread and butter, guys. Like,

this is what they exist for, you know? And we have good laws on the books to basically, I mean, to basically make it so that if you can catch even one of these people, especially the sellers, the distributors of the content, they can be locked up for the rest of their lives. And I really think that they should be. It's just sick. Just to give you a sense of how readily available this content was, because that's what was so shocking. It's not like they went to great lengths,

these sickos, to cover their tracks. It was very, like you could search really obvious hashtags and come up with all sorts of disgusting, illegal material, exploitative material, just give you a sense of how sensitive the algorithm is, and how, you know, much it does not discriminate over whether your interests are legal or illegal. A woman who runs a community on Instagram that's dedicated to fighting child sex trafficking and exploitation, she received a tip that there was an account out there called Incest Toddler, which is exactly what you think it is. She went to look it up to verify to then report. And because her account interacted with this account, her followers all start getting recommended incest toddler for their recommendations. That's how sensitive this algorithm is and how much if you express even a passing interest in this type of horrific material, it'll serve you up 100 accounts that say, you know, here, go here, take a look at this.

Here's, you know, where you can go. So now that can be very useful if you it comes to something like this. And they have not cared to do the work to make sure that, you know, this type, these type of searches get shut down, that this type of content gets shut down and continue even after receiving this information in this research. They say that they're working on changes to the algorithm. So this stops happening. But as of today, nothing significant has changed. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. Okay. All right. Let's, let's move on from this just so I don't feel let's move on. I know. Yeah. All right. So, uh, we've got an escalation in the war between Tucker Carlson and his former employer, Fox news. As you guys know, uh, Tucker launched his new show on Twitter, uh, this week with, uh, I roughly a 10-minute monologue. And this is no

surprise, but it is a major development. Put this up on the screen. Fox News has officially informed Tucker that he is in breach of his contract. All of these media contracts come with non-compete clauses, which I think should be illegal. And the Biden administration agrees with us that they should be illegal. Biden and Tucker teaming up on this, the horseshoe no one expected. But let me just read you a little bit of this report. They say on Wednesday, Fox News notified Tucker's lawyers that the former primetime anchor violated his contract with the network when he launched his own Twitter show on Tuesday, according to a copy of a letter obtained by Axios. Carlson's lawyers told Axios any legal action by Fox would violate violate his First Amendment rights. Carlson, Axios reported, has since accused Fox of fraud, has argued Fox breached his contract when its senior executives reneged on promises made to Carlson, quote, intentionally and with reckless disregard for the truth.

Apparently, Sagar, part of the dispute here revolves around how the Dominion settlement ended. So apparently, there are reports, and I think Axios is one of the outlets that reported that as part of the settlement agreement, Tucker, they had a verbal commitment that Fox News would let Tucker go. And that a big part of the reason he was pushed out was because this was a handshake agreement within the Dominion settlement. Now, Carlson apparently had extracted a promise from Fox not to settle with Dominion voting systems, quote, in a way which would indicate wrongdoing on the part of himself. And so he clearly views the fact that these reports came out, the fact that he was let go, allegedly, reportedly, as part of this settlement, as indicating wrongdoing and a breach of the agreements that he had with Fox.

So that seems to be the nub of the disagreement, at least as it's been reported by Axios. A source told Axios Carlson was told by a senior Fox executive the network's goal is to keep him sidelined until 2025. Obviously, they want to keep him out until after the presidential elections. That's their goal. And they also have this note in here, which is kind of gross, that Tucker has been leveraging allies like former NFL quarterback Brett Favre to put pressure on the network to let him out of his contract. Okay.

Yeah, I would say, Tuck, let that one go. Get some better friends. Let's not get Brett Favre involved in this one. Look, on the merits, it's ridiculous. I think this should be 100% illegal, that a company can basically sign you or voice away for your likeness and then basically restrict your free speech rights. That's actually something that he is arguing that his lawyers say that

effectively they're trying to silence him on all of social media and claiming that any of his communications are effectively in some way a threat to Fox and a violation of their agreement. Now, I will also say until these are finally made illegal, let's just not go ahead and sign these deals because inside, you know, they even quote from some of the agreements that they have in here where, quote, pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Carlson's, quote, services shall be completely exclusive to Fox. That's a real issue because that could literally mean anything. And that, Crystal, this is exactly why you and I walk away from mainstream media and from corporate media is because they tried to ensnare you and I exactly in these same

problems where, you know, it's ambiguous. You probably could win in court, but it becomes a total nightmare. And look, by the way, from Fox's perspective, they're not wrong. This is a disaster. The show or his talker on Twitter has one hundred and two point seven million views as of this morning when we're looking at it. And it was just posted two days ago at 6 p.m. Now, of course, you know, Twitter views not necessarily analogous to the same type of view. But, you know, you can't deny that it was seen and was distributed, at least in part, by a ton of people and had organic interest. So at the same time, their prime time is a disaster. They've locked over a million viewers overall. Their key demographic viewers have been a disaster. And if he truly was unchanging,

it would be also a benefit to Twitter, especially if they can improve their overall video product. So I think this is gross that these types of agreements even exist in the first place. I think people should be allowed to speak. And the fact that they can drag him through the mud basically for the next two years in an attempt to try and silence him through 2025, that's insane. Even if you don't like Tucker Carlson, you should not be allowed to do this as a major corporation. Tucker is, as part of his argument, he's claiming Twitter is not a competitor to Fox. I think it's hard to make that case, though.

To me, the stronger case is on the merits of like, these non-competes shouldn't be a thing. Potentially Fox violated some other aspects of his agreement but given the reality of the media landscape today I don't think you can really say that Twitter or Rumble or YouTube or podcasts or whatever are not a competitor to cable news I mean Tucker certainly I thought he sent out like some instructions for his older fans to try to figure out how to find the video on Twitter and how to be able to consume his show. Like he clearly sees the audience as that he's trying to reach as having a lot of overlap with the audience that he was reaching at Fox. And to me, I mean, the fact, listen, I want to take Tucker out of it. Cause you all know, I don't,

I'm not a fan, but to me, the fact that that is the media landscape and that these are all competitive, you know, competitive outlets, one with another, I actually think that's a positive thing. I think it underscores the fact, Sagar, that we've been predicting, which is that cable news is not going to have these big stars anymore, because why would you, why would you, if you have the ability to generate this type of following and audience, why would you subject yourself to these types of onerous contract requirements? And the dude who's going to tell you like to wear the sweater or, you know, all of the nonsense that comes with cable news and an incredibly limiting format.

I mean, the cable news format is so like stultifying and, you know, it's just just by the nature of the way the programming is done. It really limits what you're able to do. Why would you impose that type of top down control on your creativity and on the content that you as a performer want to put out? Like you just it doesn't make sense anymore. Now, if you're someone who's, yeah, if you're someone who's like a company person and you're, you know, sort of like middle tier in terms of you can capably serve the news, but you're never going to be that person that generates a following based on your like charisma or the depth of your knowledge or skill and presentation or whatever. Okay. Then cable news makes sense. You know, this is a stable platform and eyeballs and a paycheck and whatever. And you benefit from whoever's in the chair before you in the hour before and you benefit from this huge cachet in terms that still exists in terms of American culture and what the elites are watching.

Like that's a then that's a proposition that makes sense. But increasingly for top talent, this is just not going to be where they want to be. The other thing I was thinking about, Sagar, is you covered earlier this week, I guess, the Rumble CEO complaining about the way that Twitter community notes are done, which really got me thinking. I mean, the people who really stand to suffer from Tucker and Daily Wire and others launching video on Twitter is Rumble. You know, it's a real it's a real issue for them because they've positioned themselves as this free speech platform for video. And, you know, I don't think Elon Musk has any commitment to free speech. I think that's clearly demonstrated by his actions. But there's clearly an audience that does believe that Twitter has become a free speech platform.

You've already got a huge network, tons of eyeballs there, way more than you have at Rumble, on Rumble at this point. So I think, you know, this is a problem for Fox News. It's a problem for MSNBC and CNN. We've documented that, you know, clearly. But I think it also is an issue for some of the new media platforms that have tried to be the, you know, Twitter and other social media competitors based on free speech principles. We'll see. Here's the reason why I wouldn't bet against Rumble, which is at the end of the day, Rumble is designed for video. And it's like Twitter is just not designed for video. And look, it's certainly possible they could turn it around, but I'm not sure. I can't be the only guy who got annoyed watching a 10

minute monologue on Twitter. You know, it's just not what the platform is designed to do. It doesn't pause properly. You can't come back to where you were. You can't see, you know, the area. If you accidentally scroll out of it, it takes up your whole screen. I mean, there's just so much about it where the functionality itself is not hardwired into the app. Now, can that change? Yes, it certainly can.

How much of that is a priority to Twitter? I don't know. Are they going to be actually investing resources into it? So if I were a rumble, I wouldn't be actually too worried about it because, you know, it's just look, Elon would actually have to dedicate a ton of resources to make it a multifunctional app, given the fact that what it's currently worth, like one third of what he bought it for, you know, and fired the vast majority of the staff. We'll see. That's my only thing. You know, I saw this isn't you know, this isn't just a crap on Matt Walsh or whatever, but they were touting like how many people had watched

their documentary. And I was like, yeah, but do they really watch all of it? Like, is Twitter really the place you want to watch a 45 minute documentary? Like, I just I don't know. And you know what you and I know, Crystal is there's a big difference between a view and retention. And also one of the reasons why YouTube is so great is they don't recommend videos based upon the overall number of views. They recommend videos based on the amount of people actually staying and watching said video called the retention. Uh, and now if anything that actually matters even more than your overall view count. That's what you and I look at, you know, in terms of people actually sitting and watching

our stuff. I don't care that necessarily about the views. We care much more about retention. And also they are, you know, have a real relationship. So that's something that also Twitter and also Rumble has that, too, in terms of its, you know, its recommendations and and what exactly it prioritizes as well there's just a difference between a video platform and then an overall like text-based platform designed to show you as much uh info as possible these are kind of hardwired those are fair points yeah

those are fair points i mean rumble definitely has better uh tech at this point uh you know more intentional like video geared tech but Twitter definitely has more people, um, and more, more visibility. So I think that's kind of, that's kind of the battle, but to your point, you know, take all of these view numbers for what is a woman or for Tucker Sharpe or anything, any of the Twitter video that you posted, take it with a lot of grains of salt because they count as a view if someone just scrolls by the tweet yeah exactly that's not a view in any real sense of the word and we've said this before like in one v post videos the numbers that you see of views that you see generated there

are not really reflective of much of anything meaningful now i don't doubt a lot of people watch that's definitely millions of people watched t Tucker's monologue and his opening show. There's huge interest. There's obviously huge commentary about it, coverage of it, et cetera. But just understand what the numbers actually mean. Yeah, that's smart. Okay, Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, guys, if you live basically anywhere on the East Coast, you already probably know quite a bit about the topic I will be delving into today, which is the absolutely horrific air quality due to wildfires raging in Canada. Just take a look at what New York City looks like this week. You know, if you are anywhere on the East Coast, you have experienced these acrid smells,

stinging eyes, these dystopian hellscape appearing landscapes ahead of you. Here in D.C., we didn't have it quite as bad as they had it in New York City, or I think today, Philadelphia is getting hit the hardest. But still, yesterday, as I was driving into the city, you could look directly at the sun. It's bright orange sky. It just looks so incredibly bizarre. And obviously, there are huge potential health consequences for spending any significant time outside when you have this type of particulate matter in the air, especially for people who have asthma or who have other sensitivities. The air quality was so bad that New York City had the distinction of being the most polluted city, the worst air quality in the entire world in terms of major cities, including topping places that are

famously have poor air quality, like Delhi, where residents can expect to live nine years shorter just because of the persistent impact of this type of air pollution. So as I mentioned before, the cause of this is historic and stunning wildfires across the country of Canada and half of provinces there. Go ahead and put this up on the screen, guys. More than 400 wildfires burning across our neighbors to the north. More than half of those are considered to be out of control. And of course, you know, wildfires this type of year, this time of year, whether it's in Canada or whether it's in California, is nothing unusual. But the size and the scope and the fact that it's all happening simultaneously, that is very unusual. And that's why the East Coast is suffering with this type of

air pollution. While, you know, probably our friends over on the West Coast are saying, welcome to the club, because they've been dealing with this type of persistent air pollution from wildfires for any number of years now. Let's go and put this next piece up on the screen. It's no accident that we're facing this type of cataclysm right now. Canada has been suffering through what they call a hot drought. We read from this Washington Post report. They say persistent and often extreme warmth in the high latitudes is among the clearest signals of climate change. The Arctic and its surroundings have been found to be warming much faster than most

of the planet. So you can see Canada would be disproportionately affected. They say pulse after pulse of record heat has helped fuel the extreme fire situation. You had heat spreading across Nova Scotia again on Thursdays. Thursday temperatures rose to 91 degrees in Halifax. That's more than 18 degrees above average. You had record highs in many eastern cities, including Ottawa at 95 degrees, Montreal at 94 degrees, Toronto at 88 degrees. Those have affected a lot of Canada and parts of the northern U.S. as well. And there's an expectation that these hot temperatures will continue, along with significantly less than usual rainfall, creating just a tinderbox effect where you end up with these

wildfires raging out of control across Canada. So all of these, you cannot tie any particular wildfire to the climate crisis. But when you look at this confluence of factors, you can say for sure the fact that we have had so many wildfires, historic wildfires year after year in California, now year after year in Canada, this is directly attributable to rising temperatures and extreme conditions caused by the climate crisis. And it's already having a huge impact on, obviously, our lives. It's having a huge impact on our economy. I actually highlighted last week that in the state of California,

major insurers are pulling out of the state altogether. Put this next piece up on the screen. Because the impact predominantly of wildfires in California has made it so it does not make any market sense to insure homeowners in much of the state. This is not just a situation unique to California. This is the case in states across the country, including Florida, has a huge issue with this as well due to their own extreme weather crises and repeated hurricanes. Flooding has increased and caused other states sort of in the center of the country to have issues with homeowners insurance. And that's just one aspect of this crisis. Obviously, when extreme weather hits, the cost of people's lives to

upending their dreams, the economic damage, the cost to reconstruct, I mean, all of this has become incalculable. And this is a part of our reality right now. David Wallace Wells, I thought, had a really effective and frankly quite dystopian column that he wrote in the New York Times. Let's put this up on the screen about how this is just the new normal now. He said, as smoke darkens the sky, the future becomes clear. And in many ways, the future is already arrived. There's now nowhere to hide. So even if you live in New York City or if you live in Washington, D.C., or if you live anywhere in the country, you may not have a wildfire next door. But the smoke and the air pollution from what's going on in California or

what's going on in Canada or what's going on in other places could very directly impact your life. And just to keep in mind some statistics about how this is not normal, this is not part of a normal cycle, this is a very unusual and dystopian historic time that we're living through. Every one of California's 15 largest recorded fires has taken place in the past two decades. Six of the seven largest wildfires in California have burned since 2020. David Wallace Wells quotes an author who just wrote a book about this new reality that we're living with with regard to wildfire. And he says, fire isn't going away. We're going to be burning for this entire century. The Alberta fires had only just begun to rage, but he saw the course

of change quite clearly. This is a global shift. It's an epochal shift, and we happen to be alive for it. And Sagar, I think this is- And if you wanna hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints.com. All right, Sagar, what are you looking at? Ryan and Emily did a great job yesterday talking a little bit about what the new news is on the Nord Stream pipeline,

but I wanted to make sure that we fully brought a rundown for everybody. So let's go ahead and put this up there on the Nord Stream pipeline, but I wanted to make sure that we fully brought a rundown for everybody. So let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. A classic and insane reminder from a new report from the Washington Post. To be fair, this is coming from the, quote, Discord leaks that were given to the Washington Post after they gained exclusive access to the original hundreds of files that were leaked by Airman Jack Tahira. Inside of those files was a revelation that the United States had intelligence three months before the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline, which had a detailed Ukrainian plot to blow it up. Three months, as they write, before saboteurs bombed the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline,

the Biden administration learned from a close ally that the Ukrainian military had planned a covert attack on the undersea network using a small team of divers who reported directly to the commander in chief of Ukrainian armed forces. So let's really let all of this sink in and try and understand what it is. There's a couple of possibilities, as I pointed out. Let it sink in that either the Biden administration had knowledge of this plot, allowed it to happen, continued to provide Ukraine with basically a blank check at this time, leading up to the actual bombing of the pipeline, and then turned around and did everything but blame Russia, except in name only. He said, we'll get to the bottom of it.

We had all these leaks from the intelligence community and others saying, oh, clearly it was Russia. All signs point to Russia. Anybody who insinuated that it wasn't Russia was tarred and feathered by the mainstream media. And it was only basically almost a year later that enough intelligence has come out, both from the European countries and others, that it's very obvious that it almost likely was not only not Russia, but very likely either Ukraine or with some help from the United States directly. We had the report also from independent journalist Seymour Hersh. So you can read this really in one of two ways, which is either it was Ukraine and we allowed it to happen, we knew it was going to happen, then we turned around and lied to the American public, or we're the ones who did it and I

guess maybe we're just going to push it off onto Ukraine. Both are terrifying possibilities. If we accept the Ukraine explanation, this is equally terrifying because what they say in the report, according to this intelligence, is that the Ukrainian government actually structured this entire attack on the Nord Stream pipeline such that Zelensky would, quote, have plausible deniability. But they still reported and commanded the attack by the commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, who, of course, we are directly funding, arming, and supporting, not only then, but continue to do so right now. So why should we believe

anything that they tell us? Really let that sink in. And that's the other thing that I took away. If they have been caught now in several lies, they lied about the fact that those two missiles that fell in Poland and killed people were Russian. It immediately came out that actually they were Ukrainian. They've lied about not being involved in the Nord Stream pipeline. They've lied about not being behind the drone attacks on the Kremlin, about multiple different attacks on Russian soil. How can we believe anything that they say? How can we believe anything America has to say either? And don't mistake this. I don't believe anything that the Russians say. That's why we're all in such an impossible situation. Consider what happened here with

the dam. Immediately, the Ukrainians are pointing the finger at the Russians. The Russians are pointing the fingers at the Ukrainians. Both sides actually have reasons for why they would want to blow up the dam and for who actually benefits worth. Who knows? We don't know. There's no actual confirmation. And even if the United States comes out and blames the Russians, you can't believe them because maybe we have intelligence that it was Ukraine that was behind it. And to make this not just past, but forward looking, remember this, we did not want to give F-16s to Ukraine because we had intelligence that we were able to show you here, classified intelligence that Zelensky wants

longer range missiles and planes to bomb Russia. We didn't do it for a long time. Then we reversed course, and Biden's reasoning was, they promised me, they gave me a flat promise, we won't use them to strike Russia. Why should we believe them? They have lied at almost every turn in terms of how offensive weapons will be used. They have pursued actions like bombing the Nord Stream pipeline, the Crimean Bridge and others, which could lead to a huge escalation, which draws the United States in. And obviously it's in their interest in almost every single one of their lies, especially the ones that came forward. Whenever the missiles fell on Poland, they immediately used that lie as a pretext to call for a no-fly zone by the United States and NATO intervention.

And I once again have to say, I understand it. If I were them, I would do the same thing. It's really their only chance at outright victory, because obviously there's no way that they can overpower them completely, the Russians, with just even the current amount of military support that is given to them. It just needs to have all of us ask real questions about our government, about the support that we're giving, and about what the actual tradeoffs are. It's not costless to just give Ukraine a blank check, to give them F-16s. And perhaps one day we may have to pay that bill. And you need to ask, is the bill worth it? It can seem callous whenever you're talking about human beings who are fighting for their own country.

But not every cause is worth American bloodshed. And you need to have some real cost-benefit analysis as to what exactly the U.S. is getting out of this. And it's becoming clearer and clearer and clearer to me that the cost far outweighs any sort of benefit that might come, both from a moral level, but also from a pure real politic level. So I don't know, Crystal, what did you make of this intelligence? And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagar's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Okay, guys, thank you so much for watching.

We're really excited. We're going to wrap this. We're going right to the studio. We're going to tape our big studio reveal. It's not too late to become a premium members to go ahead and sign up and to see the new reveal. So it's breaking points.com. We love you guys.

We'll be on call over the weekend. We'll have someone on our team in case Trump gets indicted. And otherwise we're very excited for the big public reveal on Monday. That's right. We will see you Monday from the new studio. I hope you guys love it as much as we do. And I'm super, super excited about that. Till then, enjoy your weekend and we'll see you soon. 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. Stay informed, empowered, and ahead of the curve with the BIN News This Hour podcast. Updated hourly to bring you the latest stories shaping the black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones, the Black Information Network delivers the facts, the voices, and the perspectives that matter 24-7. Because our stories deserve to be heard. Listen to the BIN News This Hour podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The one thing that can't stop you or take away from you is knowledge. So whatever I went through while I was down in prison for two years, through that process, learn.

Learn from me. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. This is an iHeart Podcast.