Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/29/21: Biden's Infrastructure Bill, Workers Against Vaccine Mandates, Kushner's New Grift, Trump's Failed Endorsement, Bernie Speaks, CDC Disaster, Simone Biles Derangement, Miners Striking, and More!

Episode Date: July 29, 2021

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.tech/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/id1570045623Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXlMerch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Kim Kelly’s Book: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Fight-Like-Hell/Kim-Kelly/9781982171056Krystal, Kyle, & Friends Substack: https://krystalkyleandfriends.substack.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator,

and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now.

Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A lot of times, big economic forces show up in our lives in small ways. Four days a week, I would buy two cups of banana pudding, but the price has gone up, so now I only buy one. Small but important ways. From tech billionaires to the bond market to, yeah, banana pudding. If it's happening in business, our new podcast is on it. I'm Max Chastin.

And I'm Stacey Vanek-Smith. So listen to Everybody's Business on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, guys. Thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar. We're going to be totally upfront with you. We took a big risk going independent. To make this work, we need your support to beat the corporate media. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, they are ripping this country apart. They are making millions of dollars doing it. To help support our mission of making all of us hate each other less, hate the corrupt ruling class more, support the show. Become a Breaking Points

premium member today, where you get to watch and listen to the entire show ad-free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to BreakingPoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the show, guys. Good morning, everybody. Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.

What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. We've got a little bit of tension between the Biden administration and some of their key allies in labor over potential vaccine mandates. We also have some updates for you that you've been dying for about what Jared Kushner is going to be up to next. You're going to be shocked to learn, preparing to cash in on his public service. Surprise, surprise. I mean, who would have thought? Who could have predicted that? You know? Yeah. Trump uncharacteristically backed the wrong horse in a Republican primary race. What does that mean? Does that mean his grip on the GOP is sliding? His team, his people are reportedly

very upset and consternated over all of this, So we'll get into that. I sat down with Bernie Sanders for about 30 minutes yesterday. He gave us a lot of great content. But in particular, we want to bring you a clip where I pushed him on why isn't Joe Biden using all of the tools at his disposal, whether it's executive action, why have they hemmed themselves in with the parliamentarian and with the filibuster. So it's interesting to hear his response on that. And we wanted to start actually with some developments that very closely involve Bernie Sanders, which is last night a key procedural vote in the Senate to move forward with that bipartisan infrastructure bill. Yeah, no. So this infrastructure bill, we have at least what the details are. So let's put that up

there on the screen. This is from Sahil Kapoor. So this is what it all looks like. $550 billion of new spending, which is down from $579 billion, $110 billion for roads, $65 billion for broadband. That's a big one there within the bill. Highway transit and distribution. Cinema is says to be, quote, very excited about the deal, but we will have a little bit of update there for you. Rob Portman says the bill is paid for, although as of the time of writing, we still don't know what the main pay-fors are there, Crystal. Some of it I know is going to come from unemployment insurance fraud. Some of it is going to come actually from state and local governments are cash flush right now, so there was already appropriated money towards them that some of that might be able to come back.

But the final details in terms of how they're literally going to pay for it remains unclear. So that's kind of where it stands. The White House put down, I mean, it's just like interesting to note these things, right? The White House put down a fact sheet about the infrastructure bill yesterday. And it was like some of the links didn't work and the didn't add up, and whatever. It was very messy. It made me think that if the Trump White House had put out something similar, you probably would have heard a little bit more about that. I talked to Senator Sanders quite a bit about the infrastructure deal. He was, number one, he hates the privatization part of it, the asset recycling, which is just a fancy word for selling off our public works.

He also was very concerned about the pay-fors, and he made it really clear to me that he despises the process. He doesn't understand why are we, like, obsessed with getting eight Republicans to support us on this thing or whatever. Why don't we just put it all into the reconciliation bill? Nevertheless, he indicates that he will go along with the infrastructure bill, even though he doesn't really care for it, and other progressives seem to be in the same sort of mindset as him, as long as he has some assurance that all 50 Democrats in the Senate are then going to go and back his budget bill, which is what he's been spending a lot of his time and energy and effort focusing on. So let's take a listen to that portion of my conversation with Senator Sanders. Between you and me, don't tell anybody. I think this whole process doesn't make a whole lot of

sense. Look, you've got needs out there. Should we invest heavily in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, roads, bridges, water, huge problem, wastewater plants, broadband. All of those are huge issues. Of course we should do it. My own preference would have been to do it in one bill. That's all. And get the 50 votes plus the vice president that we need. Again, there are 50 members of the Democratic caucus.

Some felt it very important to, for whatever reason, to show the world that they can work with Republicans. And that's what this process is about. So I think by and large, and we haven't seen the fine print of this legislation yet, as you and I chat, I think the investments are sensible. Roads, bridges, all that stuff. Creates jobs, it's important. What we call the pay-fors, how these things are going to be funded in many ways do not make a lot of sense to me based on what I have seen up to now. They are pretty conservative approaches.

And the reason for that is Republicans, of course, don't want to raise any taxes on the wealthy or large corporations. So the Democratic negotiators are caught in a bind. What's your understanding right now of those pay-fors? I think the- The asset recycling. Yeah, that is the idea that we privatize infrastructure, that we give over roads and bridges and parking meters or whatever it may be to the private sector,

I think is a very foolish idea. I'm not a great fan of privatization. And what they are also doing is taking money from other pots of money that were passed in previous covid bills which should be used later on concerned about small businesses restaurants uh etc so in general the payfors are not good but here is the bottom line and this is the world that we live in we have 50 votes one person says person says no, nothing happens. So I am willing to go along, I think, I want to see the final details of the bipartisan bill if there is 100% agreement

on the part of the Democrats who are negotiating this, that they are going to go along with the reconciliation package. And do you have those assurances today? That is a very good question. And the fate of the, all I can tell you is if I have anything to say about it, there will not be a bipartisan bill unless there is a reconciliation bill. Okay. So he is not clear about whether he has those assurances. Yeah, right. And let's, let's just stipulate everybody voted. All the Democrats voted in favor of this motion to move forward on the infrastructure bill, which still has a long way to go. It's still got to go to the House. They still got to bring this together.

They've still got to actually officially vote on it in the Senate. So there's a long way to go before this infrastructure bill actually becomes law. But on this initial procedural vote, everyone in the Senate, including Senator Sanders, was on board. However, we're already getting some indications from Kyrsten Sinema that she may not be on board with his $3.5 trillion budget deal. Let's throw her comments there up on the screen. I do not support a bill that costs $3.5 trillion, and in the coming months, I will work in good faith to develop this legislation with my colleagues and the administration to strengthen Arizona's economy, help Arizona's everyday families get ahead. So immediately, Senator Sanders and other progressives are saying like, okay, we'll support your crappy infrastructure deal that we really

don't care for that much as long as you're going to go along with this other bill that we actually have a lot of our priorities in. Immediately, Senator Sanders is like, man, I don't think so. Don't think I'm really going to go along with that. So we'll see. I mean, she does a rule out, ultimately voting for something, but clearly she wants to extract her pound of flesh before that happens. AOC, in pretty strong terms, calling her out. She says to Kyrsten Sinema, good luck tanking your own party's investment on child care, climate action, and infrastructure while presuming you'll survive a three-vote House margin, especially after choosing to exclude members of color from negotiations and calling that a bipartisan accomplishment. Personally, my major issue with, you know, the infrastructure bill is the substance of what is actually in it, but clearly very aggressive language there from AOC

and does underscore that, look, we're a long way from the infrastructure bill getting through and we are an even longer way from being able to come up with a reconciliation package that all 50 members of the Senate can ultimately get on board with. Right. And just as an aside, so if Tim Scott was in there, it was going to be all that much better. I cannot stand that woman and her race politics. But all that being said, what is very important about this infrastructure deal is that the bipartisan bill is not being accepted by the House of Representatives. That is what you can see right there with the AOC tweet. They only have a three-vote House margin. Pelosi has previously

said, we're not passing the bipartisan bill until we also get the reconciliation bill, which means that even if the Senate does vote right now along party lines, last night's vote actually shocked everybody. It was 67 people voted to advance it. I haven't seen it too. Who remembers the last time that you saw two thirds of senators vote on something which was as controversial as this, not like military spending or something. But hold on. Let me pause you on that, though, because it does show how low the bar is that roads and bridges are now considered like controversial. And many people still voted against it. Yeah. And people still voted against it, even though it's very similar, again, to what Trump proposed when he was in there in terms of these public private partnerships.

And let's do asset recycling like a lot of these pieces very similar to what Trump was working on. So the fact that that counts as some grand accomplishment that people are like, we should probably pave the roads and like not have the bridges collapse is a sad statement, but you are correct. In the current climate, very rare sort of thing that they're voting together on something that's not like a bad trade deal, a tax cut for the rich or another war. That's right. And so with having the bipartisan bill advance, and again, that's still a big if. We actually still don't know what the final vote count is going to be there. Schumer does have a couple of votes to play with, given that we had all of the Republican senators who voted for it, presumably since, or who negotiated it, presumably since they voted to advance it,

they negotiated it. He's got like a five vote margin, even if Bernie Sanders, a couple of other people, Warren, whomever, may not vote for it. So that's very much possible. I do think it will get ultimately to 51, move on to the lower chamber. But the difference there is that the lower chamber of the House is very upset, kind of from what I have heard, in that they feel as if they can't just have marching instructions issued to them by the Senate. They're like, we're our own body of Congress, right? Like, we get to make our own laws, we're our own body of Congress, right? Like,

we get to make our own laws, we get to have our own input. And given the fact that they only have three votes margin, a three Democratic House vote margin, they have significant ways in order they may alter it. And that's where things get tricky. So what has to happen from now on is not only does this bipartisan bill have to pass, the $3.5 trillion at least currently marked up reconciliation bill, which that is a whole other thing. There's this thing called a voterama, which some of you might know, which is like a 24-hour period where people can offer amendments. People are expected to offer like 1,000 amendments or something. It can be like this hours-long thing and a debate, and you have to call for a vote on every single one. This is specific to the budget process. So if that bill then makes it out in a form which is acceptable both to Kyrsten Sinema

and to somebody like Bernie Sanders, then that has to go also to the House. And then the House has to decide on those two, whether they're acceptable to their own demands. Then those two bills, that's something called a conference. They would come together, the House and the Senate. They would agree on some compromise version. The Senate has to repass that. Then the House has to pass that. Then the president has to sign it.

So we are a long, long, long way from any of this actually becoming law. I would personally bet that this bipartisan thing looks roughly a little bit like this, but I think the future of the reconciliation bill is still very much in doubt, Crystal. I don't know if Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are going to be willing to do the tax hikes that you frankly need if you actually do want to pay for this thing. And that is also going to be a major sticking point. Rand Paul and all those people will filibuster till they're blue in the face. So it's a problem. You will definitely not get a single Republican on board with the reconciliation bill. You have to get all 50 Democrats 100% to be on board with it. And we know what the strategy is because that Exxon lobbyist laid it out in that

leaked video that we brought you here, which is, look, we're not going to say we oppose any of these provisions because almost all of them on their own, very popular, right? What we're going to do is we're going to go after those pay-fors. And so, like clockwork, what do you hear Joe Manchin, what do you hear Kyrsten Sinema concerned about?

They're concerned about the price tag. They're concerned about the pay-fors. They don't want to raise taxes on corporations or raise taxes on the wealthy. Well, if you're putting in those constraints, that automatically trims your sales of what you're able ultimately to accomplish. So we're in a situation where progressives really don't like this infrastructure bill. I don't like this infrastructure bill. It's basically privatization. It's the type of thing that Trump would have passed.

But they're feeling like, okay, if we go along with that, then the rest of these Democrats better come on board for the reconciliation bill. The question is, how do you get those assurances? How do you feel comfortable with those assurances? I mean, you saw there when I spoke with Senator Sanders, I was like, do you feel like confident? Do you have those assurances today? He really didn't have an answer for that, but just said, look, trust me, if I have anything to do with it, there will be no infrastructure bill without also a reconciliation bill.

We're going to have more for you, by the way, of that interview with this show. And then the full interview, the full 30 minutes is going to be on Crystal Kyle and Friends. So sub there to get the full interview on Friday. It was pretty interesting to talk to him for that long and kind of get inside of his head. He expressed to me that he was, frankly, a little uncomfortable in his new role as insider. He misses being out, you know, doing the rallies and being the gadfly and being the bomb thrower. He said to me, he's like, now I'm in the room and I'm not really sure I'm that good at this, but it's the role that I'm filling now.

And so that's what I'm doing my best to do. Oh, you better be good at it now. You've been in the Senate for 30 years. I'm not sure I was born to do this, but I'm doing my best. So very interesting talking to him. Like I said, we'll have more of the show today and we'll also have the full thing for you

on Crystal Cow and Friends. But look, the bottom line is it's a tricky situation. Progressives hate the infrastructure bill. The moderates don't like where the reconciliation bill is. Are they going to be able to bridge all of those gaps when you essentially have to have 100 percent of the Senate on board, Senate Democrats on board, and pretty much 100 percent of the House Democrats on board as well? And then, oh, the House and the Senate also have to agree on this thing. So many miles to go before we get there. Pramila Jayapal was on CNN. And this, I thought, was very interesting and revealing. Our friend Case Study QB pulled this clip and sent it over to me because, number one, it shows you that Progressive's not really happy with where

this infrastructure bill stands. But it's also just like very revealing how the media frames all of this. It's very, they don't care about any of the details of what are in these packages and whether on their merits they're actually good or not. They just see like bipartisanship. It's something. It must be a win. Let's take a listen to that. Don't you want to take a win where you get it in terms of the infrastructure, bipartisanship on infrastructure? I want the American people, Alison, to get a win. And the American people are not going to get a win if we simply invest in roads and bridges but don't take on climate change. If we simply say we're going to create good jobs, but we don't allow women to get back into the workforce. If we don't do anything about health

care at a time when the pandemic cases are rising again. So, yes, we want to win desperately. There is an urgency to people across this country who are struggling to make it. The Beltway bipartisanship fetish, as if that's some like value and end in and of itself, is so obnoxious to me and is also so disconnected from how actually actual people experience any of these negotiate. They don't care if Lindsey Graham voted for it or not. They want to know if the road and the bridge in their neighborhood and their community is fixed. They want to know if there's going to be universal pre-K or the free community college and those pieces that are in the reconciliation bill. So it just boggles my mind. It's so shallow. The analysis is just like, oh, Democrats and Republicans did a thing.

Therefore, it must be a good thing. Yeah. I mean, you know, it was bipartisan. The war in Iraq. How did that work? I always point to that one because I'm like, you know what? We've done many good bipartisan things in this country, like the war in Iraq. It was right along both party lines. It's a good thing. Many trade deals, many trade deals, very bipartisan. Exactly. NAFTA was very bipartisan. So was PNTR with China. So are- Cutting the capital gains tax rate, all great bipartisan achievements. Creating, making it so that you can't discharge medical bankruptcy or discharge your student loan debt. And even though they'll garnish your wages when you die. These are all very good bipartisan things.

Yeah. Look, whenever it comes to the policy, is it good or is it not? That's all that really matters. And I don't think generally people care. And many Republicans have also understood this over the years. The Bush tax cuts, these were all passed under reconciliation without a single opposition vote. So it just goes to show you how a lot of the fetishization over this stuff is just completely ridiculous.

And in my opinion, they have made this endlessly more complicated by splitting it up into these two different bills. Then the House is holding them hostage. I outlined the process already for all of you. This thing is a mess. We have many, many months to go before anything actually becomes law. And whether it will look even close to what it is today, I have a lot of doubts. Yeah. And how you're going to get really feel confident that Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are going to vote for anything like what you have in place right now.

That's the piece that I just I just don't really understand. It is that on the bipartisanship thing, like remember at the beginning of the Biden administration, they're passing the relief bill, and frankly, they had a lot more sort of wind in their sails than they do right now. Ron Klain went out and was like, look, our definition of bipartisanship is that you look at the polling and you see that you got Republicans on board and we don't really care that much about these people who are here in this town. Why should they be the definition of bipartisanship? And I thought, oh, well, that's progress. That makes a lot more sense. And then immediately there's this backsliding to, you know, 1980s and 90s style thinking about politics that anyone cares about the process and the number of Republicans that you were able to get on board. It's just completely at odds with the way that politics actually work.

I think it's just Biden's brain being stuck in the 1990s. I honestly do. I think it's just old Senate institutionalism and like that harken back. It's a very old way of looking at politics. I think it's that. I think it's also, I think Manchin and Sinema kind of forced this direction. Like basically, we will only back your reconciliation deal if we get to show that we have this bipartisan accomplishment. And also this is fodder for people who want to preserve the filibuster to be like, see, look, we came together. We did something together. See, we don't need to get rid of the filibuster.

We just need to like talk and have lunch together again or something like that. Anyway, okay, so this is a really interesting story about a point of tension between the Biden White House and some of their key allies in labor. So the Biden White House has started to feel out the idea of requiring that federal government employees and other sort of other businesses and federal workforce require them to be vaccinated. Big divide has emerged between some labor unions and that direction within the administration. So you've got, you know, kind of one of the bigger players in this town, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. He said he would support a mandate that was seen as giving a boost to the White House efforts. So we put the tear sheet up on the screen. We can put the tear sheet up there. Yeah. So there's Richard Trumka.

You can see him there. So he says that he would support a mandate. He's been a key ally of Biden as he was with Obama. He also would go and talk to Trump and do all of that, too. But other labor leaders are much less comfortable. And so there's a split within labor. There's also a split between members and leadership. Rank and file. Rank and file. You've got a lot of conservative members. You've got a lot of Trump-supporting members of these labor unions.

And so those leaders and members in those unions that have a lot of potentially Republican membership are a lot less comfortable with all of this. One noteworthy dissent on this is the International Association of Firefighters. They were, I don't know if you guys remember when Biden first launched his presidential campaign. He did it with the firefighters. They've been with him from the jump. Some of his strongest supporters and backers from the beginning. Well, the press secretary for the IAFF says directly, we're not doing any mandates. We're not advocating any mandates for vaccination.

At this point, we want to make sure our members have what they need to stay safe on the job. And we are encouraging them to vaccinate and communicating with our local affiliates. But very strong in terms of like, we're not down with this whatsoever. The analysis here, I thought this was interesting. It made a lot of sense to me. They say some unions say that because the vaccine has become so politicized, mandates from leadership would be less effective and would actually only alienate certain members. Instead, they push leadership to focus on incentives and outreach programs that have been effective in the past at getting rank and file members vaccinated. Several unions have already bargained with companies through the pandemic to provide

certain perks to workers. For example, the Association of Flight Attendants led by Sarah Nelson, who you all know, they have not endorsed a vaccine mandate, but they negotiated a program that provides three extra vacation days to United Airlines flight attendants who receive the vaccine. There you go. One of the things that we've been talking about is like, you may feel like I, you know, I'm okay with getting vaccinated, but I can't take the time off work. And then what if I get sick? And then do I have to miss that time too?

So they cleared that obstacle for their workers and are, you know, doing what they think makes sense to get their members vaccinated. To me, that, at this point, we may wish it was otherwise, but the vaccine is very politicized. And I think their analysis here is correct, that a mandate is really counterproductive. I couldn't agree more. And at the end of the day, look, we live in a free country.

And there's a lot of dicey legal ground here too, because there's going to be challenges over exemptions. It is still emergency youth authorization. It's not fully approved or whatever by the FDA, which means it actually can't legally be mandated. And whenever you look at a lot of this stuff and you think about the labor movement and more, do you really want to spark this federal mandate that you have to do it and then create more people leaving unions? I mean, that seems counterproductive in my opinion. We live in a free country. Having incentives, I think, is great.

The city of New York just put in that program where they're going to offer anybody who walks into a vaccine clinic right now $100, no questions asked, if you get the vaccine. I think that's awesome. That's exactly what you need to do. More vacation days, exactly. Having it so that the companies can give it on site. Once again, ease of access, incentive.

That is exactly what people on the fence. Having it so that the companies can give it on site. Once again, ease of access, incentive. That is exactly what people on the fence. And then you just have to live with the fact some people are not going to get it. We live in a free country, and that's how it is. And having this mandate, you know, I do think that it sends the wrong message. Because something I've been thinking about is you either have to go all in, kind of the way that France did. Yeah. Where they're like, look, you're not getting on a train unless you get vaccinated. You're not going to a restaurant, you're not getting on a train. They're like, you will not exist in society if you don't get vaccinated. That's what Israel

did too. But they're authoritarian countries. And I don't mean that in like a dictatorship way. What I mean is that they don't have a bill of rights. Like we have freedom baked into our constitutional system and a federalist system in terms of all 50 states. National vaccine mandates are literally impossible in this country. And so otherwise, don't, you know, creating this like red, blue, this will only culturally make it even worse and more of a hot button issue. And I think focusing on the incentives, emphasizing to workers about their own safety, about their ability to thrive, about maybe they'll get some perks and stuff, that's the best way to do it. So I really do feel bad for many of the workers and the union people who have to deal with this because they're like, Biden, you don't know what you're doing here, man. 40%

of our people voted for Trump. Maybe one third of them won't get vaccinated. You're about to screw us out of our own power and ability to bargain for wages, which is ultimately what I think we should care about the most. Well, there has already been, you know, a long brewing sort of tension between some union leadership and rank and file because of this sense that their politics at the top are different from what, not even a majority, but a large portion of rank and file members and what their political inclination is. So since there used to be a time, and still at the state level, there are Republicans who are pro-labor, pro-union Republicans. And so labor unions would endorse more like across the aisle. And so there was more of a clear demonstration of like, look,

guys, this isn't about a partisan affiliation. This is just about the issues that are relevant to our membership and their economic material well-being. Well, with Republicans going all in on union busting for decades at this point, especially at the federal level, you're pretty hard-pressed to find a single Republican that a union feels like we could endorse them and they're going to do anything good for us. So that's created this tension already. I do think that a vaccine mandate coming from Joe Biden and coming from union leadership, I do think that would be received really poorly. One place that I am not sure what I think about is I think it gets complicated when you talk about like healthcare workers, when you talk about nurses. I mean, if your job is to keep people safe and

healthy and that's your work that you've chosen and you are in hospital settings or nursing home settings or other institutional settings where you have a much more disproportionately vulnerable population, I feel a lot differently about that. Like if you're an ICU nurse, right? Yes. Yeah. Come on. Get the freaking vaccine. I mean, this is your job. This is your livelihood. This is what you've pledged to do and take care of people. So I do feel different in these certain narrow contexts. But in general, I think it's a violation of people's freedoms. And I frankly think that it's very counterproductive. I completely agree with you. All right. Hey, so remember how we told you how awesome premium membership was? Well, here we are again to remind you that becoming

a premium member means you don't have to listen to our constant pleas for you to subscribe. So what are you waiting for? Become a premium member today by going to breakingpoints.com, which you can click on in the show notes. We've got a good story here. You were excited. Yeah. I mean, this is something which if you want to see where at the heart of the grift, the grift of all grifts, Jared Kushner was always one of those people. He had all of these portfolios in the White House, which he had no expertise in. I cannot think of a single thing that he accomplished while he was in office, except for two things, which was criminal justice reform and that Middle East peace deal. Now, the Middle East peace deal he wanted to secure as his legacy.

He wanted people to hail him for all time as some great peacemaker and all that. You know, it was important, I think, generally. But as Treat to Parsi has said here on the show, it kind of just brought out into the open what was already a secret agreement between the Gulf Arab states and Israel. Well, it won't surprise you that Jared now wants to leave politics and start an investment firm. So let's put this up there on the screen. So Jared will, quote, leave politics to launch his investment firm in Miami, because of course. And what he wants to be doing here is brokering deals between the United States, investors, and people in foreign countries. And Mark Mazzetti, who's a reporter, let's put this up there,

pointed out the most important and key part of this to me, which is that the office that Jared is going to open is also going to be in Israel pursuing regional investments to connect Israel's economy and India, North Africa, and the Gulf. This is so disgusting because read between the lines. And I talked about this previously with Steve Mnuchin. Jared Kushner helped negotiate a peace deal while he was in office between Israel and the Gulf Arab States. And now that he's out of office, quote unquote, he is now opening an investment firm in the United States and in Israel to help take advantage of the commercial opportunities which he created. So how can we not have questions about, hey, man, were you maybe doing this peace deal in order to put more money in your pocket? The same thing happened with Steve Mnuchin, who was the Treasury Secretary under Trump. Mnuchin immediately leaves, starts a private equity firm, and starts soliciting money from the Saudi Arabian Sovereign Wealth Fund.

And that was a fund he was in charge of regulating while he was the Treasury Secretary. The conflict of interest abounds across all of these. And you can be like, yeah, but everybody does it. Isn't that part of the problem? This guy helped form the conditions on which he is now poised to make millions of dollars. I do want to say, though, given his track record in the White House, if you give Jared your money to invest, you are a grade A idiot given his ability. You deserve to lose your money. Yeah, you deserve to lose it. I know there's a lot of rich people out there who are dumb and will definitely give him money, probably like

Trump's Mar-a-Lago members or whatever. Unfortunately, I also think that this is going to be one of those deals that can't, you know, can't possibly fail because there's just too much interest in like currying this influence and making sure you got this guy in your back pocket still if and when Trump runs for the White House again or ends up in the White House again. I didn't think about that. Pay to play scheme, access to Trump, I'll invest in your stupid firm, right? Yeah. I mean, he's, oh, I'm out of politics, but you're still the son-in-law. That's a good point. Of the former and potentially future president. So, yeah, of course, you know, folks in the UAE and Bahrain and Sudan and Morocco, of course, everybody everywhere has an incentive to, you know, make sure you get a sweetheart deal, make sure you're taken care of, make sure they've got access to you just as a little, just in case, as a little insurance policy for the future. So not only are you cashing in on your quote-unquote public service by opening this investment firm, but you're also cashing in on potential future access and quote-unquote

public service. Like you said, it's not like it's entirely unique at all, but that doesn't make it any better. It's still incredibly gross. This was always the problem, too, with Trump is unique in this regard just because he has so much more in terms of business interests and global business interests than previous presidents. And so with all of his actions, you had to ask yourself, like, are you doing this because you actually think this is the right thing to do? Are you doing this because this is good for your business currently or in the future or good for Ivanka or good for Jared or whatever? You always have, when you have these massive conflicts of interest, you have these huge question marks in your mind. And then when Jared goes and does something like this, then you pretty much have confirmation that your questions and your concerns were 100% valid. And I would be remiss if we didn't mention that Jared's top ally, Tom Barbaric,

I think is his name, was just indicted by the federal government for being an unregistered agent of the UAE and using his position as an informal advisor to the White House to push for policies that Emirati officials told him to do so. So he was already, this rich guy, had involvement with the inaugural committee, a top ally of Kushner. He was charged for then taking orders on behalf of that government and then lobbying our own government informally through an influence network. And I just find this so completely repulsive whenever you see the ties between all of this foreign money, its influence on our national politics, on our national policy, on our foreign policy, and then the nakedness of coming out of office and then starting an investment firm to build on the things while you did run off.

It's like the most naked way of cashing in. And it's completely and totally legal. Now, it's not just Steve Mnuchin. It's not just Jared. Larry Kudlow and who was the Commerce Secretary? Wilbur Ross. They also have SPACs, which is what they're called, Special Acquisition Vehicles. Isn't that the thing Paul Ryan did too?

Which Paul Ryan is also involved in, in order to take companies public through this interesting new financial vehicle way. But you just got to ask yourself here, which is that is it okay for people who are in high government office to leave and cash out to the tune of tens of millions built directly on their work while they're federal government officials? And I would say no, it's absolutely not. It's disgusting when Jay Carney does it too and goes over to Amazon, all of this. Because this is one thing we've talked about a lot before, is if you don't think these future potential deals and jobs are on people's minds when they're serving in office or when they're executing their roles as government officials and advisors,

like, of course, of course, this is weighing on them. Of course, this incentivizes them to, you know, to treat different entities or different nation states in a more favorable way because they got their eyes on the prize of when I get out of office. Okay, what am I going to do then once I can really cash in on all of this? It's also worth mentioning, you guys probably remember, Kushner and his family were in sort of big, like difficult financial streets because of that building they bought in Manhattan, 666 whatever, Fifth Avenue or something. The Qatari government bailed them out. Qatari government came through, happened to come to a deal while Trump was in the White House. Gee, I'm sure that's totally independent of any favor that they were hoping to curry. I do have to say, like, the Gulf states were the best at understanding the Trump mentality.

Remember his first— Personally, they're very similar. His first overseas trip—I mean, you lived there. I lived in Qatar, yeah. I spent a significant amount of time in some of these places, too. And his very first trip overseas was to Saudi. And remember how they treated—they put his face on the bill. I mean, they knew overseas was to Saudi. And remember how they put his face on the bill? I mean, they knew exactly what to do.

And, of course, whenever they were in town, they'd stay at his hotel. They would book more rooms than they could possibly need just to up the bill and make sure it's very demonstrated to him that, you know, they're there to serve whatever his needs may be. That's because Trump is like a uniquely Gulf Arab figure, you know? It's like you got to buy, you know, how does it work in the Gulf? You pay off some guy's brother-in-law who's in the tribe and he goes to the emir and he gets a deal for you. And like, you know, the glitz and the marble. The authoritarian countries. Yeah, the glitz and the gold and the ostentatiousness in order to cover for, let's just say, a lack of intellectual framework within the society.

There's a lot of, there's a lot of similarity between the Trump family and what was happening in the Gulf. I remember thinking that, actually. I was like, man, these guys remind me of the Qataris that I used to live around. Yeah, even stylistically. If you look at Trump's residences and the styles that would be in vogue in Dubai or whatever, yeah, there's a lot of parallels there. That's funny. Okay, another Trump story that's interesting in terms of his endorsement saga that you've been looking at. Yeah, so the Trump team is in disarray right now. So let's put this up there from Axios, which is because he endorsed a candidate in the special election for the Texas 6th District, which has ended up losing. And this

is very important because the candidate he endorsed, Susan Wright, came in a Republican runoff with Jake Elsey. And the thing is, is that for a long time, people have been very afraid of having Trump's endorsement of their opponent. Obviously, we see that in the case of Liz Cheney. We see that in the case of Lisa Murkowski. But this is the first time in a while that Trump has actually endorsed somebody who ended up losing the primary in a special election. And I think the reason why this is so significant is because there are a number of cases across the country where this is about to be put to the test in a much bigger way. Now, look, it's a special election, but at the same time, it's Texas, right? Texas district. This is a hard Republican district. And within the story, you can see a lot of Trump allies blaming the Club for Growth president, David McIntosh.

But Trump wasn't just silent here. Like he did. Oh, sorry. He wasn't just didn't just endorse somebody. He really kind of went out of his way. He held like a special town hall the night before for her. So he took, I mean, time out of the schedule is packed. Packed put in 100K. Right. So like the stretch when they realized she might be in trouble.

This is really not a joke in terms of the institutional support that he gave, and he ended up losing. So what they describe as the aura of invincibility, which actually is pretty important for Trump in a lot of these primaries, I think it is, there's a lot of people here in DC who are going to take notice of the fact that it didn't come through. Now, look, I don't want people to take this like he's losing control or whatever. He's the most popular Republican in the country by a country mile. But remember that even just a little bit of the aura of invincibility shedding could actually open up kind of a new space. I don't think it's going to look like never Trump or whatever, but I do think that his inability in order to win maybe three or four

or five different, different special elections that would actually change the calculus of people and their behavior here in Washington and the way that they, you know, interact with Trump or like how much they kiss his ass in public and more, which actually would drive him crazy if he doesn't think that he has control like that. So I've got one big caveat on this race and then a couple of other indications that maybe his luck grip on the party. I mean, again, I don't want to restate these things, but there's a couple of little question marks here. So the caveat on this particular race is it was a special election, as you point out. There was an initial vote with like 30 candidates or whatever. And the top two out of that, because nobody came out with

50 percent, the top two were both Republicans. So this wasn't actually a Republican primary vote. This was the special election. And so what that means is that this district was not an overwhelming Trump district. I think he won it by maybe six points or something. I'm making that up, but it's somewhere in that realm of margin, okay? So in this race, Democrats and independents could also run, could also vote, rather. So there's one theory of the case is that because his candidate, you know, was leaning really hard into I'm the Trump candidate, I'm the Trump candidate, he's recording robocalls and PAC money's flowing in and the ads that she was running were all about like, Trump is with me, et cetera, et cetera, that that may have actually hardened the Democrat and independent

vote. Who came out to come vote for him. Who came out for the other dude, who ended up ultimately winning by about six points. So I think that's an important caveat of the dynamics of this race and why it's a little different than if you just have like a Republican primary head to head. There's an Ohio race coming up, I believe, next week. Yeah, that's right. That's another significant one that he endorsed. And so we'll see what the results of are that for that one and whether he comes out on top there. However, there were two other things that I thought were noteworthy. First of all, Trump came out vociferously against this infrastructure deal that just passed a key procedural hurdle last night in the Senate that we were telling you about and that Mitch McConnell supported that a lot of Republicans came on board and supported. Trump put out this statement saying, it's hard to believe our Senate Republicans are dealing with the radical left Democrats and making a so-called bipartisan bill on infrastructure with our negotiations, our negotiators headed up by super rhino Mitt Romney. This will be a victory for the Biden administration and Democrats and

will be heavily used in the 2022 election. It is a loser for the USA, a terrible deal, makes the Republicans look weak, foolish, and dumb. It should not be done. Pretty unequivocal there. And yet a lot of Republicans bucked what he wanted them to do and went and voted for it anyway. So that's interesting. That's a good point. The other thing that was noteworthy to me is that Newsmax, which really billed itself as like the preeminent Trump channel, and we covered,

and they got a lot of attention when on like one night, they beat Fox News during all the Stop the Steal madness. Of course, Fox, you know, they took a lot of heat from the conservative base because they called Arizona and they were less like all in on the Stop the Steal stuff. So Newsmax gained a lot of ground during that interim time before Biden was inaugurated.

Well, since January, they've lost half of their audience and they still leaned into this strategy of taking all the Trump speeches, all the Trump rallies, etc., etc., it's just not paying dividends like it used to. So that's another sign, and we've covered others, of how the internet traffic and searches for him, etc., etc., have gone way down. So those are some interesting other pieces to add to the mix of where he stands in terms of both the Republican Party but sort of the public writ large. So that's important because a Trump which controls 70% of the GOP is different than a Trump that controls 90% of the GOP. Yes.

Or 95% of the GOP. I think at one point whenever he was running, he had like 90-something percent approval rating within the Republican Party. So diminished, even though you can have like the super majority who support you, having some who are willing to buck the trend, that does actually change some of the calculus, at least in the way that the lawmakers are going to behave here in DC. And then the same thing is true in terms of public interest. So if it is the case that Democrats and independents came out specifically despite him, it shows that the 2020 effect of, we hate Trump, we will do anything

in order to screw this guy over, as in voting for Biden, still holds true. Which would mean that, yes, if you're in a red state, it's great to be endorsed by Trump. But if you're in any sort of battleground state, stay the hell away. As I understand it, what's his name? Glenn Youngkin, who is running for governor.

He's like, get the hell out of here, Mr. President. And Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat. Yeah, is bashing him over the head with it every day. All his ads are like, he's Trump, he's with Trump. You don't want to vote for Trump in Virginia. So, I mean, that is very revealing. That's smart, yeah. That's very revealing.

Right, so Glenn Youngkin basically is getting Trump's endorsement, and from all the inside reporting, he's like, dude, I don't want this. I don't want you talking about me. Pretend I don't exist. Leave me alone. You know, leave me alone. Trump, of course, can't help himself. He's like inserting himself. And Glenn Youngkin can't publicly say, oh, you know, I don't want his endorsement or whatever, because then he wouldn't get the base to come out. But Terry McAuliffe, who's running against Glenn, is hitting this guy over the head every day. Trumpkin, Trumpkin, Trumpkin, you know, all the time. Yeah.

At least from what I have observed within the race. Yeah. And I'm like, oh, so this, you know, Glenn Youngkin will probably lose by a decent amount. And a lot of these Northern Virginia Democrats are going to come out and be like, screw Trump. That's like a, you know, a screw. That's a big motivator. It's a big motivator for a lot of these people. So I just think that this is a very revealing insight not only to his power within the Republican Party,

but how and his ability to inspire both hatred and love from different parts of the electric. It's the Trump effect in politics. Like this is really what it looks like. Totally, totally polarized. And I'm not a big Terry McCullough fan, but he's a pretty savvy politician. I'd do the same thing if I was running this way. He was a pretty popular governor. Previously, it would be a huge upset at this point if Youngkin was to win in Virginia,

but I don't think anyone should take anything for granted at this point because I do think Republicans have a lot of momentum right now. I do think the midterms are going to be really tough for Democrats just because of history. And I also just think there's more energy and more fury and more all of those things that turn people out to vote in midterm elections. Over on the Republican side, Democrats have, you know, a bad sort of situation or landscape in terms of the way districts have been gerrymandered. So Virginia, always the first canary in the coal mine of what the trends are likely to be in those midterm elections

when it was just after Obama was elected in 2009, Bob McDonnell beats Creed Deeds, the Democrat, and it wasn't even close. I remember that. Back then, and then you have a shift to Terry McAuliffe, and then you get Ralph Northam, two Democrats, and that sort of solidifies Virginia's relatively blue status as dominated by the Northern Virginia suburbs. So definitely want to keep your eye on. Yeah, certainly. As we mentioned before, I sat down yesterday.

Senator Sanders, who obviously is a very busy man at this point, gave me 30 minutes of his time to delve deep into the reconciliation bill. That was really the thing that he was most excited about talking about. He also spent some time aggressively trashing the media, which was interesting. And I actually think that's why he wanted to, because they reached out to me. We actually didn't approach them

because he felt so frustrated that he never gets a single substantive question from mainstream media, which I also thought was just interesting and telling in terms of his mindset. But I tried to push him on his impression of the Biden administration seems to be very different from my impression of the Biden administration, right? He still uses this language sometimes about FDR. He certainly sees his reconciliation bill as incredibly significant. And I do think it's fair to say if the $3.5 trillion gets through as it is now, it is quite significant. Is it everything we would want?

Of course not. But universal pre-K and free community college and investments in climate and all of these things, like these are good and significant and long-term things. The child tax credit, I did a whole thing here about how significant that ultimately is. But he seems to have this view that Biden is really doing everything he can and like that this is historic and it's different from the way that past Democratic presidents have acted. Of course, I very much disagree. I don't understand why we're allowing a Senate parliamentarian to like dictate what the agenda is going to be. I don't understand why we're allowing a Senate parliamentarian to dictate what the agenda is going to be. I don't understand why you're just going along with keeping the filibuster,

this arcane Senate procedure in place. I don't understand why you're not using executive actions to do many of the things that you could ultimately do. So we had a little exchange on that. Let's take a listen. For whatever reason, Biden came into office and he looked around him and he said, you know what're going to spend 3% more here and 5% more there. But he said, these are the issues. We are going to deal with the needs of the children. We are going to deal with the needs of the elderly. We are going to deal with crime. We are going to deal with paid family and medically. We are going to deal with housing. Virtually every major crisis that we are facing, he is prepared to deal with. I have not seen a president in my lifetime who has done that. Am I wrong? I see that perspective, but I also see a president

who's willing to let a lot of those agenda items be killed by the filibuster and the parliamentarian. Well, but again, I don't want to defend them. I think the point you made a few minutes ago is exactly right. In this critical moment, when we're dealing with the future of the planet, when we're dealing with the future of democracy, you know what? I think majority should rule and not the – I believe that strongly. But don't think that he can snap his fingers no matter what he may or may not believe and make things happen. All right? There are certain things he could do though through executive – for example, canceling student debt. Yeah, that's right.

That's right. There are things he can do. Legalizing marijuana executive, for example, canceling student debt. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Legalizing marijuana. Yes. He could potentially do through an executive order. And so there hasn't been a willingness, even though he says, yes, I support the $15 minimum wage. Yes, I support the PRO Act to use all the tools that are at his disposal to actually make those things happen. You're absolutely sure of that? Is that fair?

No. I mean, in other words, you do not know about the discussions that he has with people who walk into his office. It's wrong to assume that when you're dealing with a United States senator

who does not want to end the filibuster, that he can go in there and say, hey, I want you to do that. So don't give the president... Although he could do what you proposed. When you were asked on the trail, how would you deal with Senator Manchin, you said, I'd go to West Virginia. I'd do the rally. I'd call him out.

Right. I mean, there are things you could do. All that I'm saying, do not minimize. I mean, and I don't want to get into personalities. Sure. Any member of the United States Senate has the power to kill this thing. And to think that the president alone can change that is not 100% correct. Sure.

But there are executive actions that he could take on student debt and other things. We can agree on that, right? I am not. Yes. Joe Biden and I, marijuana. I think the war on drugs has been just a disaster for this country, for the African-American community. I think it should end. I think marijuana should be legalized. We do that fairly simply.

But, yeah, so we have differences. But on this piece of legislation, at the end of the day, if we are successful, if, you know, this will be a major, major achievement. Interesting, Crystal. Yeah. Question a little bit. Couldn't really disagree. I don't really know who this guy is. When did Mr. Institutionalist,

I gotta say, this is very, very out of character for him. It makes sense in the context of your interview for, look, Bernie, the reason he's talking this way, he's the Senate budget chairman now, which is frankly, at least at this moment,

one of the, what is he, probably the third most powerful person in Washington behind Chuck Schumer? I mean, at this exact moment, yeah, he is that. And I actually talked to him about, I asked him, do you still see yourself as an outsider? Because, you know, I wanted to see what his, that's been who he has been for 40 years. Even when he was mayor of Berlin, he was still the outsider. He was the socialist mayor, right?

Probably the only one in the country at the time. And then you're seen as this gadfly in the House. And then you're seen as this gadfly in the Senate. And you're just out there throwing bombs. You're taking the 99 to 1 votes and all of that stuff. And now you're in the room. Now you're the one who's thinking about, like, oh, God, I got to not say anything that's going to piss off Joe Manchin and lose his support because I got to get this. And you could see that very clearly.

I got to get this bill done. But it's not in his nature to spin in the way that most politicians do. So he just sort of grants like. He's like, yeah, that's fair. You're right. What can I say? It's like, yeah, dude's fair. You're right. What can I say? It's like, yeah, dude, but what are you going to do? Are you going to do something about it?

Are you going to say anything about it? I just, okay, compared to what he was on the campaign, I don't think a campaign person would accept any of these excuses. The other piece is, you know, we talked about, and by the way, the whole interview, 30 minutes long, which I do think is very revealing of his current mindset, his current role, how he sees himself in a different place than where he was in other years, etc., etc., is going to be on Crystal and Kyle and Friends tomorrow. So you can sub on Substack in order to see the whole thing, which I do think is worth a watch. And he does say some things about the media that y'all are going to appreciate. But I do think that I also pushed him on, okay, why is it only the mansions

and the Gottheimers and the salt tax caucus over there in the House? Why are they always the ones who are willing to walk away? And progressives, we don't see that. We don't see red lines drawn, and we're going to withhold our support. You know, he felt like maybe some of what's being done by the Progressive Caucus isn't being seen publicly, that, you know, this behind the scenes, they're very influential. And so the bills are, you know, he framed it as like the bills are coming out in a more progressive direction. So that's happening ahead of time. And then it's the right wing that's trying to pull it back. I just don't agree with that.

When you see, you know, $15 minimum wage off the table, public option off the table. He did say that lowering the Medicare age may still be possible within this reconciliation bill, so we'll see. All the climate change provisions were stripped down of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Like, a lot of progressive priorities, frankly, no progressive priority has been implemented yet on a permanent basis.

There were some short-term things in the relief bill that were very good. But it's hard for me to celebrate, like, okay, you had these short-term things which reduced poverty and were great. But are we actually going to get to any of these bigger, broader programs that we're talking about? And I think he would himself say, like, don't know. It's a work in progress, and we'll see. So very interesting conversation. Yeah, I think watching the full thing is important for people because understanding and watching this outsider become the Senate budget chairman, and then I love how he's defending Biden.

He's like, you don't know what's going on in the Oval Office. I'm like, what happened to you? Right. And as I said, well, he could do, because this is something that drives me crazy, is Barack Obama does the same thing of pretending like the votes are set and there's nothing you can do. And as the president, you're totally powerless. And it's like, you had an answer for that. You got asked this question all the time on the trail and you had an answer for it. You were going to go to their districts.

You were going to be in West Virginia. You were going to put the pressure on and look, maybe it works and maybe it doesn't, but you can at least try. And again, he can't really, it's not in his nature to spin. So he just kind of has to be like- Yeah, he just sits there. Yeah, you're kind of right. He's like, yep, correct. Wow. You guys must really like listening to our voices. Well, I know this is annoying. Instead of making you listen to a Viagra commercial, when you're done, check out the other podcast I do with Marshall Kosloff called The Realignment.

We talk a lot about the deeper issues that are changing, realigning in American society. You always need more Crystal and Saga in your daily lives. Take care, guys. All right, Saga, what are you looking at? Well, as I said before on the show, there's nothing I love more than I told you so. The CDC, bowing to pressure from the insane public health establishment and the media, is now reversing its guidance for vaccinated Americans, asking them to wear masks in some quote-unquote high-risk areas, bowing to mass elite panic, bucking the science, and dealing probably the biggest blow yet to pro-vax sentiment.

Now, as I have said Monday, bringing back mask mandates sends a signal that the vaccines do not work to the people who are on the fence. From the beginning, the message to the unvaccinated has been simple. If you get vaccinated, you will not die from COVID and all pandemic restrictions are over. But now the message is muddled. Why even bother to get a vaccine if you still have to wear a mask and live differently? It is nonsensical, and mark my words, we are going to see a dip in vaccination appointments. But what really gets me is the final proof that the CDC is a clown organization which does not concern itself with science, but instead concerns itself with the feelings of the liberal intelligentsia.

Let's consider what the liberal intelligentsia and the CDC are so worried about. The CDC and Dr. Fauci say the situation has fundamentally changed. Fauci himself told CNN yesterday, quote, we are living with a fundamentally different virus. And yet, are we? The answer is no. As Glenn Greenwald highlights in this New York Times op-ed, it has always been known people can still get COVID after they've been vaccinated. The point is now COVID is not a deadly threat to the most vulnerable part of our population, the elderly, and to make the virus less deadly to make those who get it. That has worked. Who cares if the case number is up? What matters is,

are hospitals overflowing? Are people dying in the thousands every day? The answer to both of those questions is no, absolutely not. The difference between rising cases today and rising cases a year ago is now the people who might actually die from COVID are protected, or they have been given every chance that they have to protect themselves if they wish. It is not just me saying this. Take a listen to the CDC director herself just two months ago on freaking Rachel Maddow's program, assuring her vaccines work, masks can come off, and they protect against variants. So I, again, forgive me for speaking in personal terms,

and I don't mean to be too blunt about this, but how sure are you? Because this feels like a really big change. We're sure. There's an extraordinary amount of evidence now that demonstrates the vaccines are working in the real world, in cohort studies, in care facilities, across all states, that these vaccines are working the way they worked in the clinical trials. Importantly, there's also new data, just even in the last two weeks, that demonstrates these vaccines are working against the variants that we have circulating here in the United States. And also, data has emerged that has demonstrated that if you are vaccinated, you are less likely, not likely to asymptomatically shed the virus and give it to others. So it is this

coalescing of all the evidence now that tells us really it is safe to take. So what changed? Nothing changed. And to add insult to injury, the new CDC guidance doesn't make any goddamn sense. Things are so bad, even freaking CNN can see the holes in the new guidance, which are basing mass guidance on case counts, not on hospitalization rates. Here's a quote from Oliver Darcy, who is probably as far across the spectrum from me as it gets. Quote, the disparity in vaccination rates means a positive case in a state like New York is far different than a positive case in a state like Louisiana. The CDC's own hospitalization data bears this out. Louisiana is seeing a spike in hospitalizations while New York is not. And yet, CDC guidance treats parts of New York exactly the same way it treats Louisiana. It doesn't make much sense. Exactly. It doesn't make much sense to anyone with a brain that can

understand this basic fact. For a long time, I resisted the canard that a lot of my GOP friends told me, which is that many liberals simply cannot let go of pandemic restrictions, that their brains had been rotted by Trump. I knew it was true to a certain extent, but I had faith that normal people would rebel against nonsensical restrictions. However, as liberals would be beaten into submission by the overwhelming desire to just move on, I thought it would stand.

But I will freely admit that these people have lost their minds, abandoned the science completely. The consequences for this are really dire because as with all things, this is a story of class more than anything. The people who are freaking out about rising cases are the most likely to be vaccinated. You want proof? The moment after the announcement, the freaking White House, where literally the entire staff is vaccinated, is going to be wearing masks. Why? Seriously, who cares if one of them gets a breakthrough case of COVID? It is not a threat to anyone in that building. The White House

Correspondents Association announced the same policy, again, for a group that is almost entirely vaccinated. None of this has anything to do with science, with threats to people's lives, or getting vaccinated. It has to do with control and fear, irrational fear for which I blame the media in the early days of the Trump administration, who sought to conflate every case increased with COVID with the need for lockdowns without ever teaching the supposedly smartest people in our society that the cases themselves are not what we're worried about. Vaccines have rendered the case number moot. They have severed completely the link between cases and death, as that graphic shows you.

And yet, simply the inability for the media and apparently the public health establishment to internalize this fact is going to wreak havoc on our civil society for decades to come. At this point, millions simply do not trust what the CDC says at all. And you know, why should they? A Twitter sleuth pointed out to me yesterday that the CDC's main justification for mask mandates and the claim that vaccinated Americans can spew as much viral load as unvaccinated Americans is not even based on a model from the United States. It's based on a model out of India, which has completely different vaccines than the ones that we use here. This is psychotic. It is not even based upon real science. Like with all things in America, COVID is hyper-politicized. Nobody is doing any real digging into what's going on here. Pandemic restrictions themselves are an article of

faith to many liberals, and for many conservatives, proudly not getting vaxxed is a statement even if you're obese and have diabetes. The longer this hysteria marches through our institutions, the further divided we will all be. My prediction on the announcement is this. Upper middle class liberals will wear masks, social distance, and force them on their kids unjustly forever. The actually vulnerable will look at the CDC nonsense, not wear a mask. They're going to get sick. And inevitably, when the New York Times and others start agitating for mini lockdowns in the winter, they will bear the brunt. They'll get kicked out on employment. They're going to lose their job, lose their ability to attend an AA meeting. Class stratification will widen. I had been hopeful a

month ago. We may avoid that scenario, but increasingly seeing these establishment liberals reach for the mask and the mandates, the slightest sign of an increase in cases shows how much these people will never relinquish power over other people's lives. They don't believe themselves in the life-saving power of the vaccine that they supposedly champion. That's the part that really gets me, Crystal. I believe in the vaccine. One more thing, I promise. Just wanted to make sure you knew about my podcast with Kyle Kalinsky.

It's called Crystal, Kyle, and Friends, where we do long-form interviews with people like Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and Glenn Greenwald. You can listen on any podcast platform or you can subscribe over on Substack to get the video a day early. We're going to stop bugging you now.

Enjoy. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, guys, I was going to stay out of this. Really, I was. But the reaction to Simone Biles dropping out of the Olympics has just been too irresistible for me to resist. Some of y'all are suddenly way too invested in women's gymnastics. I am glad that Simone made the decision she thought was right for her, and that was it. That was pretty much the end of my emotional commitment to this entire story. At first, I also wasn't really buying the idea that doing so was some tremendous act of bravery. It seemed more to me like an impressive act of self-knowledge more than anything else. She's been at this sport a

long time. She knew she wasn't going to be able to perform well. That would have both hurt her team's chances and put herself at risk of significant physical injury, which is an important note there. She recognized that. She listened to it. She acted on it. Good. Some ephemeral sports glory really isn't worth all that. Now, I felt my own sentiments most reflected in Tim Dillon's take. He said, I have no issue with her not competing as I believe the Olympics itself is a scam and a waste of everyone's time. Well said. That's pretty much my take as well. So anyway, I was content to leave it at that. But after seeing some of the responses, I found my mind being changed on whether or not this was actually an act of bravery. Because facing this

level of derangement definitely takes some courage, and she certainly knew what she would be in for. Also, the excessive overreaction from some corners caused me to question whether what she did was really as inconsequential as I had initially thought. So, as some examples here, here's the spectator calling Biles a quitter, saying she let down her teammates and her country? Please. Letting down your country is lying about WMDs or bailing out Wall Street or drone striking innocent civilians and then throwing the man who exposed those drone strikes in prison. That is letting down your country. Not doing a gymnastics routine is not letting down your country. This guy, who's apparently the CEO of right-wing Babylon Bee News, said that Simone Biles just said sitting out the big competition shows how strong you really are.

That's like saying soldiers who run away from battle are courageous. Cowardice is not courage. Weakness is not strength. Great athletes understand this. Obviously a rather simplistic take, lacking in humanity whatsoever. Also, the Olympics are not a war. The uneven bars are not a battlefield. And for the record, soldiers who refuse to fight in unjust wars, they are in fact rather courageous. But by far, the most deranged response I've seen yet came from Charlie Kirk. I just said she's probably the greatest gymnast of all time. She's also very selfish. She's immature and she is a shame to the country. She's totally a sociopath. Of course she's a very selfish. She's immature and she is a shame to the country. She's totally a sociopath.

Of course, she's a sociopath. Andrew says she's not a sociopath. What kind of person skips the gold medal match? Who does that? It's a shame to the nation. You just gave a gift to the Russians. Don't show up. If you're not ready for the big time, we got thousands of young female gymnasts that would love to take the place.

Thousands. Simone Biles just showed the rest of the nation that when things get tough, you shatter into a million pieces. All right. So first of all, by far my favorite part is when he says she gave a gift to the Russians. A gift to the Russians? Did you just walk off an MSNBC set? What is this? Must we Cold War every single aspect of our entire culture whenever it is even mildly convenient to your point? Yeah, Putin loves Simone Biles. She's a useful idiot for the Kremlin.

Please stop. But the larger point is that it's rather perplexing to me just how emotionally invested in this Charlie Kirk is. She's ashamed of the nation. She's a selfish sociopath. What a strangely personal take. Why does this matter so much to you? What, you're a big women's gymnastics enthusiast now? You're deeply invested in how many medals the U.S. accumulates in the Olympics corporate broadcasting spectacle? I just really didn't get it.

Now, the obvious explanation that many others posit is that these guys seem to get very worked up anytime someone doesn't match some weird machismo tough guy warrior stereotype. Yes, Simone, of course, is a woman, but she's making America look weak, and therefore she's making me look weak or something like that. I don't really know. It's almost as if their own masculinity and strength may be somewhat less than secure. But I actually think a more meaningful explanation has to do with the danger posed by people who step out of line. Simone had a script written for her for this Olympics. Be the number one star, the GOAT, not just in gymnastics, but for the entire Games. Perform flips for the audience, say a few inspirational words,

provide a heart-pounding kick to some corporate ads, and then ride off into the sunset because at 24, well, we're pretty much done with you. We have seen this narrative arc performed by countless Olympic athletes over the years, time and time again. Well, she didn't follow that script. She asserted herself as an actual full human being who had priorities that didn't match up with that script or the viewing audience's desires and affirmatively decided not to conform. And when you think about it that way, that message actually is kind of dangerous. So it makes sense that it's bizarrely agitating to a non-trivial part of the population. Now, I know Charlie thinks of himself as a real renegade and a free thinker and all of

that. But the truth is, his entire ideology is in service of the existing status quo. He's funded by a typical slate of Republican donors, a typical slate of D.C. conservative organizations and think tanks. His career is dependent on his proximity to power and the person of Donald J. Trump. He is a fierce defender of the status quo with an outsider aesthetic, and his status and career depends on how useful he is to current power structures. So looking at it through that lens, his seeming overreaction to Simone Biles started to make a little bit more sense to me. For a bipartisan example here, you might recall how threatened Barack Obama was by the NBA's decision to strike in solidarity with Black Lives Matter protests. A similar instance, I might say, of athletes failing to follow the pre-approved script.

Do you remember that? Our friend Iremi remembered it. He pointed it out on Twitter and also pointed it out to me. Obama doesn't say anything about much at all. You won't find him offering one word of encouragement to the Frito-Lay workers or striking minors, for example. But wow, did he jump on the phones to get the NBA players back on the court, back to dribbling, playing their prescribed role for spectators and for corporates. And as Irrami also points out, Obama was recently rewarded for his role as corporate enforcer, a kind of presidential Pinkerton, with an equity stake in

NBA Africa. He'll be a strategic partner, a minority owner. How nice for him. By the way, we've got Irami on an upcoming episode of Crystal Cow and Friends laying all of this out in much greater and smarter detail than I could, so definitely don't miss that. But the bottom line here, boys and girls, is that if you follow the rules, you'll get your little pats on the head. If you enforce the rules, you might be handsomely rewarded for your efforts. Simone Biles is just one little skirmish in a broader war to keep everyone in their prescribed place. Our rulers demand a nation of sheep, and even one string from the flock must not be tolerated. So basically, a long way of saying, S string from the flock must not be tolerated. It's all basically a long way of saying, Sagar, I don't know why people cared.

So you guys know we've been following this miner strike that has been going on now, I think, over four months. Well, yesterday they went hundreds of miners and protested outside of Black Rock in Manhattan because that is the largest investor in Warrior Met Coal. That's, of course, the company that they all work for, where they've been getting the same wages now for years and years, took a huge pay cut and a bankruptcy. We have a great journalist on who can explain everything that's going on there and also was at that protest yesterday and got some great video. Kim Kelly joins us, independent journalist. I've found your work, Kim, at The Real News, also at More Perfect Union. I think that's who you were working for at the protest yesterday. Teen Vogue, also great work there. And, and, and has a book coming out called Fight Like Hell, The Untold History of American Labor. Great to see you, Kim.

Good to see you, Kim. Thank you so much for having me and for paying attention to the story. As we know, it's been kind of an uphill battle. Well, I do want to get to that because I actually think that is an important part of the story. But just for people who haven't been following the strike, what are the grievances? How long has it been going on? And what was it like on the ground there yesterday outside of Black Rock? Right. So over 1100 coal coal miners at Worry Mac Coal in Brookwood, Alabama, which is kind of a rural area out in Tuscaloosa County, they've been on strike since April 1st. It's an unfair labor practices strike,

which means that essentially negotiations for their new contract between the company and the union broke down and they weren't offered anything that was really worth taking from what I'm told. So they decided, all right, we got to do this. We got to hit the bricks. It's actually the largest strike in 40 years in Alabama.

And they've been out there on the picket lines every day, 24-7. It's been, it's taken a huge amount of effort to sustain the strike. But, you know, they've been putting in the hours. And yesterday, I think about 400 of folks from Alabama, as well as West Virginia and Pennsylvania and Kentucky, busloads of miners, members of the UMWA, United Mine Workers of America. They came into Manhattan and joined a bunch of local supporters from a number of other unions, as well as labor leaders and just locals who are down to support the cause. And it was it was really beautiful. There was hundreds and hundreds of people in camo picketing in front of Black Rock. The images were great. The speeches were great. Susan Sarandon showed up. It was a pretty great experience. And there were a lot of media people out there. So I'm really hoping that

their story is finally going to get out there. We have a little bit of video from the ground yesterday, Kim. Let's take a listen to that. We'll get your reaction on the other side. But I'll tell you this, no matter how long this strike goes on, no matter how many scabs try to assault you, no matter how many times they escalate this issue, I'll tell you this, young workers, young workers, 25-year-old workers, 30-year-old workers, South Dakotans, Californians, workers all over the world are going to stand with you and will support you.

And there's nothing BlackRock or any other rich asshole can do about it. What was the feeling there on the ground, Kim? I mean, is there a feeling of hope there in order to be victorious? Yeah, people were really excited to be in New York City. For most of these folks, it's the first time they've been there. I actually took about a dozen of them out on the town the night before. It was very wholesome, you know, more or less. People are excited. I think they're very excited to see media out there. They're excited to see labor leaders from around

the country out there. I'm sure it felt different to them because, you know, the UMWA, they've been having weekly rallies on Wednesdays at Tannehill State Park down near Brookwood. And, you know, that's been a big part of sustaining the strike, too. But it's a lot different going from kind of your hometown area to Manhattan, New York City, surrounded by skyscrapers in front of Black Rock. Like people, people were pumped. That's amazing. Yeah. And you got phenomenal video like we just saw there. I also thought there was a video that really caught my eye where you were talking to two women who are wives of minors down in Alabama who were just talking about what they were doing to try to sustain families during this long strike. Because, I mean, this is what

people really need to understand. It's easy to sit here and be like, yeah, solidarity, this is great and good for you for fighting the man. But the reality is this imposes very difficult financial circumstances on the workers who are holding out for a better deal for themselves and their families and future workers to come after them. Let's take a look at what those two women had to say. On the weeks that we're not getting our strike paid, we're passing out the food pantry bags. On the weeks that we don't pass out the food pantry bags at the rally, then you can come to the union hall on Thursday from 10 to 1.

How does it feel to be up here in New York supporting the miners? It feels great. Proud to be a coal miner. That's right. What do you want people watching this to know about the struggle? It's real. It's very real. We're going to be here. We're not giving up. We will be here to the end. So we win this. So talk to him a little bit about what families are going through right now. Right. So there's 1,100 workers on strike. So that's 1,100 families. And that's a lot of kids.

I think about 80% of the workers involved are parents. So that's the entire community. That's several communities, really, because it stretches out around Tuscaloosa County and Jefferson County and Walker County. And, you know, they do receive a strike fund check from the union every two weeks for about $650. And that's very important, but that only goes so far if you have a house payment and a car payment and kids and bills and medical issues, because these are coal miners who put their bodies through hell to get their job done. You know, the auxiliary that, you know, those two women, Amy and Stephanie, and tons of other spouses and retired minors and family members are part of, has been a huge factor

in their ability to keep going. You know, they collect and distribute free groceries. They, you know, they make food for the rallies. They're kind of the biggest cheerleaders in manageable just to keep the energy up because it is hard. People are tired. People are scared. People want their jobs back, but they want to make sure they're going in with a fair deal. Yeah. And Kim, I mean, what does the future look like on the strike, on the success, and what are the terms that need to be come to? You know, they're not really asking for very much is the thing. And that's the thing that I think kind of fuels so much of the motivation here because they're not asking for very much is the thing. And that's the thing that I think kind of fuels so

much of the motivation here, because they're not asking for a million dollars an hour or anything out of the ordinary. What they're trying to do is get back to what they already had in their previous contract before Warrior Met came in, before Warrior Met slashed their pay and took away their overtime and took away vacation days and messed with their health care. They want to get back to what they had before they can even think about getting better. And of course, they should be getting better because we should be seeing that progress. Any ethical company would come to the table and offer that. But this is not an ethical company, as we've seen from the vehicular attacks and the police presence and all of the

hostilities that have been directed at these workers. So the model for the strike has been one day longer, one day stronger. We'll be out here one day longer than they can stand. And they're dug in. Like they're ready to be out here as long as they need to. Like some of the women told me, you know, we're getting ready for a December toy drive for the kids if we need to. So they're not going anywhere, but it's going to be tough. I think the other piece of this, Kim, is the media part. And, you know, one of the reasons this story is important for a lot of reasons. But one of them is if you are like me and I think like you and you believe in a multiracial working class politics, here you have the majority of the workforce at where you're met is black. You have white minors coming in from West Virginia to support them.

You also have white families who are impacted by the strike and these conditions as well. So you actually have a true multiracial working class standing in solidarity, fighting corporate power against all odds. An incredible story, historic story, as you put it. First time in 40 years, you've had a strike of this size in Alabama, which is a so called right to work state. And yet, as of at least last week, there was a study done, not one segment, not one word from any of the three cable news networks about this fascinating, compelling, historic story. Why do you think that that is? It is, I've been thinking about this a lot because i've been covering this since the beginning and i've been so frustrated as a media person trying to get editors to green light pieces and trying

to get these guys the attention they need and there are a lot of factors involved i think the fact that coal mining has it's not the most popular uh profession anymore you know we're moving towards green energy it's environmentally destructive i understand that it would it's not necessarily the hottest topic that everyone wants to get behind it's complicated but and i think the fact that this is a group of like rural working class alabama coal miners they are not the traditional union demographic when it comes down to politics it's a more conservative group So maybe that chips away at some of the available sympathy. And of course, I mean, the Democrats don't want to talk about them or support them because they work with coal and Republicans don't want to talk about them because they're union, because Republicans don't care

about the working class. So they're kind of at a rock and a hard place. There's no politicians coming by to wave. There's no, you know, the New York Times isn't there on the ground because I was just in Alabama somewhere. Like it's, it's been driving me nuts because I'm from like a rural, like blue collar background. And like these folks remind me of my family. And so I just wish, you know, that I wish more people were paying attention, but I am hoping that them coming to New York and coming to the belly of the beast as it were, and being surrounded by media and being in this backdrop will really kind of shake people and be like, hey, this is a big deal. These people deserve our attention. They deserve a fair deal. You know, this is special, and we need to be supporting it. Yeah. Well, listen, if people want to follow what's going on,

there is no better source than you. You cover this story from the beginning on the ground in Alabama, now up in New York. Tell people where to find you and your work, Kim. I'm terminally online, so I'm very much on Twitter. My old college DJ name. I have a Patreon. I work for, I'm independent, so I work for a number of different places. I was covering that for More Perfect Union yesterday. Yeah, I also write for Teen Vogue. I'm working on stuff for a lot of different places. I was covering that for More Perfect Union yesterday. Yeah, I also write for Teen Vogue.

I'm working on stuff for a lot of different places. But Twitter is the best way to find me. And also a lot of the wives have become active on Twitter and TikTok. I love that. It's really cute. They're the best. I love them. And following the official UMWA accounts.

It's easy to find this stuff if you're looking for it, but you just have to look a little harder because I don't know how the powers that be aren't as interested in making noise. All right. Well, everyone go follow Akram Kim on Twitter. And, you know, if you want to see real stories of what's actually going on for people that the mainstream news is not showing you whatsoever. Kim, thanks for joining us. We really appreciate it. Thank you, Kim. Thanks so much for having me. I appreciate you. Our pleasure. Thanks, everybody, for watching. You can become a premium subscriber today. We really appreciate

all of your patience with our technical difficulties. It's not going to happen again. You know why? Because with your support, we just got a brand new awesome computer, which has 10 times the computing power of the previous one, which I'm told will help processing time, which will mean even more awesome content for all of you.

It's actually funny that the computer arrived literally the day after the old computer crashes and the new one shows up the very next day. Also, you guys will love this. We couldn't get the damn computer for a month and a half because of the semiconductor shortage. So, there you go. Real life coming

home to roost here. Alright, guys. Thank you so much for watching. Have a fantastic weekend. We will see you back here next week. Thanks for listening to the show, guys. We really appreciate it. To help other people find the show,

go ahead and leave us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps other people find the show. As always, a special thank you to Supercast for powering our premium membership. If you want to find out more, go to crystalandsauger.com. 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. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator,

and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. small but important ways. From tech billionaires to the bond market to, yeah, banana pudding. If it's happening in business, our new podcast is on it. I'm Max Chastin.

And I'm Stacey Vanek-Smith. So listen to Everybody's Business on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.