Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/2/24: SCOTUS Gives Trump Immunity, Gov Agencies Cut By SCOTUS, Biden Polling Collapse, Dem Knives Out For Biden After Debate

Episode Date: July 2, 2024

Saagar discusses MAGA lawyer vs Liberal on Trump immunity, SCOTUS guts government agencies, Biden polling collapse after debate, key Dems knives out for Biden, Dem elites shutdown Biden replacement talk.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.com/   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? and subscribe today. his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up, they could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the years of making my true crime podcast

Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case.

If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, guys. Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday.

We have an amazing show for everybody today. Another solo show, but I got plenty of guests. So don't worry. You don't just have to stare at my ugly mug. We're starting a little bit late today, as I said yesterday, to accommodate RFK Jr. We're going to have an exclusive interview here and get his reaction to the debate. Very interested in that. We are going to start off with an amazing debate between Bradley Moss and Will Chamberlain. They're both lawyers and experts opposing views on the Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity. I will then break down some of the latest news regarding

Joe Biden, his debate performance, the Democratic establishment and their reactions. We're also going to talk about Boeing getting criminally charged with fraud and what the fallout from that will be. So it's going to be a fantastic show. Thank you to everybody, premium subscribers who have been supporting us at breakingpoints.com, expanding our coverage. Don't forget, we are going to be down on the ground in Chicago at the DNC. So if you want to help support our work for that, as you said, become a premium subscriber and get all of those benefits. But with that, I've got two great guests standing by. Let's go ahead and bring them in. We've got Bradley Moss. He's a national security lawyer. And we've got Will Chamberlain. Both of these gentlemen have appeared on the show before. Will is the senior counsel at

the Article 3 Project. And we're very excited to be joined by both of you because there's been a lot of discussion here about this Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity. I'm going to go ahead and put this up there on the screen and read a little bit from this, and I want to get both of your reactions. So the Supreme Court has ruled that the ex-presidents have, quote, broad immunity, but the broad immunity applies only to so-called official acts. The secondary effect of this is going to dramatically decrease the chance of a pre-election Donald Trump trial. Let's go to the next slide, please, so I can read a little bit from the decision itself. The decision maintains that from the conservative majority that has returned it to the trial court to determine what is then left of the special counsel Jack Smith indictment. As I said before, it applies to official acts of the presidency, reading here directly from John Roberts. Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential

power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within this conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all of his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Brad, I want to go ahead and start with you. There has been a lot of discussion about Justice Sotomayor's dissent in particular, in which she claims that Donald Trump, under this authority, would be allowed to send SEAL Team 6,

as posed in the hypothetical questioning, to assassinate his political opponent. What is your reading of the decision? What did you make of the dissent? Do you think that that's true? Well, Justice Sotomayor is not too far off in terms of how the majority opinion has structured this. So to be clear, they basically created three buckets. One is that absolute immunity that goes for everything that's within the exclusive authority of the executive branch. Think about it. That's running the Justice Department, which is why they completely knocked out a couple of the charges against Donald Trump in the election interference case. That's controlling the military. He's the commander in chief. He has exclusive control of how the military operates.

There's any number of things that an incumbent president can do with those authorities that, according to this majority opinion, are absolutely immune. But then let's extend it a little further. Let's say that there's a dispute over whether or not it's within the core. Let's say, but it's still within the outer perimeters of a president's authority to, say, declare someone a national security threat and have the military seize them, put them in Gitmo, and silence them. The court will still treat that as presumptively immune, and they will not allow in any evidence of the president's intent or any evidence that came from acts that are otherwise subject to absolute immunity, such as coordinating

with Justice Department lawyers like, say, Jeffrey Clark, or coordinating with military officials such as the Secretary of Defense or the Commander of the Joint Chiefs. Any of those things would be evidence that would be excluded, and the prosecutor would still have to somehow demonstrate through the remaining evidence that the presumptive immunity can be outweighed, would not infringe on executive authorities? What could be more principal to the executive authority than identifying national security threats, taking action to secure the public? This is a recipe for disaster with a president who chooses to abuse these authorities.

Will, can we go ahead and get your rebuttal, please? I mean, to that, I mean, that's been the status quo for 20 years. President Obama assassinated the son of the preacher, Al-Awlaki, and hasn't been prosecuted. Really, that's honestly the settled understanding of our country. And I think the really simple way to understand the Supreme Court's decision is not some broad expansion of presidential immunity beyond what was already understood, but rather just reifying the kind of common understanding. Nobody prosecuted President Obama. Nobody prosecuted President Bush for all the abuses of the intelligence services under his administration. And so I don't think that, I think people are wildly overblowing this.

The Supreme Court's opinion is actually substantially more modest than I think it should have been, honestly. And it's certainly not something that's going to lead to this parade of horribles that people are expecting. Can I respond to that? Yeah, you can go ahead and respond to that. Yeah, I know these examples get brought up every time, the Bush and the Obama example. So let's be clear on something. With the Bush examples, there actually were inquiries conducted by none other than John Durham at the time, who is the U.S. attorney out there in Connecticut, to look into whether or not there should be potential criminal charges brought. The fact that they did not does not mean they could not. The Justice Department's opinion has never been in the past that a former president can't be prosecuted. That was never in

any OLC opinion. It was always just about incumbent presidents. The courts had never concluded this prior to this decision. As for President Obama, there was no indication that anyone had ever concluded he was immune if, in fact, the next president, such as Donald Trump, had chosen to bring a case against him. There was no argument ever outlined in any Justice Department documentation saying he was absolutely immune. Would he have presumptive immunity according to this decision? Yeah. Could it be overturned? Absolutely. Well, I want to stick actually within a conservative framework and kind of, because I have seen at least some more libertarian mindedminded folks object to this on the grounds of executive

power. Can you just give us kind of a view, as you said, into the decision itself and where it should be? I mean, hypothetically, should a president, again, not to necessarily stick with the Sotomayor framework, but the media has given this, and so we should have to play within it. Within that framework, should that be something that should be hypothetically up then to the justice system or to the next administration to be able to bring charges against a former president or no? Like in a genuine conceptual universe? I mean, it should be extraordinarily challenging. And I think the reason is precisely what the majority identified, which is this circumstance where presidents routinely prosecute their predecessors for acts that they took while they're in office.

Because, I mean, you think about how broad and how vague the statute that President Trump is being prosecuted under, you know, conspiracy against rights, conspiracy against the United States. These are very broad and, you know, essentially it's like hindering the functioning of government is the crime. Well, I mean, presidents do things all the time that, you know, push on the edges of the law. I mean, I could name like five off the top of my head that Biden has done. If they aren't immune from prosecution for those, then it's really going to hinder the functioning of the executive who's constantly going to be thinking about the consequences of their actions, you know, even, you know, very, even like simple

presidential actions from a future political opponent who might hate them. And I mean, the idea that that, that was the world we were headed to in the absence of this ruling, because I guarantee you, I mean, President Biden should be breathing a sigh of relief. He would have been prosecuted for any number of distinct official acts that he took on office, paroling hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants

into the country well beyond his parole authority, attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision in the student loan issues for his own political purposes. All these things would have been prosecuted in a world where presidents weren't immune for their official acts. President Obama should be breathing a sigh of relief because we certainly would have indicted him for murder on day one in January when President Trump takes office. So I think it's a good thing for the country that they ended this sort of potential for this tit-for-tat escalation and the destruction of the executive branch. And, you know, you go all the way back to, you know, why do we have the Constitution?

To replace the Articles of Confederation, which didn't have a functioning executive capable of taking action with dispatch. The entire, you know, the thrust of the Federalist Papers is about the importance of an energetic executive. And that's what the Supreme Court ruling preserves. Brad, I want to give you a chance to respond to that. Yeah, I'm trying really hard to laugh. Yeah, let me tell you, Democratic presidents are just so relieved. They were so terrified at the idea that they were going to be indicted any day now. Every president has known they are not above the law.

Every other president has come and gone knowing they were not above the law. Every other president has come and gone knowing they were not above the law, that if in fact they had committed crimes, there was not this complete immunity that could shield them forever. And it didn't happen. The reason Donald Trump got indicted is because Donald Trump couldn't accept he lost the election. And Donald Trump conspired to prevent the lawful certification of electoral votes. He conspired to put up fake electors. That's why he got indicted in the D.C. case. No other president has been indicted for murder ever, and it's a laughable excuse that, oh, they're relieved now. Give me a break.

Okay, well, let's stick with that, though, because the January 6th element to this is actually quite important. Will, I'll let you lay out a little bit of this because as I understand it, there is a parsing in the Jack Smith charges specifically between the so-called official acts as president and instructions to the acting attorney general versus the so-called false elector scheme, which would perhaps fall into a campaign bucket. What is your view of that within the decision, Will? Lay some of that out. And Brad, I'll let you do it as well. I mean, yeah, the decision obviously distinguishes between the official acts of a president and his private acts. And I mean, I've read the opinion, but I need to look at it again to confirm, but I'm pretty confident they suggested that the fake electors, or essentially the electors issue, would probably all be private acts. I don't remember if they like firmly held that, but it's, you know, something in that neighborhood.

Certainly, yeah, his discussions with what Jeff Clark and the Department of Justice, I think they said would be absolutely immune because he has the duty to take care of that the laws be faithfully executed and the absolute right to be discussing with the Department of Justice how it's going about its affairs. That said, I think, you know, people are saying, I mean, I think the big thing that I would disagree with in terms of what Brad Moss is saying is that Trump did this unique, horrible thing. I mean, you go back to 2016, we had objections from the Democrats, including people like Jamie Raskin, to the presidential electors. Go back to 1960, we had the exact same mechanism used in the case of the Hawaii electors, where the election was extremely close. And you had alternate electors who met to certify the votes, even though they weren't the actual electors, the idea being that they wanted to

preserve their legal challenge. So the norm breaking here is not on the part of Trump going and trying to do something, you know, to challenge the electric scheme in this way. The norm-breaking is the attempt to be the first administration to ever prosecute a former president. Throughout the Supreme Court opinion, it discusses, like, why is this unique? Well, they decided to go after President Trump. him, indicting him in four jurisdictions in four states in a little less than four months on different criminal activity. Sorry, alleged criminal activity, obviously. And the point being that that's why this is unprecedented.

And that's why the Supreme Court needed to put a stop to it now. Otherwise, because President Trump's going to beat Joe Biden. Joe Biden looked terrible at that last debate. He's going to lose by five or six. And I'm really glad that the Supreme Court decided to put a stop to this know, because President Trump's going to beat Joe Biden. Joe Biden looked terrible at that last debate. He's going to lose by five or six. And I'm really glad that the Supreme Court decided to put a stop to this now because we would have tit for tat until the end of time. It would be very, very bad for the country. Brad, do you want to give a response?

Oh, sure. Here's the difference with 2016. Here's the difference with 1960. Here's the difference with 2000. It wasn't the incumbent president who was the loser in the election trying to lead these efforts. To give that some context, to go back to 2016 when there were objections like there always are at electoral certification. Imagine if between the date that Hillary conceded the Donald Trump and the certification of the votes in January 6th, 2017, if President Obama using his official

authorities had been telling the DOJ to try to put out any claims, any fraudulent claims of fraud, to put out any allegations they could to get state electors to reverse electoral certifications, to then go to a whole huge rally the day of the certification, tell them, we're going to march on the Capitol. You have to be strong. And then say, I'm going to march on the Capitol. You have to be strong. And then say, I'm going to march with you. And then that whole group breaks into the Capitol and tries to murder the incumbent vice president and members of Congress. Imagine if that had happened. They're cool with that. They're cool with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris doing that if Joe Biden loses on

January 6, 2025. They're saying, yeah, you can do that and you have total immunity. Go ahead, have fun. Let's see what happens. Will, I'll give you a chance to respond. I mean, yeah, just imagine a world where a president had, after their preferred candidate had lost an election, had decided to, with his colleagues, create an entire narrative that was totally false about the billionaire real estate magnate turned president-elect actually being an agent of a foreign country. Just imagine that. That could never possibly happen. I gotta be honest, Brad. That's the first thing that came to my mind. A coordinated conspiracy with the FBI, James Comey, all of them to completely BS a massive nonsense Russiagate narrative that

ultimately led to three years of the future presidency being ruined and mired in absolute nonsense lawfare. It's, you know, the funny thing is this lawfare campaign has been going on for nine years now, effectively. It started almost all the way back in 2015. So, you know, the idea that basically my point being that it's like the idea that a president whose party just lost an election wouldn't actually, you know, that this is some novel idea that they would be very upset about it and trying to use every lawful measure lever at their disposal to try and undermine the next president. Yeah, we saw that

in 2016. That's exactly what the Democrats did to the Republicans. They're the ones, they're the first ones who really refused to accept the legitimacy of the election. All right, Brad, go ahead. So I don't really have any time for the idea that this is some unique thing in American history. 2016 was as bad or worse. Let's give Brad a full chance to respond. The wonderful love affair they have with the idea that the whole Russia investigation was just a hoax. Even the Senate Republican report that came out in 2019 said the Trump campaign wittingly used Russian disinformation. There was a counterintelligence threat by the fact that the campaign manager was giving polling data

to his Russian oligarch benefactor. The campaign manager got convicted and went to prison. The deputy campaign manager pled guilty. Multiple staffers pled guilty. It was the most ridiculous idea that there was nothing to this. Could you prove a conspiracy to commit a crime for Donald Trump? No. And I said the day after the Mueller report came out, they never proved that in the end. It was two ships passing in the night. But the idea that it was not a counterintelligence threat, that Donald Trump's campaign didn't wittingly use what they had been warned was Russian counterintelligence disinformation is ridiculous. It's in the Mueller report.

It's in the Senate Republican report. Don't take me. Report takes the Republicans. Okay, last word on Russiagate before we move on to the trial. Go ahead, Will. I mean, the entire investigation was predicated on the Steele report, which accused the president of urinating on Russian prostitutes. And that was all false, all nonsense.

None of it corroborated, all ridiculous. The idea that you're still, you know, nine years later defending this nonsense, Bradley, is ridiculous. All right, so let's then stick with the trial itself. I think we can all agree that the trial is going to be delayed. I want to give Brad, you can give us perhaps a rundown on why and what that mechanism looks like as some of this works its way through the courts. Go ahead. I mean, the cases are not going to happen at this point before the election. There's just no chance. That's never going to happen. So the case goes back to the district court, to Judge Shuck in D.C. Biggest question is, does Jack Smith's

move to sort of gut and narrow down the indictment to just the fake elector scheme? I know Will had brought that up. The majority opinion didn't actually clarify one way or the other what they thought of it. It came up in oral arguments a lot. That'll certainly be an issue of dispute of whether or not that was a purely personal act. Trump's lawyers were on CNN last night with Kate and Colin saying they view organizing the slate of false electors as an official presidential act. That'll be interesting to see how that one plays out. But that has to be now disputed in pretrial motions. No matter what the ruling, either side can appeal it because it implicates immunity. That'll take at least a year to flesh out. But also, the other cases are all stuck on hold now. Florida, I mean, even it was already delayed anyways because of the classified elements of

that case. But now that immunity fight has to be drawn out. And think about this. This is the lovely thing we got from Trump's arguments in Florida in the documents case. According to Donald Trump, on the last day of his presidency, Joe Biden can literally walk out of the White House carrying boxes that say top secret SCI information, flip off the media and say, by virtue of the fact that I'm still president for the next 20 minutes, I am now declaring all this personal records and you can't touch me. Go ahead, Will. On what point? I'm just curious. I'm curious. Well, A, if you want to respond to that, but also in terms of the legitimacy of the current cases that stand,

as I understand it, the Trump campaign and Trump's lawyers are moving to dismiss both the Georgia indictment against him, delay the Florida case, but perhaps most importantly, is to delay the July 11 sentencing that is currently awaiting for the New York trial. Because I believe that the original indictment that was presented against Trump actually did occur while he was the sitting president of the United States, as stated in the facts by Alvin Bragg. So go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I can see why they try try to do that. I think the, you know, the primary impact of this will obviously felt on the J6 indictment and the Georgia indictment. Both of those really directly deal with the president's actions while he was president.

But the classified information is a little bit more interesting because it sort of touches on right when he started and stopped being president. And so I think that that is a little bit less interesting, a little bit, it could go either way. I don't really, you know, it's hard to see how that would happen. I think that case is probably going to get resolved actually at the outset on the idea that Jack Smith wasn't a legitimate,

the special counsel appointment was improper. And so the prosecution's improper. And yet New York, I think that's just an attempt to delay the sentencing. Got it. All right. Well, I'm going to end in a tactic that Crystal always does, which is asking each to steel man necessarily the other.

So Brad, give us the steel man case as to why the Sotomayor dissent and the Democratic response, including the president declaring that there is now a king in office if needed. Why is that incorrect in the American system? The reason it would be incorrect is the simple sense that the separation of powers, the existence of Congress, the existence of the judicial branch and their ability to oversee how the executive performs its duties still remains in place. The ability of states to still govern themselves in terms of how their personnel are handled. Those things still exist.

So to the extent that Justice Sotomayor went too far, it's the idea that a president is still subject to a four-year term. It's the idea that a president is still subject to all the constitutional amendments and the restrictions that exist based off Article I and Article III are still in place. Will, give us the countercate. In a conceptual world, why would this ruling necessarily be bad in the American system? Take Trump out of it. What could be the worst case scenario? I don't think the Sotomayor dissent has any merit at all. So, but I will say, I think Barrett's concurrence makes a reasonable point, which is the sort of, I think the most interesting and contestable part of the majority opinion

is about whether or not official acts, even if you're immune from them, can be used as evidence and how exactly that would work. I think there's an interesting debate between majority opinion and the concurrence kind of about whether or not bribery prosecutions would ultimately work, I think. So that's, I think, the strongest point against the majority opinion, but I found so to my own disdain. I mean, honestly, I don't think it's steel manable.

I think it's just one of the weakest pieces of legal writing I've read in quite a while. Still a good point there on the bribery statute and more. Gentlemen, we'll have links to your Twitters, both in our Xs, I apologize, in the description of this video. And I think people will really get a lot out of this. I actually learned a lot. So thank you both. We appreciate you.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right.

It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait.

Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Over the past six years True Crime Plus. So don't wait. murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try.

She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145.

Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades, a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people. Everyone thought they knew her. Until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real?

I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying. This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. That was a great debate. I really enjoyed it, especially the callback to Russiagate. But there's also been some major Supreme Court cases that we should cover, especially since we're already on

the subject. And we spent a lot of yesterday on Joe Biden, which we still have plenty left to talk about. Let's talk with the first major decision, arguably more consequential than anything we talked about in the last couple of days, and we'll put it up there on the screen. And that is what is known as Chevron. The Supreme Court struck down Chevron and curtailing the power of federal agencies. So this one can get a little bit complicated, but the top line that you just need to know is this, is that the power of the administrative state has been dramatically diminished. So the way that it works is that the 1984 case, which was known as Chevron versus the Natural Resources Defense Council, gave rise to a doctrine known as the Chevron Doctrine. Chevron says that if Congress has not directly addressed a question at a center of the dispute, a court

is required to uphold the agency's interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. So for example, we will look at what was actually brought. So the case itself focused on a fishery and specifically on a fine. The fine was levied by the federal government on a fishery as a result of an interpretation of a statute that was viewed by the people who were fined as illegitimate and not reasonable. The overturning of Chevron is landmark because it no longer gives the administrative state the authority in order to say that under this reasonable statute and the interpretation that we can exercise certain rules and monetary fines, which means that the administrative state, and specifically now the

court system, will have to determine every single action that is done now by the agencies to see if it falls within Congress's mandate to the agencies. The way that it currently works is that the administrative state, and this is one of the libertarian critiques of the government, has expanded far beyond its original purview. The fine example is a perfect one. As Congress says, hey, you've got to regulate our waters, they decide that regulation equals fine, but Congress never said anything about fines. Thus, this leads to the striking down of the Chevron Doctrine. What's kind of fascinating is if you look back in time in 1984, is that it's actually Republicans who celebrated that decision because Ronald Reagan was in power, and it empowered the Reagan administration to interpret federal law and administrative law in the way that they wanted. Since then, though,

it has become, I would say, the number one want and goal of the Federalist Society and of a lot of the conservative legal movement, which views the expansion of the administrative state, specifically 1980s onward, combined with the ideological kind of center-left neoliberal revolution as one which is a quasi-fourth arm of government that is unelected. This gets to the bureaucracy case. Now, the counter to everything that I'm saying is that this effectively means that any time the government wants to do anything and address, let's say, a novel situation, something like AI or something like crypto or anything like that, that these agencies have no power to respond unless Congress specifically acts and passes law. Now, theoretically, that's the way that I want it to work. But let's also keep this in mind.

They don't pass anything these days unless it's aid for Ukraine and for Israel. So this dramatically kind of leaves it to basically the free market and really could possibly lead to situations getting totally out of control before Congress even wakes up, pays attention. And by that time, it could be too late. So let's go to the next element just to give you some more of the counter. This one specifically focuses on climate, but it is a good example kind of into the mechanisms that are at play here. So for example, the Inflation Reduction Act, right? The Inflation Reduction Act has given these administrative agencies the power to, quote, force energy companies, automakers, manufacturers to curb pollution and to reduce it unless Congress steps in. However, it means,

though, that the EPA will not have nearly as much administrative authority to regulate power plants and others. What they also talk about is that, quote, it authorizes a more muscular posture by the judiciary when reviewing the decisions of the administrative agencies. So the reason why this matters, as you previously saw with Chevron, is that the courts were not really allowed to overrule as long as it was in, quote, a reasonable standard. Every single ruling by any of these administrative agencies can be challenged by big business and in the court system. And depending on where they bring the case, depending on the judge, et cetera, as we all know, you could easily lead to that either getting struck down or tied up in the legal system. It has to go all the way up to appellate courts. As we just saw in our previous segment, this stuff takes a very, very long time. So arguably, as it comes to business and the way that everything is regulated in this country, Chevron getting struck down is a landmark event. Obviously, people who are big government authority figures, which not necessarily on the left,

by the way, I spoke with some right-wing figures, and there is actually some concern that the repeal of Chevron will significantly curtail Donald Trump's ability, let's say, to carry out some of the immigration policy that he wants to, if he were to assume office. So there's several things, like with respect to what is known as public charge and welfare, where basically illegal immigrants, depending on the circumstances, could or could not qualify for welfare. That was something that the Trump administration tried the first time around. There was also this huge case around the census. All of these things involve comment, administrative law, and interpretation of the law by the sitting executive, whereas this time around,

it takes a lot of authority to the court. So even though we just had the Supreme Court case about presidential immunity, the Chevron Doctrine significantly curtails the overall administrative state, which by definition means that it will lessen at least some of the power of the federal government, especially in the realm of the economy and determining especially the president's absolute authority over military matters.

If you ask me, it should probably be reversed, shouldn't it? Let's also get to the next part because this is also a highly significant case. This was a case that we led with on the show several months ago. The Supreme Court unfortunately rejected the challenge to the Biden administration's contacts with social media companies. And this was a major, major First Amendment case with respect to how the government should interact with social media platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Basically, what the decision came down to is that the authority and First Amendment rights of Americans is not infringed upon by the government, if it has a contact with social media company, or if it, let's say, whips up a campaign and leads to third-party calls

for censorship, it does not violate your First Amendment rights. Now, obviously, this is not the way that I think the decision should be, because there is an implicit threat of power, in my opinion. Let's think about the Alex Berenson case, for example, where you literally have White House officials who are emailing executives over at Twitter and saying, why is this account still up? Now, they're not ordering you to take down the account, but the mere suggestion, and especially in working with conjunction with other groups surrounding the so-called censorship industrial complex, leads to a snowball effect, which could then lead to your digital rights, quote unquote, freedom of speech, to be curtailed.

Now, basically what they found, though, is that the executive has broad, broad authority to maintain their contacts with these social media companies. So for example, this is written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the plaintiffs without concrete link between injuries and the defendant's conduct ask us to review years-long communications between dozens of federal officials across different agencies with different social media platforms about different topics. This court-standing doctrine prevents us from exercising general legal oversight of the other branches of the government. There was, though, actually a pretty important dissent

from Justice Alito, Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. They say, for months, high-ranking government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans' free speech because the court unjustifiably refuses to address the serious threat to the First Amendment. I respectfully dissent. Obviously, the White House is very happy about this. The Biden administration said, quote, Supreme Court's decision is the right one. It helps ensure the Biden administration can continue our important work with technology companies to protect the safety and the security of the American people. So unfortunately, a so-called firewall between the government and the social

media companies was not erected by the Supreme Court when they had the opportunity, I think, to really set the standard from the beginning and make sure that there is not collusion going on. Justice Kavanaugh, for example, gave what I thought was a really stupid example. He said, well, under this standard, White House officials shouldn't be allowed to talk to reporters because they're constantly trying to manage the information that is being put out. But that is a single instance for a single paper. That is not the same thing as a platform, especially in a monopolistic environment like the

one we're in today, where all of these platforms can simultaneously just take somebody down and dramatically limit their exposure. There's also the so-called shadow banning effect, which of course has no oversight, no insight from the federal government, and which has been highly encouraged, especially during the whole vaccine era, January 6th, misinformation, COVID, Chinese origin of coronavirus. I could go on forever. Regardless, the point is that these two cases are very, very significant. They may even be, frankly, more significant than the immunity case, because what we have now is a standard that the government can pressure the hell out of a social media company if they want to, to take somebody, something down that has no infringement on your

First Amendment rights. And then also the administrative state and the delegated authority that it previously had without judicial review no longer stand. So take those two things and understand that that is going to dramatically shape the next administration, perhaps the next Trump administration. And it may not be in the way that some right-wingers actually wanted it to be. And we might see some of the First Amendment concerns really come back to bite some of these people in the ass. Any Palestine protesters out there, I may not be so happy about this one, especially if Donald Trump does get elected. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left.

In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fat phobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame

one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend.

I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try.

She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades, a hero.

She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people. Everyone thought they knew her until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying. This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah

on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. So Joe Biden deigned to make his first public appearance yesterday. He made some comments on the Supreme Court. It was scheduled for 7.45 p.m. There was a lot of anticipation. This is President Biden's first appearance since his disastrous public debate. Is he going to allay concerns?

Is he going to speak for a long time? Is he going to show us that he really can do the job? Is he going to take any questions from all the reporters? Pretty much none of that happened. He spoke for a record four minutes. He took no questions. He read off of a script, including at one point saying, quote, end of quote, showing that it was the end of the quote in the teleprompter. And then perhaps most puzzling of all was caked in orange makeup. Not an exaggeration. Let's put this up there on the screen. This is a side-by-side. That's Biden at the debate. That's Biden yesterday. And there's no Photoshop. There's no editing. I swear to you, this is a real image. And we are

already seeing reporting from multiple mainstream media outlets that Biden's staff is apparently very upset with CNN because they're blaming the makeup artists for not putting enough makeup on him and appearing too pale and out of it. Right. It's the makeup people's fault. It's also apparently their fault that he didn't know which camera to look at, even though Trump somehow figured it out in the course of the debate. Interesting, right? That these are the excuses that we're coming up with. So orange man bad? Question mark? That's one that Cheeto Jesus and all of that, perhaps will be changing, the Democrats and the center left will be changing their tune on that one. This funny part stuff though aside, there's some very serious stuff

going on right now by the Biden campaign and the people behind him to try and shut down any conversation about him dropping out of the race. Let's put this up there on the screen. This is perhaps the most insane one, is that Democrats are currently weighing nominating Biden through the unofficial or through the official channels online to circumvent all of the talk of dropping him from the ticket. So you can see this from Bloomberg. A mid-July vote would formally tap Biden as the nominee as early as July 21st. The president's allies have pushed back then on the calls for replacement, and they believe that this would accomplish two birds with one stone. Number one is that it would qualify him for the ballot much earlier in several states, as opposed to having to wait a month.

But number two is, look, it's July 2nd, 19 days. That's a long time, especially for an old man. But two months is way longer than that. It's a political eternity. So what they want to do is nominate him officially, and then it's over. You can't even attempt to have a broker convention or a contested convention. So this is as rigged as it gets, folks. Remember, they were already doing this because they were worried about Palestine protesters and uncommitted delegates disrupting the official nomination process. This means they

would move it fully online even earlier to disrupt concerns about his age and any Israel-Gaza protests, and then make the convention a coronation as opposed to something that was actually contested. So this is a full-on conspiracy by Biden, his family, and his closest aides to ram this through as soon as possible. Let's go to the next part, please, because this shows us part of the push and pull of everything that is going on here. So, for example, Governor Whitmer, who has been hailed as some alleged replacement for Joe Biden, well, it turns out that the very day after the debate, Governor Whitmer of Michigan phoned Jennifer O'Malley Dillon. She is the campaign manager for the Biden campaign to, quote, relay that Michigan in the wake of the debate is no longer

winnable for Joe Biden. So look, any scenario where Biden doesn't win Michigan is basically game over. Remember, Biden won Michigan in 2020. Trump barely won Michigan in 2016. I think it was only like 10,000 votes or so. But he needs Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to go in his direction because right now, all polling in the world

indicates that Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada are likely gone. Without those three so-called blue wall states, he's done. So if he's losing in Michigan according to the sitting governor there, I don't even know what the hell this entire purpose of this is. You can nominate him early if you want, but then you're basically guaranteed to lose. There's also a lot of other stuff going on right now. For example, post-debate polls. This one is insane. It's shocking. Let's put this up there on the screen. Just to show you,

in the state of New Hampshire, a new St. Anselm College poll shows Donald Trump at 44%, Joe Biden at 42%, RFK Jr. at four. Now, you would say, hey, but Biden's, you know, he's pretty close there, right? Yeah, you shouldn't even be in the margin of error because he won the state by over five points last time around. It wasn't even supposed to be a battleground state. It hasn't been really looked at as a battleground state for a long time. Trump came kind of close in 2016, but, you know, look, that was the best possible circumstance for him, and he still barely lost it. So what are we doing here when Biden is trailing Trump in New Hampshire? This just puts all kinds of states on the map, which previously we weren't even thinking about.

And let's go to the next part because we can just continue and roll down this. You know, Ann Seltzer, we previously brought you her Iowa poll. Ann Seltzer is perhaps the best pollster in this entire country, the state of Iowa. She says that Donald Trump is up by nearly 20 points in Iowa. Why do we care? Yeah, Iowa is a red state because let's say the nearby states like Wisconsin, for example, that Trump obviously, or that Biden needs to win if he has any chance. Well, that means he's probably losing Wisconsin by seven to 10 points. Then you've got here journalist John Ralston, pretty much the goal

standard whenever it comes to Nevada politics. He says Biden is not only losing Nevada, but he is dragging the Democrats down ballot. Here's what he says. My thoughts here on New York Times-Siena. This is a very bad poll for Joe Biden. I also think it is terrible for Jackie Rosen and Democratic House incumbents. I am not a huge fan of most Nevada polls, and this one certainly has anomalies, but Biden is losing here. So when John Ralston speaks, I'm listening, folks. And just over and over again, we are watching just really a meltdown, a national meltdown for Joe Biden at almost every level. And yeah, Biden has a 63% unfavorable rating in Nevada compared to Trump's 50. Nearly two-thirds here have an unfavorable

view of the president. My goodness. Well, that's not all, folks, because already Republican candidates are picking up on the Biden debate performance, smacking Joe Biden and all of the Democratic candidates. Here, for example, is Dave McCormick in the state of Pennsylvania running against Bob Casey, another critical battleground state. Let's take a listen. the case that he's not an elderly well-meaning gentleman people are going to see it in the campaign no question he's prepared to do this job today and would be where he re-elected one of my best buddies right close close friend one of my closest friends bobby casey i have a lot of confidence in his leadership i have a lot of confidence in his leadership no question he's prepared to do this job today i mean just take a look at. You are going to see that at every single race for the next several months, which is just genuinely devastating for these folks. And it just makes it very questionable as right in front of me, which just came out. So let me go ahead and read it to everybody because it is actually more of a counter signal and I want to be able to present the whole picture. This is from a Harvard Harris poll. And guys, we'll put this in

in post-production if we can. It says, among those who watched the debate, did the debate make you more or less likely to vote for Biden? Biden, less likely, 42%. No impact, 35, more likely, 23. Trump, more likely, 40, no impact, 35, less likely, 26. So look, for Biden, you still got the biggest number there at 42% saying I'm less likely to vote for you. That is not good. I mean, that just shows you again how devastating it was, whereas it's only 26% Trump, 40% more likely there for more likely whenever it comes to Trump. You put all that together and I'm just seeing a total wipeout that is happening on the campaign front. The bottom is falling out. That doesn't mean though that the Democrats aren't still going to try and rig the process and nominate him before the convention to shut down any of the conversation about dropping him off the ticket.

Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of

mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day.

The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145.

Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades, a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people. Everyone thought they knew her, until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying.

This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Sticking with the theme of the establishment rigging the process, we've got even more details from you that don't just have to do with the DNC. Let's put this up there on the screen.

Here we have Ron Klain, the former chief of staff to the president and then the person who also helped him prepare for the debate. He says it is 100% certain that Biden is staying in the race. Big money donors, he say, don't get to dictate the nominee of the Democratic Party. Well, it's not like the voters really got to dictate the nominee of that party either, because there was no primary. They didn't even get to vote. There was no debate. There was nothing. They were hidden by people like you behind the curtain before we could no longer deny reality in front of all of our eyes. Let's go to the next one, please, because this is actually the craziest one. This is, quote, behind the curtain inside the Biden Salvation Plan.

Let's leave this up there just so I can read from it. Massive political PR, personal campaign, is underway to reject calls for President Biden to drop his re-election race and rally Democrats to move on from the public debate about his age and his future. Biden has zero interest in stepping aside. First Lady Joe Biden, key family members agree. The intrigue, Biden is ducking tough interviews and avoided no press conferences, is now considering both. He is looking for a town hall or a big one-on-one this month. During a family gathering at Camp David, Biden family members, including Hunter, went through with the long-scheduled session with celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz. The Bidens insisted the president would stay in the race. They are all in and want him to stay. Behind the scenes, Biden friends are now blaming longtime aides

who prepped Biden. They complained about everything from the data-heavy answers to his makeup to briefing on the camera angles. The president smoothed it over. He called former Chief of Staff Ron Klain, who I just referenced, to lead the team. And one of the things they talked about was that while he doesn't blame him for PrEP, that they will continue forward. The campaign spokesperson said that the aides who prepared President Biden have been with him for years. Ron Klain is expected to lead Biden's PrEP for now, the second debate. And to be fair, Klain has led debate PrEP for every president since Bill Clinton, so it kind of makes sense. Really, though, is inside this survival strategy.

Number one is they want to, quote, dismiss bedwetting. They want to continue to go after anybody who is breaking ranks and say that they're bedwetters, that they're cowards, that they're not sticking by the president. They're trying to turn this into their Access Hollywood moment. Number two, quote, they want to squeeze polls for juice. Biden allies are circulating polls and focus groups showing that the debate did little to change the dynamics of the race. Not actually true, though, considering the poll that we just showed you in our last segment. Number three, this is the most important. They want to warn of chaos. So remember that Jen Psaki clip I played for everybody earlier. Biden allies are making plain and private conversation the perils of an open convention,

the risks of picking a Democrat even more unpopular than Biden, namely Vice President Kamala Harris. So what they're doing is they're stabbing their own vice president in the back. They're like, see, she's even more unpopular. We can't run with her. They want to, quote, limit dissent. They're orchestrating supportive tweets by Clinton, by Obama, the ones I showed you yesterday. Those are happening after, quote, furious back-channeling by allies. They're keeping all elected leaders close. Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, they're like, listen, guys, you're sticking with me and you're not going anywhere. Getting the donor class to chill out. They're getting specifically Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks fame to work the phones and to go after anybody who is saying that it is Biden, Biden should drop out.

Quote, they want to prove vitality. That'll be an interesting one. yesterday, which is they're like, look, look how good he is on these prescripted rallies surrounded by supporters. Why can't he have been like that at the debate? And it's like, well, because the debate was at night and he literally has sundowning. And also he's reading off of a teleprompter. And obviously that's a lot easier. Number eight is ignore and engage the media. Biden allies want everyone to ignore prominent columnists who love Biden and are now calling for his resignation. And on the other hand, the White House is, quote, deeply engaged with reporters writing about presidential

fitness, pushing as much back as possible that they can. Now what they say is that the Biden kitchen cabinet sees a recipe for a narrow victory that includes a grand slam speech at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. That'll be interesting. I'll be in the room along with the rest of our staff. Can't wait to watch that one. And, quote, a strong showing in the next second debate plus positive economic news in the fall. So basically, they believe that this full court press survival strategy, rigging the process, going after the elected leaders, arranging the former presidents all behind him will keep him limping along and that maybe, just maybe, they can drag their way out of it. Let's go to the next part, please, because this also is a little bit of a problem, I think,

for the Biden people. I mean, guys, she literally, Jill Biden, is sitting for the cover of Vogue the very day after this disastrous performance. She says, quote, we will decide our future. And I mean, more importantly, when you read this article, it is very clear that the trappings of power are very attractive, I would say, to our current first lady. And in fact, as we showed you yesterday with that clip where she said, Joe, you knew all of the facts as if that was, or sorry, Joe, you answered every question. You knew all of the facts as if that is supposed to be the baseline from which we're congratulating, again, the most disastrous debate performance by any American president ever. Anyway, I think it's important. You guys know now we've got the

DNC plan. We've got now inside details of what that plan looks like. So what I would look for, this is my prediction. They need to find a media sit-down interview with a friendly enough person, preferably a Jen Psaki, right? Maybe Simone Sanders. If we want to get a little crazy, they would go with Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, somebody like that. Somebody who is a regime like apparatchik, but not somebody who's going to go out on a limb. And they want them to ask a few challenging questions. And we'll go with that. And there'll be a long sit-down interview. They're going to blast it all over cable, and they're going to see, look at his performance. At the same time, I think we're going to see a lot more of what we saw last night. Biden trying to prove that

he can speak at night, but doing a four-minute press conference, right? Four minutes, taking no questions, but reading scripted. More North Carolina- rallies and then they're going to prop up the DNC speech which again is off of a teleprompter not impromptu whatsoever. They're probably going to make it lengthy like State of the Union level where he reads off of the script and they're going to see

look he can speak for over an hour he remains cogent but at the end of the day it's all going to be scripted. And at the same time using behind the scenes strategies to knife any potential political opponent, any person who speaks out of line. extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld

of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long.

You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case.

They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister.

There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades,

a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people. Everyone thought they knew her. Until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment that was, you know, dying? This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh.

I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. At the same time, we're starting to see some Democratic officials finally begin to speak out. First and foremost is Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky. Obviously, he's a blue state governor, red state, one of the most popular Democrats in the entire country. What did he have to say? It was not kind. He basically was like, yeah, I guess it's up to him. But it was terrible. Let's take a listen. Well, the debate performance was rough. It was a very bad night for the

president. But he is still the candidate. Only he can make decisions about his future candidacy. And so as long as he continues to be in the race, I support him. Is there any thought that you might jump in? Is there any thought that you might slide into that slot? Would you if you had to? Only the president can determine his future as a candidate. He is the candidate. And as long as a candidate. He is the candidate.

And as long as he is, I'm supporting him. Well, I think people want to make sure that this is a campaign that's ready to go and win, that the president and his team are being candid with us about his condition, that this was a real anomaly. So that's a very important clip. The first part, Governor Andy Beshear. The second part there that we showed you was Sheldon Whitehouse. Now, arguably even more important, because Sheldon Whitehouse is the Democratic senator from Rhode Island, longtime Democrat.

This is a standard guy. These people don't speak out against the White House, hardly ever. But for him to basically go after the White House and almost accuse them of a cover-up and question Biden's performance, very significant. I also think Governor Andy Beshear there breaking from the White House and really being the first major blue governor to acknowledge how disastrous that debate was for Joe Biden is a major event. It's also been some major breaking news that actually just happened. I'll go ahead and just bring it to all of you. This is from Jake Tapper. He says that Democratic governors actually held a call yesterday afternoon.

Just the governors, no staff, no White House. On the call, Democratic governors expressed concern about what's going on with the president. They know that if they come forward publicly with concern, they will cause Biden to dig in. They are also shocked that Biden has not contacted any of them. There was a discussion about wanting to have a call with the campaign or the White House, some discussion about having Vice President Harris come and address their concerns, strong sentiment they need to hear directly from Joe Biden.

Quote, they are trying to set up a meeting with the White House or via Zoom, but the White House knows of this request. They are not coming in with any specific message, but they feel the need to hear directly from President Biden. So you combine these two things. We've got blue state governor,

he's speaking out publicly. He's like, yeah, it's up to him. Only he can make that decision. You only say that when you're like, look, this guy is screwed. Number two, you got the Sheldon White House. Again, totally normie Democratic senator. Let's go to the next part.

And we have here example, a tweet from Tim Ryan, former Senate candidate in Ohio, Democrat. He says, we have to rip the Band-Aid off. There's too much at stake. The vice president has significantly grown into her job. She will destroy Trump in a debate, highlight the choice issue, energize our base, bring back young voters, and give us generational change. Quote, it's time. I mean, look, I don't necessarily agree with that analysis, but important nonetheless. This is a guy from red state, again, Democrat. They seem to be the ones who are willing to speak out a little bit. There was also an interesting interview with Representative Mike Quigley, Illinois,

5th District, normal Democrat too. Again, really acknowledging how bad it was for Biden and saying some troubling things to the White House. Let's take a listen. I think his four years are, you know, one of the great presidencies of our lifetime. But I think he has to be honest with himself. This is a decision he's going to have to make. He clearly has to understand. I think what you're getting to here is that his decision not only impacts who's going to serve in the White House the next four years, but who's going to serve in the Senate, who's going to serve in the House. And it will have implications for decades to come. It sounds like you're actually open to the idea that it might be the right decision for him to step aside. I think what I'm stressing is it has to be his decision.

But we have to be honest with ourselves that it wasn't just a horrible night. But I won't go beyond that out of my respect and understanding President Joe Biden, a very proud person who has served us extraordinarily well for 50 years. But it's his decision. I just want him to appreciate at this time just how much it impacts not just his race, but all the other races coming in November. They're all using the same rhetoric. It's up to his decision. But look, he's opening the door. He's like, look, you need to get the hell out of here. And then at the same time, the knives are out for Biden. And because the media is just no longer going to continue to play this game that they have. Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame comes out with a new report last night with more dementia ridden episodes that he can tell us us about that Biden has experienced behind the scenes. Let's take a listen to Carl Bernstein. These are people, several of them, who are very close to

President Biden, who love him, have supported him, have been among them, or some people who've raised a lot of money for him. And they are adamant that what we saw the other night, the Joe Biden we saw, is not a one-off, that there have been 15, 20 occasions in the last year and a half when the president has appeared somewhat as he did in that horror show that we witnessed. And what's so significant is the people that this is coming from and also how many people around the president are aware of such incidents Including some reporters incidentally who who have witnessed some of them is the people who were you know working with him at Camp David? allegedly in this intensive debate prep If there were concerns there about this and I don't know if you have any

Got any word about that, but how anybody involved in that debate prep, I mean, didn't anybody see something? Well, the debate prep was supervised by Ron Klain, who has been with President Biden for many years. And people I've talked to have all been to Ron Klain in the last year to say, we have a problem. We have a problem such as we saw the other night, that there have been numerous instances where the president has lost his train of thought, can't pick it up again. There was a fundraiser at which he started at the podium, and then he became very stiff, according to the people there, as if it were almost a kind of rigor mortis. This was reportedly. It really needs to be explored, according to the people I'm

talking to. And I think an awful lot of major Democrats believe this, including some who have made statements to the contrary. The insane part is that Carl Bernstein is basically the same age as Joe Biden. And look at him. He seems relatively fine, I guess. I mean, he's only 80 years old, spring chicken, compared to the 81-year-old Joe Biden. This is what we're dealing with. I mean, look, this is obviously, it was obvious to everybody, given the public image and the public moments that Biden has had. But now, to have these moments openly acknowledged on CNN of all places, also by a prominent reporter like Carl Bernstein, that's just knives out for – by at least some people around President Biden that are going to be acknowledging the truth.

And as more and more Democrats are open and acknowledging this and willing to speak to the media, the cascade is just going to continue. Keep this in mind too. This is a holiday weekend. A Keep this in mind, too. This is a holiday weekend. A lot of people are on vacation. But starting July 9th, Congress is actually back in session. So keep that in mind. And just to explain that is that all of these Democratic congressmen, they're going to be here in Washington, and they're going to be surrounded by reporters. They're not going to be able to get away with no comments. Right now, they're all at home, or they're doing constituent events or they're on vacation.

They can dodge if they need to. When you're here in D.C., it is not that easy. You're going to have every microphone in your face like this if you're Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, or any of these other people. Not only Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders. Every single one of these folks is going to have to comment or issue a no comment, which in itself is very, very telling. So this is a big moment. So we've given you both sides of the story here. There's

the rigging process, but there's also some starting bubblings about at least trying to get him off the ticket. We'll see right back. Hold up, they could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results.

But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all

episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. 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 iHeart heart radio app, Apple podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an I heart podcast.