Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/31/23: Trump Employee Flips On Mar A Lago Coverup?, Megyn Kelly Vs DeSantis, Black Republicans Blast DeSantis, Biden Facebook Censorship, Biden Acknowledges Secret Grandchild, Staff Coach Feinstein To Vote Aye, Seniors Robbed By Gold Scammers

Episode Date: July 31, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss a potential Trump employee flip on Mar A Lago coverup as additional charges are made against the former president, Megyn Kelly dukes it out with DeSantis over his handling of Bud Light and Disney, Black Republicans blast DeSantis on his comments of "slavery benefits", Facebook Files show Biden censored Lab Leak on Facebook, Biden shamed into acknowledging his secret grandchild, Saagar looks into Staff caught coaching Senator Feinstein into voting "Aye", and Krystal looks into Seniors being robbed by Gold Scammers through Conservative media.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. I went through while I was down in prison for two years. Through that process, learn, learn from. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated.

I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The OGs of uncensored motherhood are back and badder than ever. I'm Erica. And I'm Mila. And we're the hosts of the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast, brought to you by the Black Effect Podcast Network every Wednesday. Yeah, we're moms.

But not your mommy. Historically, men talk too much. And women have quietly listened. And all that stops here. If you like witty women, then this is your tribe. Listen to the Good Moms, Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday on the Black Effect Podcast Network, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you go to find your podcast.

Hey, guys. Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.

What do we have, Crystal? Indeed we do. Lots to get to this morning. So additional Trump legal news. He is facing additional charges as we move towards potentially more indictments. We are certainly on watch for that this week. So we'll break all of that down for you. We've also got a bunch of political news, a bunch of candidates who were in Iowa, Trump out on the campaign trail, Ron DeSantis. How's it going for him as the donor class seems to turn against him? And he is increasingly under fire from black Republicans

over that black history curriculum in the state. So we'll break all of that down for you. We've got some bombshell revelations about the Biden administration attempting to censor Facebook. So we will get into all of that. And also a story that we covered previously about the Biden family and Joe Biden himself refusing to acknowledge Hunter's youngest child, Navy.

And there is a development there. They are now, I guess, basically shamed into acknowledging her, but we'll talk about it. Yes, we will. So all of that to get to. But before we do any of that, I wanted to remind everybody, we're getting more and more emails, Griffin tells us, from people who are frustrated with the fact that they're premium subscribers, they're clicking on the YouTube link, and they're still getting ads. So we wanted to remind you, if you're a premium subscriber and you want a completely ad-free experience, really the best place to go for the video content is Spotify. Yes, that's right. So as people know, we do not monetize our premium link, the link that we send out of our full show every day to our subscribers. But YouTube,

for some reason, don't ask me why, even though we don't earn a dime from it, still reserves the rights to serve ads on that. We've been getting more and more complaints. So look, we have a good relationship right now with Spotify. There is no ads available on that feed. You can still watch the full video. You just have to connect your premium feed to your Spotify player and you'll be able to watch it seamlessly within the app. We push it heavily whenever they roll that feature out. I know so many of you from the usage statistics are taking advantage. So it's both a reminder and also a push. If you want to guarantee you don't want a single ad on that, you can go ahead and use your Spotify app and you can watch it fully on Spotify player, which I know that many people, whenever they're on the go,

they want to be able to pull something up and put it back down. Not while driving, to be clear, can't do that. So anyway, breakingpoints.com in order to make that happen. And if you need instructions or whatever, again, how to connect to your Spotify feed, go ahead and send us an email at your premium email, which is listed whenever you went ahead and signed up. So we, once again, just thank all the premium subscribers and anybody who wants to sign up to be able to help the show. It's really, really helpful, both in terms of getting all the big interviews and all these other things, funding our UFO-related sojourns into the wild, which was a fun experience. You can continue to do that at breakingpoints.com, like I said. So thank you all very much. But Trump indictment.

Yeah. So we have a new superseding indictment in that Trump documents case. What that means is they've added an additional charge for Trump with regards to that, you know, the document that he's on audio recording, waving around, that we were told had something to do with Iran military plans. They've now apparently found that document. They're now charging him in addition with having that, holding onto that document. We also, though—and this is potentially even more significant, we have another Trump employee who was included and is now charged in this indictment as well.

And you have some conversations with him. This relates to the potential obstruction in terms of Trump trying to hide exactly what he had from the government. This was considered so significant that even Fox News in their coverage of this development had to acknowledge that this was a bad situation for Donald Trump. Let's listen to a little bit of what they had to say. There's electronic evidence involved here, right? They're talking about deletion of digital evidence and et cetera. That's the kind of stuff that can be tracked. That's very black and white to a jury. So this day and age with the CSI effect,

that kind of stuff goes over well. So they've gained some ground here in the case against Mr. Trump. It's not entirely duplicative of what they had. It is a superseding indictment, and it does, unfortunately for the president, add some substance. Really quickly, you said the goal is to flip Carlos de Oliveira, to turn him into a witness against President Trump. There's been some suggestion that that's already been attempted for months. They've been trying to get him to flip on President Trump, and that doesn't appear to have yet been accomplished. Right. So this is the hammer, right? In any case like this, if you're trying to cajole a witness into coming over to your side, especially one that really seems to know the inner workings, your last card to play is what they've done, which is indict him.

This is the hammer that lawyer says in terms of trying to get a Trump employee to flip. We have some additional news this morning that we may have another Trump employee who has already flipped. But before we get to that, let me give you some of the additional details about what's in the superseding indictment. We can put this up on the screen. So with regard to this new Trump employee, De Oliveira, who has been charged, they say here they've got some electronic communications of him speaking with another Trump employee who they're

just calling employee number four. They say they left the area of the IT office together, walked through a basement tunnel. De Oliveira, who is the one who has been charged, took Trump employee four to a small room known as an audio closet. Once inside that closet, he told Trump employee four the following, that their conversation should remain between the two of them. Then De Oliveira asked Trump employee number four how many days the server retained security footage. Trump employee four responding believed it was approximately 45 days. De Oliveira told Trump employee four that, quote, the boss course would be Trump wanted the server deleted and asked, what are we going to do? So we have additional, you know, pretty direct conversation here between these two Trump

employees, one of whom is now charged, basically, you know, alleging that they are involved in the cover up and trying to delete some of the security footage. This came right after the government had been requesting this very security and surveillance footage. So it doesn't look too good. And then the other piece this morning, Sagar, is that it looks like Trump employee number four may have flipped already. And that may be where some of this additional information that is coming in the superseding indictment came from. We've got a CNN report that Yuskeel Tavares, a Mar-a-Lago employee who oversees the property surveillance cameras, received a target letter from federal prosecutors. So we got a letter from federal prosecutors saying, hey,

you're a target of this investigation, but he hasn't been charged yet. And we know that he has been speaking with investigators. So when you put those two pieces together that they said, hey, buddy, you are targeting this investigation, and he appears to be speaking and potentially cooperating with investigators, this employee may have already flipped on Trump. Yeah, this is almost cartoonish in the way that it was described there. We literally were, you know, when you were reading, Crystal, for those who are listening,

that is directly from the indictment of the Department of Justice, also showing the penetration that they have into the Trump staff. I mean, I just think and continue to believe that it's very important for everybody to analyze these cases on their face. Some are silly, some are stretches of legal interpretation, not nearly enough standing. But on this one, I mean, they have it so cold in terms of the timeline, in terms of the so cold in terms of the timeline, in terms of the facts, in terms of the recordings, which we've all been able to take a listen to about, I could have declassified it, I didn't declassify it. And then now in terms of the coverup, which is why he's really in trouble in the first place. That ultimately is what I just

keep coming back to, is that this is a problem literally of his own making, where he had some ego, maniacal attachment to documents and calling them, quote, my documents regardless, crystal of classification status. And then whenever the government came and tried to get it back, they continued to obfuscate, to obstruct, and to try and to keep it away. So this is not James Comey. This is not Mueller. This is not any number of walls are closing in. It's just like basic presentation of the facts. There's a reason that Fox News is not airing any counter theory to this. And I actually, look, if people are

interested, there's only one pushback to this entire thing. And that is Vivek Ramaswamy's theory of the case around the Presidential Records Act and the superseding of executive privilege and the DOJ. So if people want to go watch that, we had an interview with Vivek. He, Crystal and him went at it for what, 10 minutes or so. You can go and see, but that is pretty much it in terms of respected, I guess, theoretical legal way out of this, out of this particular case. I think it's fair to say that it is, there are people who would assert that that may apply in the circumstance and that may be a kind of get out of jail free card for Trump. I would say it's a fairly novel legal interpretation that is certainly not held by the majority of legal analysts that I've heard.

I haven't even heard the Trump team really making any sort of a significant defense on that front at this point. I really think Trump's plan is just he's got to get elected. He's got to get back in the White House in order to escape all of these charges because every piece that's added looks increasingly more and more damning from him. Just to drill down on the other piece of this, so like I said, probably the most significant piece is you've got another Trump employee who is charged. You've got more communications that are directly related to the alleged obstruction. But you also did have a 30 second count of willful retention of national defense information that was also added in the superseding indictment with regards to Trump. And this does have to do with that audio recording of Trump in his office talking.

He's actually at Bedminster talking to a number of people saying, hey, I have this document. Take a look at this. Waving, you hear the papers rustling in the background. And he says, I could have declassified this when I was president, but now I can't, which again, sort of takes off the table one of the defenses that they had floated early. The reporting had been that this document had to do with military plans with regard to Iran, that it was highly top secret. The reporting had also suggested the government hadn't been able to find this document as of yet. Well, now apparently they have the document and they are charging him based on his willful retention of this document. And it's described in the indictment as a, quote, presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country that was marked top secret. No foreign, no, what does that mean?

Yeah, no foreign. No foreign, remember, I remember this from our Discord. That means that you can't, the Discord leaks, that you can't share it with Five Eyes Intelligence. Oh, that's right. So that's what no foreign means. Those were coded in some of the documents that we reported on.

So anyway, that's an indication it's a very high level, extremely secret document that Trump was waving around and bragging about, apparently. So that's what we know thus far in terms of this superseding indictment. And as I mentioned before, we do also have indications this morning that another Trump employee has flipped, and that's potentially where some of this new information is coming from. But just a reminder, I mean, this is far from the end of Trump's legal troubles. But this next piece up on the screen, we are certainly on indictment watch. This week, we thought indictments may actually have come down. Last week, you had the

Jack Smith-related grand jury meeting. Last Thursday, they did not return an indictment on Thursday unless it's under seal, which is a possibility, but nothing that we know of. But this looks very much like it's coming to a close. The reason we know that is because Trump's lawyers actually met in D.C. with that team. That's usually an indication that things are wrapping up on that front. It's sort of a last ditch effort for them to be able to plead their case. You also have the grand jury down in Fulton County, Georgia, that also looks like they are wrapping up their work. Fannie Willis has said that their investigation is complete. I am also aware that they have actually erected security barriers outside of the federal courthouse there in anticipation

of whatever is going to happen on that front. So Trump's legal troubles certainly seem to be mounting in severity, complexity, all of the above. And Sagar, the piece of this that I just, I really can't wrap my head around is on the documents case, this trial is set for May 24th, I think is the date. So May of next year, the timing is basically like the Republican nomination will probably be sewn up. Oh, 100%, yeah. And so they will have, I think, limited options to get him out of being the nominee. And there's a very real possibility this man ends up in prison.

They're not going to drop him. Yeah, first of all, that is certainly possible. He said, and he keeps laying the marker, I think intentionally, of I'm not dropping out regardless of what happens. If they convict me, if they throw me in prison, I'm still going to continue to run for president. Now, in terms of the GOP, they have no choice. I mean, if he gets popularly selected with this hanging over his head, it would be the most undemocratic thing in the world to try and replace him. And there's no actual process for that, Crystal. That doesn't require some serious delegation

chicanery. The only way is if he voluntarily drops out, which is just not going to happen. Based on everything that we know right now, based on his own statements, he says he's not going to drop it. Maybe it's possible. I mean, on the Democratic side, they have this, like, what is a really undemocratic superdelegate process. So if you had a similar situation unfold on the Democratic side, they might be able to pull some behind the scenes chicanery to oust whoever their dude was that ended up in prison or for whatever reason. On the Republican side, they don't have the same mechanism. And so, you know, I think this all feels very theoretical to people, but there's a very real possibility that former President Trump is at least facing prison time, going into a general election. And I just, like, I don't know what that means in terms of the country.

I don't know what that means in terms of how people are going to react. I have to think that it's going to be pretty difficult for Republicans to win a presidential election if the guy that they're behind is in prison. But it's just, you know, it's pretty wild to contemplate how this is all going to unfold. And there's just no way you can predict how this is all going to play out. Yeah, agreed. Okay, so at the same time, we have some additional news here that we wanted to get to about the way that Trump is paying for his legal bills.

Let's put this up on the screen from Bloomberg. This is pretty wild. I think this was reported first by the New York Times. Trump's PAC has spent more than $40 million on his legal defense, his legal costs, and also they're also paying for the legal costs of his employees who are under fire as well, which you can understand

because they don't want them to flip. And so by sort of keeping them close and paying their bills, they lessen the chance that those employees that have been charged are going to flip. And that's not all. You also have an indication that, you know, these legal bills, even for a wealthy guy who's able to raise a whole lot of money, that it is really putting a squeeze on him. The PAC had to request a refund on a $60 million contribution that it made to another group that was supporting Trump, signaling, they say, a potential money crisis for the campaign, originally reported by the New York Times. And the $40 million is not even the whole of what Trump has apparently spent on his legal defense and those of his aides.

That's in addition to a $16 million that Save America spent in the previous two years on legal fees. So all these Trump supporters that are giving to his PAC, all these donations that are coming in, a lot of it is not going to campaigning against Ron DeSantis or campaigning against Joe Biden. It's going directly to paying Trump's legal bills. Yeah. And us covering this will not diminish their fundraising whatsoever because to them, I mean, it's clear Trump is the, you know, everything that he's using the money for is the reason why they love him. They defense the Biden administration is going after him. It's never his fault. It's always the establishment. It's always somebody else

who's in some cases, listen, that is true. That's part of the problem. Sometimes it actually partially is true. And then some cases like the documents case, it's directly his fault, but $40 million in legal fees. Listen, folks, if you donated to the Trump save America pack, like that's where your actual money is going and they're strapped enough that they have to issue the refund. And I personally just like that has bothered me from day one. I remember covering first on Rising, then here, the January 6th case. How many times he said, I'm going to contest the election results and all this stuff for the people who believed in it. And guess what? Not a single dollar of that actually went to any contesting of the legal

results of the election. Instead, he put it in the bank, apparently so that he can dedicate it to his legal defense fund, you know, instead of doing what he said. And once again, it's just like the NFT thing. For some reason, these people have a relationship to him where they are constantly willing to just, frankly, be bilked and to just turn their money over. And look, it's a free country. You can do what you want. I mean, I just personally think it's really wrong whenever you're an elected official and you're using it to these purposes. But like I said, in many ways, the reason they're giving so much of this money is exactly why this is all happening in the first place. They feel he's under

threat. They feel he's being persecuted. They see him as a representative of them. It's just going to continue to go on this way. Nothing will change. It may be true that some decent or very high percentage of those who gave money to the Save America PAC are cool with it being used for his legal bills. That may be the case. It's also the case that it's definitely not what was represented in terms of when they were making these donations. I did see this morning that he is going to start a separate legal defense fund. I mean, it is also just a mind-boggling amount of money. $65 million just on legal bills is really hard to wrap your head around. At the same time, Trump was out on the campaign trail.

He was given a speech, and he is calling on his opponents to drop out of the race and put their money towards what he describes as a ballot-harvesting operation. Let's take a listen to that. I think it's time for Ron DeSanctimonious and so many of those other clowns on the stage. No, you had to see Iowa. They're speaking to people that aren't even listening. They're talking. For Ron DeSanctimonious and so many others that are wasting hundreds of millions of dollars that Republicans should be using to build a massive vote gathering operation

to take on crooked Joe Biden in November. It's a bit of a turnabout there, Sagar, on the whole mail-in ballot and quote unquote ballot harvesting operation, which is the language that Republicans like to use to paint all Democratic efforts to encourage people to vote mail-in as really nefarious, where now Trump's just like, yeah, drop out and give all your money to our own ballot harvesting operation. Listen, if that's what it takes to take mail-in as like really nefarious where, you know, and now Trump's just like, yeah, drop out and give all your money to our own ballot harvesting. Listen, if that's what it takes to take mail-in balloting, I'll just take it because it's so like the, all the rhetoric around it is so stupid. It's so annoying. Uh, but increasingly I see Glenn Youngkin and other Republican politicians

who are fully embracing mail-in voting. You had that famous, the big clip of Hannity pressing Trump repeatedly four separate times to embrace mail-in balloting, aka ballot harvesting. Trump didn't want to do it, but eventually, you know, he seems to be convinced now that this might be the only thing that he's doing. I actually think this is a smart play in terms of whenever he's up on DeSantis and the rest of his rivals this much, he's like, you are wasting money. You are wasting my time as the anointed one, as the representative of our base and all that. You need to drop out and ensure a Republican victory in 2024. Now, the only way that that wouldn't work is if Republicans thought that the other candidates

were more electable. But we now have reams of data, both polling and otherwise, to point to to say, actually, actual Republican GOP primary voters, they think Trump is the most electable. So to them, of course, that's going to resonate. They're like, why are you wasting all of our time? You should be defending President Trump. That is, you have to put yourself in the mind of some of these voters whenever you're looking at this. By the way, I don't know that they're wrong about Trump being more electable

than DeSantis. I also kind of agree with you. Well, I mean, the obvious wild card is that I was mentioning before, you might be in prison, so there is that. But I was just looking at the polls this weekend in terms of real clear politics average in terms of the hypothetical head-to-head between Biden and Trump or Biden and DeSantis. And Trump is closer to Biden in that hypothetical head-to-head than DeSantis is at this point. That was not the case previously. There's also reporting that even within the White House, they've changed their opinion about who they would rather go up against. They now think Ron DeSantis is actually the weaker candidate. And the Republican base, by the way, agrees with you.

There's a big New York Times poll out this morning. We may cover it tomorrow that, you know, they do their, their bit. They spend a lot of money on these, uh, on these things and they've got, uh, president Trump, former president Trump at 54% DeSantis at 17% and everyone else at three or 2%. So obviously with Trump pulling in a majority of the vote there, even if you have the, you know, donor dream of everyone else dropping out and everyone coalescing around one particular candidate, whether it's Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, or someone else, still they are losing significantly to Donald Trump. So it is certainly not breaking towards any of the contenders. Former President Trump had some interesting commentary about some of the phone calls he'd been receiving from former Ron DeSantis donors at that same campaign rally.

Let's take a listen to that. Last week, I started getting phone calls two, three, four weeks ago. Hi, President. I just called to say hello. What are the big donors? Oh, I thought you were with DeSantis. No, weren't you with DeSantis? Sometimes referred to as DeSanctimonious. Never referred to as DeSantis, no? Weren't you with DeSantis? Sometimes referred to as DeSanctimonious. Never referred to as DeSantis, never. So talking there about the fact that some of the donors, which were really, you know, the backbone of the Ron DeSantis campaign, are starting to call it, who knows if it's true or not, it's Donald Trump. But certainly he's picking up on a vibe and some

of the reporting that is out there. Let's go ahead and move on to this next part, actually, about Ron DeSantis and put B2 up on the screen because this dovetails with what we were just talking about. We have reporting from Politico that apparently a bunch of high-level Republican elites at Bohemian Grove are now turning on DeSantis, they say, at the Bohemian Grove, secretive conclave of men who gather in Northern California. The attendance was a who's who, a pre-Trump Republicans, a murderer's row of bundlers and Wall Street Journal editorial page favorites, including former House Speaker Paul Ryan, ex-Florida Governor Jeb Bush. With fear setting in about Trump's renomination, the gathering became somewhat of a fantasy camp on how to avert that prospect or at least confront it. You also had a lot of

hand-wringing over at the annual Aspen retreat for donors for the Republican Governors Association. There was a similar how-do-we-stop-him chatter there, much fretting about Governor Ron DeSantis' ailing candidacy. Two contenders showed up to work the donors and governors. That was Tim Scott and Mike Pence. But a candidate in waiting also received ample attention. Contributors buttonholed Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, an attendee told me, with some asking if he'd run, others skipping pleasantries and pushing him to get in the race. So the fact that the donor class is turning on DeSantis is a big problem for him. And, you know, I mean, if they think that Glenn Youngkin or Tim Scott is going to be the Trump

beater here, I just wish them good luck. I just certainly agree with you. I also, we were talking about this on our call, how is Bohemian Grove still a thing? I know. After the Alex Jones expose, I'm like, you can't find another compound? Like, we have to worship the owl god? This is the thing. It actually confirms me. They're really dedicated to it. There really is something going on here.

Because I'm like, clearly, they would have ditched it now at this point. But apparently, you know, no, the owl is so important that you've got to go and pay homage to the owl. And, you know, it's crazy to me. It's like Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush and all these billionaires and Glenn Youngkin and Newt Gingrich and all these people are at Bohemian Grove. It's just, it's insane. This is still a thing, but it is a perfect view. And apparently they allow this journalist in there too, which by the way, I want to know more about the owls. They give us a view into their thinking, which is that this is some, first of all, that it's up to them. It's clearly not up to them.

They have no control anymore. The donor class in terms of like the actual base and their wants and their needs. The best thing they could probably do is just back Trump in order and hope that you can do the exact same thing last time around, which is get your preferential tax legislation by kissing his ass now whenever he's, if he's president again. True. But then what's clear too is that they're focusing all on the wrong things. To them, they have a different view of electability. They have a different view of likability. They also have a different view of outcome. I mean, donors want an outcome about

taxes, regulation. Of course, that's what elites want whenever they look at politics. But look at what voters are asking of their Republican elected officials. They want to punish the left and they want to piss off the media. That's it. I mean, and for that, like, how can you not vote for Trump? Like, that's obviously the person that you would want to vote for if you don't care about any underlying thing, which I think it's very clear now that that is what the populace or at least the primary voters actually want whenever it comes to their politicians. The reason I think it's a problem that the Bohemian Grove set is turning on DeSantis is because he obviously has some money issues. Yeah.

I mean, he just laid off a third of his staff. And there's all these horrific articles about how he laid off a third of his staff and then the very next morning takes off on a private jet. And so he has really been reliant for fundraising support in particular on these large donors. He has one of the smallest percentages of small dollar grassroots fundraising base. He has one of the smallest percentages of anybody. Trump has the largest on the Republican side. And so the fact that they're chopping around, that they're, according to Trump, giving Trump a call, that they're looking at Tim Scott, they're trying to push Glenn Youngkin in the race, et cetera. I mean, this means that he

really could have the legs completely cut out from under him and have trouble even making it to the Iowa caucuses and the primaries after that. So that's why that's significant. At the same time, you know, he had an interesting exchange with Megyn Kelly. She had a big sit down interview with him. Part of his new strategy reboot is he's going to do more interviews with a wider range of hosts because he had been very sort of sequestered in friendly territory. Now he's going out where he's going to take a few more tough questions and see how that works out for him. So as part of that tour, went on Megyn Kelly's podcast, and she really pressed him on his approach to Disney and his approach to Bud Light. Let's take a listen to that exchange. Much as the base is angry at these woke corporations, and I get it, I know you get it,

aren't you doing the very thing to these companies that conservatives are mad at left-wing leaders for doing, using government to punish citizens for political wrong think? No, not at all. So take Anheuser-Busch. I mean, we're not punishing them. They departed from business practices by indulging in social activism. That has caused a huge problem for their company, and their stock price has gone down. Well, our pension fund in Florida holds Anheuser-Busch InBev stock. So it's actually hurt teachers, it's hurt cops, it hurts firefighters who depend on that pension fund. And so- Didn't you support the boycott against them?

No, I did, but that's just as a personal thing. But I mean, we didn't have like the state government necessarily putting power about it. But as an American, I said, I that's just as a personal thing. But, I mean, we didn't have, like, the state government, you know, necessarily, you know, putting power about it. But as an American, I said, I'm not doing Anheuser-Busch. I'm not doing Bud Light. So why can't Disney oppose your law? They can. And why can't they promote this agenda in their viewpoint? They can.

Without being punished by the state? They're not being punished. We're just simply removing special benefits that they have had. It's not about intent. If I go to my boss and I say, you sexually harassed me, and then suddenly he reduces my salary from $200,000 to $100,000, that's retaliation. I am worse off.

And it's not a defense to say, well, everybody else at the company was getting $100,000. You've reduced my circumstances. You've punished me. No, but that's an employer-employee relationship. I think that that's much different. But this is the state taking away a benefit. But your position is basically that Florida should be forced to subsidize Disney regardless of how it's going to use those subsidies so that they can weaponize the subsidies they get from the state and turn it against state policy. Why would we want to subsidize that behavior? Why should Florida taxpayers have to underwrite that?

But I don't want a President Gavin Newsom doing this to conservative companies or companies who have a more conservative viewpoint. Well, here's what I would say. I don't think there's any arrangement in America that mirrored the arrangement Disney had in Florida for many, many decades. I mean, I think it was a unique situation. What do you think of that exchange, Sagar? I actually think he should have just owned it

and be like, yeah, I'm punished. I mean, because here's, when we're trying to legalize our way around it, you should just say, yeah, I'm the governor. I have the power. I'm gonna use my power to go after Anheuser-Busch. That's a more honest way. It actually reminds me of Supreme Court politics pre-Trump.

So this is crazy to think about. But pre-Trump, nobody who was a Republican nominee would ever say, I'm going to appoint pro-life judges. There was always hiding under like originalism and I'm going to appoint judges that adhere to the Constitution. There's like a wink wink, you know, to the evangelical. But nobody ever wanted to just come out and say it. And then Trump shocked, shocked Republican politics when he's like, I'm just going to appoint a pro- say it. And then Trump shocked Republican politics when he's like, I'm just going to appoint a pro-life judge. Everyone was like, what?

Nobody's ever said that before. You have to just say the quiet, there's a true, there's power in just saying the quiet part out loud about what you're actually doing. And that's what people want to hear, actually, the people who agree with the policy. And the people who don't agree with the policy, what, you think you can convince Bill Ackman

that you're not punishing Anheuser-Busch? Right. Who are we kidding here? I mean, very clearly you are. Yeah. Just own it, though. A marketing decision that you didn't like, right?

Yeah, but just own it. If you put Trump in DeSantis' shoes and you imagine what his answer would be, he'd just be like, yeah. They need to be punished. I mean, even, you know, and everyone would be like, yeah. And even, you know, all the be like yeah and even you know all

the nuance of i've talked about that we've talked about the disney thing here i mean he is right that they get these special privileges that they have way too much power in this like that is correct but it is also correct that he was fine with that he was totally cool with that until he decided that you know he didn't like this political move that they made and he was going to punish them. It's very clear. The Budweiser thing, it's just obvious virtue signaling to the Republican base. Same kind of deal. They didn't like this marketing decision that they made to send an influencer can or whatever to trans activist Dylan Mulvaney. So he's trying to lean into that and get the right people mad at him again or whatever. But by dancing around it

and trying to act like this is some noble principled stand on behalf of Florida taxpayers, it just doesn't pass the test. That's why it links to the original thing about Bohemian Grove, which is guess who this made the most mad? The donor. The donors are the most who are angriest about this. And Kelly does have a point. I mean, first of all, there is no such thing as a conservative company anymore, at least in terms like I don't think I exist, at least in terms of like- I wildly disagree with that. If you look at the union busting and you look at the lobbying on tax legislation, maybe on the surface level- But that's not how it codes to the public. Maybe on the surface level, cultural stuff, yes. But in terms of how they actually operate in America and the effect they have, it is definitely

conservative. I don't disagree. But then, I mean, by that definition, like Amazon is a conservative company. I agree with that Well, I agree with that. You're looking at the actual metrics We're not talking about the way it comes laughing about Black Lives Matter on your website does not make you a left-leaning I have always I know I'm saying only in the way that the culture actually like imbibes this stuff I don't think there's any there's nobody out there like putting MAGA hats on at a fortune 500 level So that's why I think that the Gavin Newsom example doesn't really work. That said, that already is kind of happening.

So it's one of those where we're in a mutually assured destruction. We had the whole MLB situation in Georgia. The Anheuser-Busch is just basically the liberal version of that. So just be like, look, they did it first. Now this is what we're going to do. You have to own the decision. but he doesn't have the confidence I think enough in his in his Decision to actually just sit there and to own it in the only honest way that you can justify the policy

Yeah, that that was my problem with the answer Which is you're trying to have it both ways where the CEOs and the free market libertarian types Specifically the fortune 500 CEOs, people like Ken Griffin and others who love DeSantis, they hated this decision. And so he's got to try and use some shareholder, effectively what he's advocating is shareholder activism at a government level,

which I have all kinds of problems with shareholderism and activism and all of that, but he's trying to have effectively a dishonest critique of what he's doing instead of just saying yeah, it's political I did it for you know for political reasons. He's like I had the lever that's what my voters wanted to see So I did it and that's what Trump would have done Yeah, just keep coming back to that the actual honesty is what connects so much with a lot of voters Yeah, I think there's a sense on the Republican, conservative, right-wing side that we're losing at the cultural level.

Which is true. And so there's a comfort with using state power to enforce the cultural outcomes that they would like to see. And I think that's where DeSantis is, where a lot of his legislation comes from, where certainly this lawsuit against Budweiser for a marketing decision comes from, where the direction with Disney comes from, all of that. But it really gets to the fundamental tension in his campaign of the type of coalition that he has to be able to stitch together in order to attempt to defeat Trump. And a key part of that coalition for him is donors who absolutely despise this direction. I mean, they do not want Florida or any other state to be able to sue them over decisions that, you know, companies are making about their marketing spend or their budget or what they're doing, whatever. So they hate this direction for Ron DeSantis. And, you know, I do think it is a part of the reason why they're shopping around

for other candidates. And at the same time, he's trying to, he understands that the moves may be popular with the base. So he's trying to do this wink and the nod at the base, but also give comfort to the donor class. And it just ends up kind of a mess. I agree. The funniest thing is, it's not like, you know, conservatives needed them to be, you know, Budweiser just laid, Anheuser-Busch just laid off like several hundred people, All the marketing people involved in it, like they were punished. You know, it's one of those where it's like, they don't need you to sue them. Like their punishment is longstanding. Go to a grocery store and see how much Bud Light is still on the shelves. It's like, it's one of those where this almost never happens,

but it's actual organic pushback that genuinely materialized in the marketplace. So I don't know, in a certain way, I'm almost like, did you really need to do this? Because now you're getting all downside and you didn't even need to actually do it to tip the scales or whatever. You're trying to virtue signal and now it's actually kind of backfiring a little bit. And she kind of got him there when she was like, you supported the boycott though, right? Because if you're real concerned, I mean, Megan's a great interviewer. She's just like, you know, I think top notch in these situations. But if your real concern is the harm to Florida, you know, pension pensioners, then you wouldn't have been endorsing a boycott that hurt the stock price like you were complicit in that. So she kind of got him and exposed the real reasons that he was taking on this fight.

That's right. OK, let's go to the next part here, actually very much connects to what you were talking about. So Ron DeSantis, obviously, had, we talked a little bit about it before. He has the new curriculum for American history and history books, specifically around slavery, where there's a section within that actual curriculum. This is specifically for middle schoolers about whether slaves benefited or not from slaves. Now, in terms of the benefit language, it was basically billed as like, in some cases, they learned trades, which were later on useful to them. So this obviously has, in terms of the benefit language, it was basically billed as like, in some cases, they learn trades which were later on useful to them. So this obviously has exploded in terms of political controversy. DeSantis himself, not backing down at all. He gave a

very spirited defense of it at a press conference. Here's what he had to say. Well, you should talk to them about it. I mean, I didn't do it and I wasn't involved in it. But I think what they're doing is I think that they're probably going to show some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into doing things later in life. But the reality is all of that is rooted in whatever is factual. They listed everything out. And if you have any questions about it, just ask the Department of Education. You can talk about those folks. But, I mean, these were scholars who put that together.

So, Crystal, since this has come to light, it has now become a major controversy, not just in, actually, the liberal media, but many black MAGA Republicans specifically, some also non-MAGA. One of them is Senator Tim Scott, running for president, who called out Ron DeSantis on the campaign trail. Here's what he had to say. There's no silver lining in freedom, in slavery. The truth is that anything you can learn, that any benefits that people suggest you had during slavery, you would have had as a free person. What slavery was, was really about separating families, about mutilating humans, and even raping their wives. It was just devastating.

So I would hope that every person in our country and certainly running for president would appreciate that. And listen, people have bad days. Sometimes they regret what they say. And we should ask them again to clarify their positions. Ask them again to clarify their position. Interestingly enough now, as I alluded to, this has also become a major thing amongst black MAGA Republicans. So let's go and put this up there

on the screen. So we've got two individuals here. One is Congressman Byron Donalds. Interestingly enough, he's from Florida. So he says, quote, the new African-American standards in Florida are good, robust, and accurate. That being said, the attempt to feature the personal benefits of slavery is wrong and needs to be adjusted. That obviously wasn't the goal, and I have faith that the Florida Department of Education will correct this. Then John James, who actually ran for Senate in Michigan, now he's a congressman, he says, quote, Ron DeSantis, number one, slavery was not CTE. Nothing about 400 years of Aval was, quote, a net benefit to my ancestors. Number two, there were only five black Republicans in Congress.

You are attacking two of them. My brother in Christ, if you find yourself in a deep hole, put the shovel down. You are now so far from the party of Lincoln, your ed board is rewriting history. You're personally attacking conservatives like Tim Scott and Byron Donalds. On the topic of slavery, you have gone too far. Stop. And also from the campaign. The thing is, is that the campaign too is also not holding back, Crystal. One of the, she's a spokesperson, a member of the

Tansy campaign, Christina Pushaw, is attacking now Tim Scott, Byron Donald, and John James as repeating Kamala Harris talking points. So things are getting vicious here. There's some interesting valences actually to the entire fight, but I'm curious what you think. Well, there's a few things. I mean, first of all, I think the comments from Tim Scott and Byron Donalds, by the way, were so mild. His critique there, so mild. It's good, robust, and what was it? But there's this, what he said, you know, he's like, I got this one little bit. Overall, it's fine, right? Yes. And what caused this really to blow up was Christina Puchat and other DeSantis team members who were viciously attacking Donalds and Trump supporters and getting into this whole messy online fight.

And then that's what causes John James to come and be like, hold on a second. Let's be clear about what's going on here. So they're creating this issue for themselves in their incredibly thin skinned, like reaction to what was going on here. And then of course, let's go and put the last element C5 up on the screen. Of course, the Trump campaign can't resist getting in on this as well. This is a statement from Jason Miller. And, you know, they, it's interesting the way they frame this because they don't directly address in this statement the you know personal benefit to slavery Situation directly, but they say congressman Byron Donald's is a conservative hero The Republican Party is lucky to have him as leader president Trump's honored to have his endorsement if he thinks something is BS

He'll tell you that's why we like him so much for the official office of the governor and what's left of Ron DeSantis' presidential campaign to attempt to smear Congress and Donald's like this is a disgrace. It's indicative of why DeSantis has plummeted faster than any presidential candidate in history. DeSantis needs to look in the mirror, recognize that at his current trajectory, it's not just 2024 that is dead for him, but 2028 as well. DeSantis' continued misguided attacks are only helping Joe Biden. And if that's his goal, DeSantis should just get out of the race. So, I mean, Trump, of course, taking full advantage of this. And now we're hearing this mantra repeated multiple times from him that, listen, it's over, guys.

Get out of the race and let's all come together to defeat Joe Biden. But to me, there's three things here, Sagar. I mean, first of all, I think DeSantis completely mishandled this curriculum. He should have known it would have been under intense scrutiny. And it wasn't just the slavery situation. You also have them like both sides in race massacres where white people lynched black people and being like, let's also talk about the violence from the black people too. So you have that piece, you have him mishandling the issue itself. You have this overly online, you know, freak out over some incredibly mild critique from Tim Scott and Byron Donald. And then you also have what we were discussing

before. How do you think the donors who have been behind him, how do you think that they are going to feel about this whole flap? Yeah. I mean, look, I have complicated feelings. I personally would have handled it in a more confident manner. And I would have said, I'm not going to take lectures on slavery from people who mischaracterized the 1619 project and said that the American Revolution was about slavery. And I would have just ended it there. That's what I would have stuck to. But they decided to litigate it. And when you, I heard a joke once, it's like, anytime you're trying to add a butt to the end of slavery, you should just stop. And I think it's true. I mean, look, we can sit here and we can have a long discussion around curriculum.

I actually would love to do that. So I have a couple of books, if anybody's interested, and podcasts. So people who want, if you actually wanna learn, I would listen to the Dan Carlin, most recent history on specifically chattel African slavery. Their Hugh Thomas book,

again on the history of African slavery. Both are incredible. They're deep historical texts. If you really wanna know what happened, those on the history of African slavery. Both are incredible. They're deep historical texts. If you really want to know what happened, those are the books I would read. If you want to know about the American context and specifically the end of slavery, Battle Cry Freedom is the best one-volume book that actually exists on the American Civil War. And then there's also Parting the Waters, a three-part series about the Civil Rights era. So anyway, those are actual historical texts.

That's what I would recommend. Those are all accepted, at least at one time, were by left and by right. But it does come back to, look, it's a complicated issue. Politically, valence in terms of the way that you're gonna attack it. If you were gonna do it in the way that they did, I think it should have come back to confidence.

But instead, you're getting a bit of a whiny kind of back and forth that DeSantis is engaging here. We have some video from the campaign trail that illustrates what I'm talking about. Let's take a listen. Were there beneficial aspects to slavery? That's not what the curriculum says. What do you think? No, it's not.

And the curriculum is very clear. You have, I think it's like 200 plus pages of all kinds of stuff that you can't read that. Have you read it? So what's your opinion? Have you read it? What's your, I'm asking your opinion. that you can't read that. Have you read it? So what's your opinion? Have you read it? What's your, I'm asking your opinion. But you haven't read it, so I'm just making that clear. That makes it very clear about the injustices of slavery in vivid detail. So anyone that actually read that and then listens to Kamala would know that she's lying. And that particular provision about the skills, that was in spite of slavery, not because

of the AP course has made that same point. So like I said, you're going to sit there and you're going to litigate with the butts. I just think you're in more of a losing position. I will say, at least on this, I think Byron Donalds and John James are being dishonest because these are straight up MAGA guys who we all, by the way, go look at what they've said about Trump or whatever on Charlottesville. There is a huge element of just attacking DeSantis to try to get him out of the race. So look, you could call me racist if you want.

I personally just doubt sometimes the sincerity of these like ultra MAGA politicians who clearly, I think, are being weaponized in order to go after DeSantis on a political level. And do they believe it or not? I don't know. The reason I think Tim Scott is being sincere is A, Scott has never coded himself like MAGA or whatever. He's running for president, but he has always kind of been a dissenting voice on racial politics with the GOP. So I'm not gonna say that about him. But the other two, having watched them kiss Trump's ass like repeatedly and also seeing the way that the Trump campaign was like using their statements in order to validate criticism, I just, I can't help, but maybe it's serious, maybe it's not, but I do think that has to be

thrown out there. I'm not gonna, listen, I have no idea about their sincerity on this because the other way that you could read it, and I actually think this is perhaps more in what I'm inclined to believe is the fact that they feel comfortable voicing this kind of dissent with Ron DeSantis, and they did not feel comfortable voicing this kind of dissent with Donald Trump. It just shows you what a stronger figure he is within the Republican Party. Because, I mean, listen, again, though, I want to say with Byron Donald's initial comments, they were so mild. And if the DeSantis campaign had said nothing about them, honestly, this all probably would be over now. But there's nothing the media wants to cover more. And that, is more actually significant to the race than this big blow up between Ron DeSantis and now three out of five of the black elected Republicans at the national level. So what I looked at this and thought is like, if Trump did the exact same thing,

remember he had his like patriotic education or whatever the hell it was. If he did the exact same thing, maybe Tim Scott would have spoken up. There would have been very little dissent from it. There would have been much more rallying around it. There would not have been this whole blow up because he just can get away with things that other candidates cannot get away with. And so to me, the fact that you do have this whole ugly, messy, intra-Republican fight breaking out into the public around DeSantis' history curriculum in the state of Florida, it's another sign of his weakness within the Republican Party. That, there is no disputing that whatsoever. Let's go to the next part here on the Facebook files. This was actually released by Congressman

Jim Jordan as a result of some requests from the House Oversight Committee and other things that were uncovered, emails directly between Facebook, aka Meta, and the Biden White House. Let's go and put up some examples of what we learned. He says, quote, Facebook files, part one, smoking gun docs prove Facebook censored Americans because of the Biden White House pressure. Let's go to the next one here, guys, please. They say, quote, what did the Biden White House want removed? A meme. That's right. Even memes were not spared from the Biden White House's censorship efforts. One of those is that you can see here is the meme from shared on Facebook, April 4th, 2021. 10 years from now, you will be watching TV and you will hear, quote, did you or a loved one take the COVID vaccine? You may be entitled. So that's including the Leo DiCaprio meme from Once

Upon a Time in Hollywood. Let's go to the next one in terms of what was removed. They say, quote, to appease the Biden White House, talking points were actually drafted for Nick Clegg, that's senior vice president of government relations at Facebook or Meta. They say Facebook was ready to tell the White House it had demoted a video posted by Tucker Carlson 50% actually in response to White House demands, even though that post did not violate any policies. The fascinating part about this is they actually draft in this talking point, while we remove content that explicitly directs people not to get the vaccine, as well as content that contains explicit misinterpretations around vaccines, we reviewed this content in detail. It does not violate these policies. However, they say that the video is receiving 50% demotion for seven days and is in the queue to be, quote, fact-checked.

Let's go to the next part here as well. It says, and this is from Michael Schellenberger, They show you specifically one around the lab leak. And this was an email saying, quote, can someone quickly remind me why we were removing claims that COVID is manmade? And here is a direct response from email. Quote, we were under pressure from the administration and others to do more. So you have explicit examples here, Crystal, four separate ones that we just showed you of memes that were being taken down, videos that were being secretly demoted while they were being waited to, quote, be fact-checked, and then the lab leak one where I love that. A guy inside the company is like, hey, why are we demoting this again? I thought it was true.

Isn't it true? And they're like, no, it's because we were under pressure from the administration. And now that I'm thinking about it, it reminds me of an example. I believe Zuck was on Lex Friedman's podcast where he talked about how a lot of the pressure on his company to censor COVID information ended up being true. Specifically, he pointed to LabLeak. And now we see the actual emails that he was referring to, that they were being lobbied by the White House, by the administration around this. And I mean, the gross part about it is it all happened behind the scenes. What we're finding out about this freaking two something years is July 31st, 2023, almost more than two years after some of these emails were actually

sent to this company. We have no idea in real time. Yeah. I mean, that's right. That's why in some ways the demotion that happens behind the scenes is more deference because the Hunter Biden laptop situation, we knew what they did at Twitter. It was clear there was an ability to have a public outcry and investigations, whatever. Like we didn't know that this content was being demoted by 50% for a period of seven days, et cetera, because it all happens behind the scenes. So, you know, it's useful to see the way that this actually works. I thought perhaps even more revealing were some of the exchanges about, first of all, Facebook actually worried that suppressing or outright censoring vaccine hesitancy content

would lead to a kind of a Streisand effect where people felt like since they were being censored, what they're saying must be true, that there must be a government cover-up to force them to take the vaccine, that they were on to something, that they were being silenced, etc. You had a draft memo to Facebook leadership which said there may be risk of pushing them further toward hesitancy by suppressing their speech, making them feel marginalized by large institutions, which I think ends up being pretty prescient. And then there was another piece where they were weighing how to respond to the administration's censorship requests, which they didn't really want to go along with. But they said, given the bigger fish we have to fry with the administration,

data flows, et cetera, that doesn't seem a great place for us to be. They're referring to them being at odds with the administration over censorship requests. So grateful for any further creative thinking on how we can be responsive to their concerns. So you see the way this works. Facebook had other things that they wanted from the administration vis-a-vis their business. And I think this had something to do with European data flows. And so they were kind of willing to like, all right, well, we got to throw them a bone on the censorship that they want so that we can get this other piece of our business. And that's the way this works. It reminds me of the conversation we had with Jack Dorsey, of course, formerly of Twitter, who was talking about the intense pressure that

not just our government, but governments around the world are putting on Twitter all the time to have various content suppressed and outright banned and how difficult it is to stand up to all of those requests. So this is not to like, you know, absolve Facebook or whatever at whatsoever, but you can see the way that this works and how the government throws their weight around to get what they want from these companies. What also disgusted me is there's actually a series within these about a discussion between then-Vice President of the company, Sheryl Sandberg, and Nick Clegg after, if we'll recall,

President Biden publicly said in July of 2021 that Facebook, quote, is killing people. That tongue-lashing, not even a specific request, actually caused massive consternation within the company and an official re-evaluation crystal of policies around COVID-19 content, including from these officials like Nick Clegg, Sheryl Sandberg, all the way up to the level of Mark Zuckerberg. The simple fact that they were being criticized by the president for quote unquote killing people was enough for them

to take an internal re-evaluation. So it's not even just the pernicious remove this, remove that, remove this. It's when you directly put pressure like this on these companies, you are effectively asking for a total difference in policy. That's not illegal, but you're the full force of the government. I mean, I'll never forget, probably the most extraordinary moment in censorship that's probably ever happened under the Biden administration was Jen Psaki being like, you've been banned from one platform, you should be banned from all. It's literally dictating content policy across everything. And, you know, the second part there about the drafting talking points for the senior

vice president of Facebook, that's crazy. Whenever they're talking about the demotion, I mean, and I, you know, in many ways it validates so many things that you and I know intuitively. You and I do a video about Epstein, it gets like 50,000 views and it gets demonetized. And you're like, well, I mean, was it the day? Like, was it not? You know, what's going on?

Nobody knows. It just exists into the ether. And you're like, maybe it didn't hit that day. Maybe it was something else going. Maybe people didn't care. Certainly possible. But then a part of you has to think like, no, but maybe, you know, usually people do care. Actually, I know that there's a lot of people who care about the story and, you know, we don't care as much

about views here for money or anything, but you know, it's nice to get exposure. And you're just, you think like there's something odd that's happening with the coverage of this, but you can never get it confirmed. You start to think you're a little crazy. You do start to think you're crazy. You're like, why is this happening? Overnight, your subscribers on YouTube drop from like hundreds a day to like five. And you're like, what, what? And then they just tell you,

they're like, that's normal, it happens. I'm like, really? We've been doing this for four years and never seen it happen. Also happens around the time you're covering Discord leaks. Who knows? You know, it's one of those where like,

you just don't know whether it's real, whether it's not. And I think that's the most pernicious aspect of it all. I think that's right. And that's part of why, you know, if we had some rules around really clear transparency, that would be helpful. So you could at least have journalists digging into this with any journalist who's actually interested. I mean, there are some in the independent press who of course will be taking a look at that. That would be useful. You know, the fact that you had this federal judge go against the Biden administration, basically say, listen, you have to stop doing this. Like you can't use your government power to try to censor the speech of American citizens. That's a good direction to go in. But, you know, getting granular here on exactly how this works. And there's always two levels to it. On the one side,

it's very dystopian and very nefarious and really clear cut on the issue of like lab leak, where even the Facebook employees are like, why were we doing this again? This idea that it was, you know, potentially manmade. So it's very dystopian and nefarious. And then it's also sort of ridiculous because they're trying to censor like memes about vaccines that are pretty innocuous and probably not really, you know, changing anyone's minds in particular. Or in the case of Twitter, we know they were censoring these accounts that had, like, two followers and some tweet that got, like, one like on it. And it's like, why are you spending your time doing this? Don't you have bigger fish to fry? So a lot of that absurdity also comes out in these files.

And they're censoring true information. I mean, look, and that's the problem on Lably, even on vaccine. I mean, listen, you can say whatever you want, but at the time, they were actively pushing to go against anybody who was like, it doesn't stop transmission. We remember that from Fauci, the clip of him walking around. Guess what? That's false. It's just not true. And so at the have, you should have erred on the side of actually free and open, because if we'd had that discussion, maybe they would have changed their vaccine. Maybe they would have been more honest, you know, and maybe sure it may not have had the desired immediate effect, but that's not your job. And that's just not, they refuse to come

from a place of first principles. And instead, they come from a place of immediate power and what they want to try and hack the mind of the electorate. This is really what Fauci was a master at. And what they never really understood is that in a long enough timeline, that the more that that happens, that you always come back to a default position effectively of I feel like I'm being lied to

and I'm not getting the full story, which means I don't trust you at all, even when you do say things, which actually are true. That's the end result. I think that's where we're at now. That's why people don't believe anything that's being said here. I think that's right. All right. So let's go to the last part here, give, I guess, an update on President Biden and his seventh grandchild who he'd refused to acknowledge previously in the past. Time-honored Washington tradition. If you want something to just get lost in the ether, you got to do it on Friday afternoon. So Friday afternoon, the middle of nowhere,

for some reason, President Biden doesn't release a statement to the press. He doesn't release a statement to everybody else. They somehow, the White House calls up People Magazine and issues a statement on their seventh grandchild, who they had previously refused to acknowledge. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. They said, quote, this is not a political issue. It's a family matter. Jill and I only want what is best for all of our grandchildren, including Navy. Hunter's daughter, the four-year-old with an Arkansas woman who Hunter met in a strip club and has since actually contested multiple times legally on grounds of child support around grounds of whether she could take the Biden family name or not.

And that is why, look, some people gave him benefit of the doubt. Everyone's like, he was shamed by Maureen Dowd because of her column. I actually do believe that is true. But we shouldn't just sit here and validate that this is somehow enough because we can't forget what Hunter and presumably the Biden family did to this young girl of four years old and to her mother. I mean, let's put this up there on the screen. As part of the child support settlement that they had with Hunter Biden, she was not allowed to actually take the Biden family name. And that is one where, you know, he says, quote, he also promised to discuss planning for a college education fund

with his child's mother and requested, even though that she had requested to change the last name to Biden, dropped that request as part of the agreement. And that's why actually in the statement, you know, Biden refers to her as Navy and he doesn't refer to the last name that she has since taken, I believe, of her maternal grandfather. But that is one where you can see that Hunter went out of his way to not pay and do his due diligence, or sorry, his duty in terms of providing for them, and then also effectively treated her as like a political pawn, his own child, and that for some reason, President Biden effectively deferred this disgraceful behavior for them and then also effectively treated her as like a political pawn, his own child. And that for some reason, President Biden effectively deferred this disgraceful behavior

to his son and just said, I'm going to take his lead on it, which is why he refused to even acknowledge her existence until she was a four-year-old, which we talked about this previously, Crystal, but it genuinely might be one of the most personally disgraceful things that we've seen from President Biden that he has not received due criticism for. I 100% agree. And the way that, you know, we played how the view is trying to cover for him and be like, oh, well, this is a Hunter issue. This is really not on show. It's like, really? Yeah. And it's very relevant when you're talking about a man who puts family front and center. And it's a core part of his political pitch is that he's this great family man. And he talks about his family all the time,

talks about his other grandchildren all the time, that they had to be shamed even into even acknowledging this child's existence. I mean, I'm sorry, I don't care what you say at this point, that stain does not get removed. And the real feelings come out in this child support arrangement where, yeah, Hunter Biden, first of all, fought them tooth and nail. And second of all, as part of the agreement, made them accept that she could not have the Biden name because apparently they don't want the Biden name tainted by some commoners from Arkansas. It is the height of elitist snobbery. It is heartless. And yeah, no statement to People magazine is going to put that back in the box. The other thing I would say here, though, is it does show you when the liberal paper of record decides to do any sort of scrutiny that it does have power. Imagine if they took this kind of

critical lens to Biden and the Democrats more regularly, what sort of things, what sort of change might come from that? Because they explicitly had told the Biden aides and everybody around him, we are not acknowledging this grandchild. He has six grandchildren, not seven. So this was explicit White House policy coming directly from Joe Biden. And, you know, a New York Times column had the power to at least shame them into acknowledging this child's existence. You know, it's also worth recalling when Biden was first asked about this little girl, what his response was. And you can see, I think, the tone, and judge for yourself, how he really feels about all of this take a listen. I'm wondering if you have a comment on this report and court filing out of Arkansas

that your son, Hunter, just made you a grandfather again. No, that's a private matter. I have no comment. But only you would ask that. You're a good man. You're a good man. Thank you, guys. This is all the time we have. Lashing out there. Fox News, you're Thank you guys. We got to go. You're a good man. You're a good man. Thank you guys. This is all the time we have. Lashing out there. Lashing out. You're a doozy.

No comment, et cetera. I mean, that was the first reaction, and it took four years and a New York Times shaming for them to even say that this child exists. What's classy? Asking the current presidential candidate whether he wants to acknowledge it or like what's going on with his publicly like shameful son or, you know, just refusing to acknowledge your fourth grandchild. And so she's four years old, cognitively functioning enough to know that her freaking grandfather is president of the United States. And then if you know that, then you also wonder, why haven't they called me? How come nobody cares about me?

I haven't met them. Yeah. Why haven't I met them? So I can see them on television, but nobody has the, I mean, that can really screw you up as a kid. I said it last time, I believe, look, and this is the other thing about Hunter. I think you said this last time. So when Hunter decides to divorce his wife and date his dead brother's wife, for some reason, they were willing to issue a statement of support. And they're willing to acknowledge that and be cool with his shit. But why on this one, were they not willing to just come out and be like, look, whatever's going on between her and

Hunter, that's fine, in terms of the mother, but we're not going to take this out on an innocent child. I also said this politically, how many people in this country, grandmas, grandparents are raising the kids of their sons, daughters, you know, who fell into a bad situation because of drugs. Millions of people are in the exact same situation. It would only make you more empathetic and connective to a lot of, I think, especially, you know, white working class and poor voters who disproportionately have been affected by this exact same arrangement. And they would say, you know what, he's doing the right thing.

I was 55 years old. I didn't want to step up. I had to do it. There's a lot of people in this country in that situation, and he could have stepped up in the same thing. But instead, he chose the wrong way to go about it. Yeah. I think that's all well said.

All right, Tiger, what are you looking at? He chose the wrong way to go about it. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's all well said. All right, Tiger, what are you looking at? The media in this town love to talk about democracy. Everything's an attack on it. It's under threat. It's going away. In a sense, they're right, but not for the right reasons. For them, it's when they're usually talking about things that are bad for Democrats or are about Trump. They always fail to miss the actual picture.

What does it look like for democracies that are in trouble? One of the first and important signs of one that is not doing well is a permanent elected class, which does not respond to the wants of a dynamic populace. Sound familiar? It should, especially after this week, when the world really got to see

how robust our democracy is. Our 81-year-old Senate minority leader, one of the most powerful people in the entire country, freezes for 20 seconds on camera during a medical event, brushes it off, refuses to tell the public what the issue was, didn't even commit to stepping down. 24 hours later, the 91-year-old senior senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, literally had to be scolded by her colleagues to quote, just vote. I, when she got confused as to where she was,

if you haven't seen it, take a listen. Pardon me? Aye. Yeah. I would like to support a yes vote on this. It provides $823 billion. That's an increase of $26 billion for the Department of Defense. And it funds priorities submitted. Yeah, just say aye. Okay, just. Aye. Thank you.

Presiding over that system is our 81 year old president running for reelection, who is now forced to use the tiny stairs on Air Force One to avoid tripping and falling because at his age he could actually die. When I say our democracy is dying, I almost mean it quite literally, considering that an actuarial table tells us one of these three individuals has a very high chance of dropping dead from natural causes in just the next 12 months. What the real problem with our gerontocracy is not just those three individuals. It's the dying system that they represent.

Our current Congress is the third oldest Congress since the founding fathers convened in 1789. The issue that we have, as you can see from the graphic in front of you, is not the 6% of the Congress that is currently in the silent generation, but to put it kindly, they're not exactly long for this world. The issue is the aging baby boomers that make up almost 50% of Congress that are fully internalized into this modern system where competitive primaries are basically dead, social norms no longer force people to retire through any sense of duty to the public. And as you can see in front of you, the median age of Congress right now in both chambers

is at an all-time high. It's crazy to consider this, but there was a time in the early 80s where the median age of a senator was mid-50s. The median age of a representative in the House was in the 40s. What happened? Well, they stayed. They refused to step down, not only from leadership, but from their general seats. They've enjoyed the perks of office, nice fat stock market returns. They've enjoyed the perks of office, nice fat stock market returns. They have taxpayer-funded staffs that do everything for them. As the graphic in front of you here shows you, there have been two major breaking points in the history of

the country from normalizing old people in Congress. The first time that the percentage of people over the age of 70 spiked above 10% was 1946. That time period in Congress is very significant because it came upon the tail end of the absolute power that the South had built up through Jim Crow. Effectively, the way that it worked at that time was that Southern states became uniparty political machines. They sent the same man to Congress year after year, very few competitive primaries, and it enabled them both to stay until they died, but also because they amassed immense power through the seniority system.

The entire Congress at that time ran only on senior privilege, where the chairman of the most powerful committees was not decided by party bosses, but entirely through how long you've been in office. So for those who have read one of my favorite books, Master of the Senate, you know that it took a singular force in American history

to change all of that. Lyndon B. Johnson somehow slowly wrestled power away from the geriatric Southerners, slowly chipped away at the seniority system, and culminated eventually in the destruction of Jim Crow under his presidency and the Voting Rights Act. And wouldn't you know it? Destroying the voting hold of power on Jim Crow overnight destroyed the percentage of people in the Senate over 70. The previous high of people over 70 was 11% in 1958. That fell to a near all-time low, 4% in 1981.

But as with all political changes, the new guard seems a lot like the old guard. Slowly but surely, the Reagan Revolution turned into the Reagan establishment. Between 1981 and the early 1990s, suddenly we are right back to almost where we started. It was exactly during this period that some of the worst defenders in our politics entered the chamber. Mitch McConnell, 89-year-old Chuck Grassley,

Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, 86-year-old Representative Napolitano in the House, many, many more. After 2004, we were truly off to the races. We broke the all-time record of 11%, skyrocketed higher and higher every year since. We now stand at a stunning 25% of the entire chamber over the age of 70. Little chance of change anytime soon. Take the Senate, for example. The two people who were standing behind Mitch McConnell during his health episode to potentially take his place, Senator John Thune and Senator John Cornyn. Cornyn, he's already 71.

Thune, I guess he's a spring chicken. He's 62 years old. On the other side of the aisle, Schumer is one of the youngest, most powerful people in Washington. He's 72. His number two, Dick Durbin, he's 78. We have an epidemic in Congress of not only extraordinarily old and infirm people hanging on at the top, but really of the median senator being much closer to nursing home age than at any time in modern history. No internal dynamics that force these people from office. Unfortunately, as we have all seen, public shame, it's not enough to get someone like Feinstein, who, look, at this point, fully has lost her mind, to step down. Shame doesn't work on people with that much ego and from a machine state like California. There's really only one solution.

You need an age limit for all federal bureaucrats and elected representatives. Call me ageist if you want. I don't care. In my opinion, if you're a day older 75, you got to go. Just walk. Don't take it from me. Take it from Chuck Hagel. He's actually a former U.S. Senator. When he was asked about this, he's currently age 77. He said, quote, it's heartbreaking, embarrassing, but it's up to the individual to come to grips with the reality. He's a former Nebraska Senator who left office in 2009.

The reality is, quote, we are not going backwards. We are all getting older. At 77 versus 62 when I left the Senate. I have pains now I didn't even know that I should have. Take it from him. That's the thing, Crystal. I mean, that quote. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, guys, if you watched a Trump rally on the right wing outlet Newsmax recently, might have looked a little bit like this. You can see here you've got Trump on the left side doing his Trumpian thing and the entire right side of the screen taken up by an ad

for American Hartford gold coins. Trump's speech special to ad blares for offer details text Trump to this number. Now, this ad was particularly intrusive and notable, but far from a one-off for Hartford or the entire sketchy world of gold IRAs. In this world, salesman hucksters try to shake down scared seniors and get them to shift their retirement funds from their traditional IRAs and 401ks into gold coins that these companies sell at an exorbitant markup. According to analysis for the Washington Post, quote, since October 2020, email newsletters distributed by Newsmax have included more than 1,100 ads for gold IRA companies, nearly a quarter of all Newsmax email ads reviewed by the Post. At $1,000 to $5,000 each, according to Augusta

Financial Records from 2016, also reviewed by the Post, the ads likely generate more than a million dollars a year in revenue for that company. Now, conservative influencers and politicians, they also regularly hawk these products. One email that went out from American Hartford, that same company included an endorsement from Bill O'Reilly. Ted Cruz's podcast has featured ads from the company. Rudy Giuliani called Hartford, quote, the experts I trust most. Companies like Hartford prey on real economic anxiety triggered by both actual and hyperbolic claims to offer a supposed solution that in reality is just robbing seniors blind. The Post talked to one retiree named Ed DeSanto, who was lured in by the ads he heard on some of his favorite channels and shows.

He was persuaded to invest a $100,000 lump sum payment from his pension into a Hartford Gold IRA. Little did he know, gold and silver he was purchasing, it'd been marked up 92%. That means that his 100K only netted him $53,000 in actual value. In other words, they basically just stole about half of his money. A recent SEC complaint against another similar company, Red Rock Secured, reveals even more details about exactly how these scams work. According to a company email that was obtained by the government, Red Rock Secured specifically targeted people who were, quote, right-wing conservative, 59 plus years of age, male and female, interest in retirement investments, owns a 401k or IRA,

and anyone who works for the government and owns a thrift savings plan. This type of fraud targeting is called an affinity scam. You portray yourself and your company as having some sort of shared interest or belonging to a common group. In this instance, it's conservatives who are opposed to Joe Biden and democratic policies. Companies in the space use trusted right-wing figures and networks for their advertising, places like Fox News, Newsmax, conservative podcast hosts. Affinity scams really prey on the natural human inclination to trust people who are in your in-group and allow political influencers to monetize their audience trust, profiting up of scamming the very people who are most supportive of their

careers. Given that mainstream advertisers increasingly steer clear of hard right content, the ad space is cheap and the audience of disproportionately elderly people ripe for scamming. In the specific case of Red Rock Secured, the government alleges that the company outright lied to their customers. In one instance, they told a customer they would be charging him a mere 1.83% fee and that the customer would also be receiving 15% in, quote, bonus metal. In reality, RedRock charged the customer a 130% markup and there was no bonus metal, whatever that is. The government also claims that in order to establish credibility, a top RedRock executive claimed he had a PhD in economics and a PhD in international markets, and he compelled other employees to refer to him as Dr. Tony Spencer when transferring customer

phone calls to his line. He also claimed that he had been working with clients for over 25 years. Of course, in reality, he had no such degrees and had been working in the space for at most 11 years, and that work appears to have mostly entailed scamming people. These gold bug scams go back a long time, though, and they significantly predate even the Biden era. Back in the heyday of Glenn Beck's Fox News show following the financial collapse during the rise of the Tea Party, Beck leaned hard into gold as a safe haven for troubled times. In an article that was written at that time, Mother Jones documented how his program, increasingly facing mainstream advertiser boycotts, would not

only host gold bug ads, but would also feature entire segments dedicated to the importance of hoarding gold. As they wrote, quote, tune into Glenn Beck's Fox News show or syndicated radio program. You'll soon learn about the precarious state of the U.S. dollar, currency on the verge of collapse due to runaway government spending, a ballooning national debt, and imminent Zimbabwe style hyperinflation. To defend yourself against the coming financial holocaust, Beck explained on his radio show last November, you need to, quote, think like a German Jew in 1934, maybe 1931, and that means thinking about buying some gold. Now, the intellectual framework for these scams, though, goes back even further, more than 100 years, to debates over the gold standard, the association of gold with libertarian politics. The gold standard in this ideological worldview is meant to check the

excesses of the progressive welfare state, gold being the pure store of value versus paper money, which can be corrupted by crooked politicians. So couple this ideological inclination with genuine economic precarity, partisan fear-mongering, and sell it from the mouths of trusted figures, you've got a personal financial disaster just waiting to happen. No accident that these gold scams are back with a vengeance at a time of massive anxiety among our elderly about how they're going to afford to live out their retirement, something many say they actually fear more than they fear death. According to a recent study, 80% of American households with older adults are either currently financially struggling or they are at risk. The rise of market-based retirement plans over defined benefit pensions

means that seniors genuinely do find themselves more at risk to the whims of the market and vulnerable to potential disaster and crash than previous generations. Desperation and fear, of course, breeds vulnerability. These influencers taking advertiser cash to scam their own audience without any scruples, they should be ashamed of themselves. The government needs to do a lot more to crack down on these scams to protect consumers and more importantly, to ease the precarity that has left so many such easy prey. For all of you out there, just don't be an easy mark. Just because someone you like is selling something, that doesn't mean they have your best interests at heart.

And these things, Sagar, have so proliferated. And what was amazing in that Washington Post... Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it. As a reminder, you can go ahead and sign up, watch the full show on Spotify, guaranteed ad-free over there for right now. So breakingpoints.com. Otherwise, we'll see you all tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Terima kasih telah menonton! We'll be right back. June is Black Music Month, so what better way to celebrate than listening to my exclusive conversation with my bro, Ja Rule. The one thing that can't stop you or take away from you is knowledge. So whatever I went through while I was down in prison for two years, through that process, learn. Learn from me.

Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time. Have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated.

I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The OGs of uncensored motherhood are back and badder than ever. I'm Erica. And I'm Mila. And we're the hosts of the Good Moms, Bad Choices podcast, brought to you by the Black Effect Podcast Network every Wednesday. Yeah, we're moms. But not your mommy.

Historically, men talk too much. And women have quietly listened. And all that stops here. If you like witty women, then this is your tribe. Listen to the Good Moms Bad Choices podcast every Wednesday on the Black Effect Podcast Network, the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you go to find your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.