Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 9/14/23: BP Focus Group On Abortion, Social Security, Panic Over Biden Age, Pelosi Refuses To Endorse Kamala, Bidenomics, Romney Retires, Fatherly Love Excuse, Auto Strike Begins Tonight, Mexico Alien Body Hoax, Bill Maher Restarts Show

Episode Date: September 14, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss the BP focus group on abortion and social security, elite media panics over Biden's age, Pelosi refuses to endorse Kamala for VP, media praises Bidenomics as inflation spikes, Mitt Romney retires, Biden's fatherly love excuse for Hunter corruption, massive auto worker strike begins tonight, Mexico unveils alleged alien bodies, and Bill Maher restarts his show amid the writer's strike.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've seen a lot of stuff over 30 years, you know, some very despicable crime and things that are kind of tough to wrap your head around. And this ranks right up there in the pantheon of Rhode Island fraudsters. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I think everything that might've dropped in 95

has been labeled the golden years of hip hop. It's Black Music Month and we need to talk is tapping in. I'm Nyla Simone, breaking down lyrics, amplifying voices, and digging into the culture that shaped the soundtrack of our lives. Like, that's what's really important and that's what stands out, is that our music changes people's lives for the better. Let's talk

about the music that moves us. To hear this and more on how music and culture collide, listen to We Need to Talk from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the years of making myRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The

murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. Lots of interesting things that are breaking this morning. First of all, we have more amazing results from our exclusive focus group of New Hampshire Republican voters. We asked them about some issues, things like abortion and also social security. So we will play some of that for you.

We also have kind of peak angst over on the Democratic side about their very likely ticket headed into 2024. There is a freakout about the top of the ticket. There is a freakout about the vice president, Kamala Harris. In fact, Nancy Pelosi just this morning on CNN refused to say that Kamala Harris was the best choice for the ticket. So we will play all of that for you, which is very interesting. We also have some new, very troubling numbers coming out in terms of the economy. Inflation has ticked back up. Child poverty has skyrocketed at the fastest clip literally since they've been tracking it. So we'll dig into all of that. And there is a lot of, of course, spin and cope coming from the Biden

White House on those numbers. At the same time, kind of a surprise announcement from Senator Mitt Romney that he is going to retire. We will break down for you behind the scenes what is going on there and what he is saying about his reasons. And we have some new spin with regard to Hunter Biden, his business dealings, his relationship with his father, et cetera. We're on the brink of a big possible strike tonight. We'll break that down for you. Sagar is doing a little debunking of some alleged alien creatures that were presented before the Mexican government.

We'll give you all of those details as well. And late-breaking last night, Bill Maher has decided to become a scab and restart his show real time in spite of the fact that the writers are still out on strike. It's an interesting choice. We will be covering it. Okay. But before we get to that, just want to say again, thanks to all the premium subscribers. You guys were the ones who enabled our focus group. We're planning on doing many more. So make sure you go ahead and sign up for breakingpoints.com. You can help support our work. And we are going to be delivering the full focus group to all of the premium

subscribers at some point later today. And it will be available fully on the public feed tomorrow. So if you want to get it early and you want to be able to support our work, a little bit of an incentive there, BreakingPoints.com, as I said. But other than that, let's get to the actual focus group. Yep, absolutely. So we did this in partnership with JL Partners and phenomenal moderator James, who came in and did just a great job leading all of these. We're already talking to them about what we might do next. So keep that in mind as we're moving forward. But we wanted to get into how they felt about some of the top issues that are on people's minds as we head into the election. Of course, one of those top issues is abortion. And even worse so than on the Democratic

side, there has emerged a real split in terms of how Republican candidates are approaching the issue of abortion. This was represented by Mike Pence versus Nikki Haley, really, in the debates where Mike Pence has always been very stridently pro-life. He has sort of staged some of his national reputation and certainly his presidential run here on that issue explicitly. Nikki Haley arguing in the direction of more moderation and how she would put it, sort of like pragmatism and practicality. Let's take a listen to how these New Hampshire Republican-based voters reacted to the clip of Mike Pence staking out his position in the debate. I've spent my life as governor and as vice president.

And to be honest with you, Nikki, you're my friend, but consensus is the opposite of leadership. When the Supreme Court returned this question to the American people, they didn't just send it to the states only. It's not a states only issue. It's a moral issue. And I promise you, as president of the United States, the American people will have a champion for life in the Oval Office. Can't we have a minimum standard in every state in the nation

that says when a baby is capable of feeling pain, an abortion cannot be allowed. A 15-week ban is an idea whose time has come. It's supported by 70% of the American people, but it's going to take unapologetic leadership, leadership that stands on principle and expresses compassion for women in crisis pregnancies. I'll do that as president of the United States. He called my name, so I want to respond to that. It is in the hands of the people, and that's where it should be. But when you're talking about a federal ban, be honest with the American people. We haven't had 45 pro-life senators in over 100 years. So no Republican president can ban abortions any more than a Democrat president can ban all those state laws. Don't make women feel like they have to decide on this issue when you know we don't have 60 Senate votes in the House. I just think putting a band on it right there to me

seems like a control thing when I think about that. Every baby is a baby, I mean, from when they're conceived. And I don't think you can say 15 weeks is a limit on it. It's a baby. I don't agree with a blanket ban. You're taking away a lot of choices for people and not necessarily, you know, in pro of, you know, an unborn child or anything like that. It's still somebody's going to find a way one way or the other. It's not going to stop happening. And you're putting a ban and you're forcing people into a corner and it's not going to help anybody. 15 weeks feels arbitrary to me. I actually personally rather that it went back to where there was no government support for it. Save the child, take the child into adoption. People who can't have children want to have children. Instead of aborting them, killing them, that's changed the way we look at life. the child into adoption, people who can't have children want to have children, instead

of aborting them, killing them. That's changed the way we look at life. I still think it should be at the state level. I just don't agree with the whole federal oversight of that. I am a pro-life candidate person. But I also think that Nikki Haley in the debate had a lot of points about consensus, like what are the things that people actually agree on? Like I know, I understand like intellectually that it's a human life and we shouldn't be bargaining with that. But I also

think that there are things that people do agree on. Like you don't think a federal ban is where it's at. I'd prefer to see a federal ban on all murder, including the unborn child as well as our elderly. Any type of murder in my mind should be federally banned. Who would like to see that be lower, that 15-week ban? Put your hands up if you'd like them to be lower still. Okay. So I thought very interesting conversation there. You can see that group is fairly divided. Very split. I thought very interesting conversation there. You can see that group is fairly divided. Very split.

And some of the people who had objections to the 15-week ban, it was like, it doesn't go far enough. And I think, Sagar, it sort of underscores the bind. Listen, Donald Trump is kind of in his own category. He can kind of stake out in his own positions and people just, like, accept it and deal with it. For every other candidate, the people who are voting on this issue in the Republican primary are the most hard line. So they're the ones like the one woman in the front row who's all the way on the right. She seems to be sort of the most ideological and possibly like staking her vote on this issue. And so, you know, they might accept someone who goes further than

they want on abortion. But there are people in the Republican base who will not vote for you if you don't have a pretty hard stance on the issue. And that's kind of the bind for some of these candidates. Very difficult, very difficult. I did note though, that a lot of the people who were on the side of the issue, some of them were very pro-Trump. And it was clear to me that the Trump people, it's not their top priority, but amongst the undecided, it was a priority. It also was interesting to see the Vivek Ramaswamy supporter there who talked about how this was, she was like, I don't know, I don't like the idea of the ban. And it actually tracks because she is not only more independent minded, but she's a bit more

libertarian. And that's one of the reasons she was supporting Vivek. So I really loved the way that you could see that come through in normal rhetoric when they're like, well, I don't really like the idea of a national ban or like telling people what to do. Seems like going up to the states is a reasonable position, even though I have a pro-life position. And I was like, that is, that's the big divide around how a lot of people feel about this. And this doesn't even take into account how non-GOP voters feel. But amongst them though, you can see even they don't agree. And so that shows you how minority of a position it is. Yeah, that's a great point. Even within the Republican base, you don't have anywhere close to unanimous consent for a fifth, even a 15 week ban,

which is a more moderate position than frankly, what we've heard Mike Pence articulate in the past. I mean, this is someone who would certainly be on board with a absolute complete federal ban. I think he's floating the sort of more moderate position to make it more palatable to a broader audience. But yeah, the fact that you don't even have anywhere close to consensus within this group is noteworthy. The fact that the people who seem to be voting on the issue are the most hardline is noteworthy. And of course, there's a huge gulf between how this plays within a Republican primary and how this plays with independents, with Democrats in a general election. And that's kind of the bind that these candidates find themselves in. Another issue that has long been,

you know, the sort of definition of third rail in American politics, what about Social Security? And so Nikki Haley, after the debate, she, you know, became this kind of media and she's long been a donor class darling. And one of the top issues for the donor class is cutting Social Security. So she took the cable news airwaves and was making the case that we've got to do something about this program. We've got to cut benefits for some group of beneficiaries. So we wanted to get our group to react to her comments on that as well and see where they stood on the issue. Let's take a listen to how that went. Well, you know, you've got multiple candidates on that stage that said they wouldn't touch entitlements, including Trump. And any candidate that says they're not going to touch entitlements

means that they're basically going to go into office and then leave America bankrupt. Social security is going to go bankrupt in 10 years. Medicare is going to go bankrupt in eight. So the way we deal with it is we don't touch anyone's retirement or anyone who's been promised in. But we go to people like my kids in their 20s when they're coming into the system and we say the rules have changed. We change retirement age to reflect life expectancy. Instead of cost of living increases, we do it based on inflation. We limit the benefits on the wealthy, and we expand Medicare Advantage plans. How do you feel about the argument she's made there? Anyone can come in here. How do you feel about the argument?

She's not wrong. We are going to run out of money for it, and there has to be other ways that we can look for pensions and such for people that have put in their time. It's not going to be there. My age group is not going to have it. To me, it's just a scare tactic. They've been talking about this for decades and something that she says to make the voters say, yeah, wow, she's right. But we got an increase, people at Social Security. I think it was last year sometime. And it was a good increase.

And for her to be saying that, she needs to scare the people into voting for her. The problem is what to're using Social Security on. You've got a lot of illegal immigrants coming to this country who are qualifying for some of these benefits, which we're paying for, or people who are younger are paying for this stuff to be using people who don't deserve to have it. It wasn't meant for that. It can't continue how it is, or it won't probably continue how it is,

but I think it could be changed rather than just eliminated. I believe we had a culture in America at one point where the working class benefited in their senior years after they were done working based on what they put into the system. And now we have a system that you don't need to work and you can get the most benefits. In fact, we can penalize the rich to pay for those that don't work at all. Kind of struggling, like as if maybe I don't know something, but don't you have to pay into Social Security to get it? So the notion of people just getting it for free, I'm not quite, it feels like a talking

point, but maybe, you know, that's not, I wouldn't have come in here and said, oh, Social Security is my number one priority, so I don't know. We've had neighbors who've gotten on Social security and they got on the premise of either mental illness or they couldn't hear. Once they get the hearing aid in or kind of hearing aid they got to fix the problem, they could hear fine. They still don't have to go back to work. They still got on social security. So it's become a handout benefit. I don't know about increasing it for my generation, like, because it's just not going to work.

There's too many of us. But for somebody who can't go back to work because they're physically just too old, like, we can't leave them behind. Very interesting. A lot of confusion in the room. I love that lady who's like, I think we have to pay into it. I'm like, yeah, we do. You do. Take a look at your pay stub.

That feels like a talking point, but I don't know. She's trying to be very diplomatic there. But, I mean, it's interesting to see, first of all, what they've taken in about the program. Everybody seemed to have taken in this, you know, what they accept as reality that, oh, we can't just keep going in the same way. And, you know, I mean, obviously you could change the program in a variety of ways to bring in sufficient revenue. You can just lift the income cap, and then you'd have sufficient revenue to fund the program. But, you know, it felt like the vibe in the room was very mixed. And so it frees candidates up to take whatever position they want in terms of Republican primary,

knowing that in a general election, saying you're coming after Social Security is absolutely poison. Yeah, it's also interesting that one man, you know, he was talking about Social Security, but he was talking about the different part of the Social Security is absolutely poison. Yeah, it's also interesting that one man, you know, he's talking about Social Security, but he was talking about the different part of the Social Security program. It's called SSDI, which is the Social Security Disability Insurance. He's not talking about elderly Social Security payments. And you're right. Look, I mean, I think a lot of people really fundamentally misunderstand the way that Social Security is funded. It's funded, obviously, through the payroll tax. The vast majority of people in

this country never make enough money to understand, though, that it's capped. Like, if you're a doctor who makes 400 grand a year, you only pay payroll taxes on a maximum set to $160,000, which means that they actually, it's almost a benefit for them whenever they're going over that. So sure, they have to pay federal income tax, but the normal tax that any normal person out of us would pay is not even close to that for payroll taxes. And that doesn't even mention the fact that payroll taxes are not touched at all whenever it comes to the income, the dividend income and the other type of income that the fabulously wealthy people in this country actually do earn. Where not only do they pay lower tax rate effective to what they would have as income, they don't pay payroll tax on that at all. So there's a lot of stuff that we could do.

I actually wouldn't touch anybody below. You could even make it over a million dollars. You'd still make gajillions of dollars if you just put it towards that. But those people have a very powerful lobby in this country. Yes, indeed. And you remember when just not that long ago, there was this whole freakout in the Republican Party after the Biden State of the Union, like, how dare you say that we ever wanted to touch Social Security? And then, you know, just months later, they're right back to the same talking points of like, yeah, we do actually want to cut Social Security. So like I said, I think it plays very differently in a Republican primary where even in a Republican primary, again, like abortion, very mixed sentiment on what to do,

how to approach it, whether this is a top issue at all versus the general public. And, you know, once again, Trump has really staked out the more politically palatable position of just saying, I'm not touching it. This is something he's been saying since 2016. Every time he's run, it's I'm not touching it whatsoever, which obviously plays better in a general election. Very true. But anyway, look, I think the fun part about the group is that we could see like division in real time and how people think very nuanced about the issue. And also, you know, about kind of first strikes like that one man that was telling it's like this one gentleman.

He's, you know, I don't I'm not going to assume his age, but he looks relatively older. It's like he's probably going to be receiving Social Security. But in his mind, it's not an elderly program. It's a disability program. Whereas the younger people are Security, but in his mind, it's not an elderly program. It's a disability program. Whereas the younger people, they're like, well, yeah, solvency there. It does make sense in terms of what we're talking about, but I don't think we should let people off. And then the other woman, like you said, would be like, I think we pay into it. But, you know, the other thing is I don't remember her occupation, but if you don't work, you actually don't get Social Security, which is a whole thing whenever it comes to house moms and stuff like that.

So it actually makes sense. If you haven't worked before, you don't really know that much about payroll taxes. Yeah, that is a good point. So interesting stuff. Thanks again to JL Partners for working with us on this. We're excited to do more going forward because I think we got a lot of really, I mean, there's just no substitute for actually hearing real voters in their own words, grapple with these issues and get a sense of what's the priority, what's not the priority, how are they reacting to these various clips that we see all the time. And, you know, reminder, this isn't scientific. This is just this group of voters and their particular view of the world. But I also feel like their perspectives and the breakdown of that group matches up with a lot of the polling that we see, too, in terms of, you know, Trump

still being very dominant and who some of the potential second place contenders are and how they're viewing the issue landscape, et cetera. So always really useful and really interesting to hear voters in their own words. Absolutely. Let's talk about President Biden. There's a lot going on in terms of the media just deciding to turn on President Biden at the elite level. There have been two particularly noteworthy instances

in recent days. One is Joe Scarborough, Morning Joe, who once upon a time was on the right, now kinds of self-acquintessential Biden Democrat. And he has admitted now that behind the scenes, every major Democrat that he talks to thinks that Biden is too old to run for president. Let's take a listen.

Everybody we talk to, every political discussion, it talks a lot about Trump. But when it comes to Joe Biden, people say, man, he's too old to run, isn't he? I mean, he's not really going to run. When I say every discussion, I don't mean 99% of the discussion. Every discussion. We got it. I asked Reverend Al if he was hearing it all the time on our show this past week. He's hearing it as well. So, you know, we often will complain about Republicans who will say one thing about Donald Trump off the air and another on air. Well, let me just say Democrats off the air will say Joe Biden's too old.

Oh, too old. That hits close to home when it's, you know, the elite show. Let me tell you, this show is on every TV in the Capitol building, in the White House, in the Senate gym. Like this is the breakfast consumption of every single politician. When I walk my I walk my dog at 6.30 in the morning and people who have their windows open or whatever in the living room, it's Morning Joe, Morning Joe, Morning Joe, CNN, Morning Joe, Morning Joe. I probably walk past 15 Morning Joe screens every morning. And that's how you know. And every single one of those people, it's like, I all work in the government. They all work in the White House, these types of folks. So look, let it sink in about this level of impact that this segment will have,

as opposed to anything you and I ever discussed, even though it's obvious. But the real strike at the heart was David Ignatius. Let's put this up there, please, on the screen, guys, because this was the most momentous, I think, jump the shark moment where he says, quote, President Biden should not run again in 2024. Not going to even bother reading it because this is obviously sound. He's like, I respect Biden. He's done some good stuff, but he's way too old and he needs to have new blood. The thing is about Ignatius is he is basically the voice of Langley and the CIA. This guy has gotten every leak humanly possible whenever it comes to Ukraine, Syria, Libya, going back more than a decade. And the thing is, is when Ignatius writes something

like this, I have to ask, what's the angle? Because you could not find someone who is a more vociferous supporter of the Biden foreign policy in Ukraine. And even in this piece, he's like, I respect so many things about President Biden. He's one of my best presidents. But for him to come out and say, shouldn't run again. Also this late in the game, I mean, they're panicking. It's a full-blown panic at the elite media level. The timing is so interesting to me because I think the reason why there's this groundswell

of elite panic about something that has been manifestly obvious to all of us for quite a while now is because it's kind of the last possible moment when you could even imagine pushing Joe out and Kamala out and getting some different ticket in. Now, I think it's a fantasy. I think that it's a lot of like donor and other Democratic politician wish casting. I don't think Joe Biden is going anywhere. I think he has genuinely committed himself to the path and without something, you know,

outside of his control, some health event or whatever, I think that we are, you know, very likely looking at the Biden-Trump rematch that almost literally no one wants. But that's what I read into the timing of this is there's, we've had poll after poll after poll that has Biden and Trump basically tied. And it was one thing in the beginning when it was like, oh, maybe this is an outlier. Maybe this is just a strange time period. Maybe things will change once all the indictments come out, et cetera. And even after all of that, you're getting all of these polls that say three quarters of the country don't want him to run. They think he's too old. You're getting, it's tied with Trump or some polls saying, hey, Trump has a little bit of

an edge on this guy. And remember, both in 2016 and again in 2020, even though, you know, both races ended up being really close, one Trump gets the win and one of the Democrats get the win. He never had a lead in the polls or was even tied in the polls at this point in the race. So for them to be looking at these polls where, you know, in their mind, and we'll get to this in a minute, the reality versus their mind, but in their mind, they're like, oh, the economy is getting better. And we had all these accomplishments and we're still, we're still tied with Trump in the polls. So there is a full blown elite freak out panic happening such that even they are allowing in a little bit of a glimpse of reality of what the rest of us have been seeing for years now.

Very obvious. And another big moment, CNN even feels like they got to ask the White House about this whenever they have a White House spokesperson on. Let's take a listen. A lot of people in Washington right now, and I know this is probably going to drive your team crazy that I ask it this way,

but I think it matters because it's accurate because the columnist who wrote a piece today asking for the president not to seek re-election, David Ignatius, is well respected within the building behind you. What's your response to that idea? It's not just about the president. It's also about the vice president who you worked for in the 2020 campaign. Yeah, well, I'm governed by the Hatch Act, and I want to be really careful. But obviously, the president has announced he's running for re- reelection, and the president is going to make his case to the American people. And I'll refer you to the campaign for any sort of campaign questions. But this president has a lot to be proud of and a lot to run on. He's delivered some of the most consequential achievements and economic progress

in generations with the Inflation Reduction Act, the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS bill, which is opening new factories and creating new manufacturing jobs around the country. That's what he's going to be talking about. Look, clearly it makes him uncomfortable. But I mean, when you see CNN are asking the question, when you see Joe Scarborough admit the obvious part out loud, the Ignatius column, which for me is the most important piece of all of this. You cannot overstate how impactful Ignatius is in terms of Washington groupthink. He literally is like a spokesperson for the blob. And the rest of his columns are just all about how we should give Ukraine everything up to a nuclear bomb so that they can win the war. When that type of person decides to shift against Biden, you know that this is not only real, it is being whispered and talked about everywhere.

And if they can get rid of him, they will. But like you said, how? How is it possible? Right. This late in the game. Also, you'd have to go with Kamala, which we're about to talk about. But in the dynamic that you created,

he's basically set himself up, so it's like a prisoner's dilemma, where the only real choice is to go along with this man. Maybe, Crystal, they're trying to hedge their bets so that in the future they can say, I told you so. If he does lose just because they know he's so curious. Like you said, I don't know. I just don't know the impetus for this.

Usually that type of, like, spin and throwing various people under the bus, that's usually towards the end of the campaign. Like a year from now in October. Yeah, exactly. When the writing's starting to be on the wall in the fall right before the election, you're like, I told them, I knew this was a problem and they did this and that wrong or this advisor was, you know, the wrong, whatever. Usually that comes a little bit later. I mean, I think there is real concern among the donor set. Obviously, they're looking at the polls.

They're, you know, really freaked out. It reminds me a little bit of some of the dynamics in 2020, when there was all this hand-wringing about Biden, when Obama was sort of like tacitly backing a variety of other candidates, you know, a bunch of previous Obama people were going to Beto O'Rourke. They were, you know, Pete curious, whatever. Like there was a whole searching for, I can't just be the former vice president. There's got to be somebody else. But then in the end, there was a realization of like if we're going to beat Bernie, this is the only guy that's really credible, the only guy left standing. And then the other problem is I kind of I think that they still believe that they would have to go with Kamala if Biden was to step aside. I don't actually think that's reality, though, because she's proven herself to be so weak and her approval rating so low. I genuinely don't think there would be very much blowback. It's not like there's actually

this groundswell of, you know, black women who are hugely supportive. We've just never seen that that's the case. Except on Twitter, white guys who call themselves the K-Hive. Exactly. They're repping for this imaginary group of people who are supposedly in love with Kamala Harris. But I genuinely don't think in the real world there would be a lot of blowback from just opening it up to a democratic process. I mean, who could object to being like, you know what, we're going to have a democratic process. And if Kamala Harris comes down on top and people choose her, then she'll be our candidate and she's the best person in place to defeat Donald Trump, whatever. But we're going to let voters have their say. I just can't imagine there would actually be a real world off of Twitter blowback to letting voters actually get to decide in a democratic

process. Well, to your point, Crystal, there was a shocking moment from Nancy Pelosi on Anderson Cooper's show on CNN where he asked her three times, are you going to endorse Kamala Harris for vice president? And she won't say it. Let's take a listen. Is Vice President Kamala Harris the best running mate for this president? He thinks so. And that's what matters. And by the way, she's very politically astute.

I don't think people give her enough credit. She's, of course, values-based, consistent with the president's values and the rest. And people don't understand, she's politically astute. Why would she be vice president if she were not? But when she was running for attorney general in California, she had 6% in the polls. 6% in the polls. 6% in the polls. And she politically astutely made her case about why she would be good, did her politics, and became attorney general. So people shouldn't underestimate what Kamala Harris brings to the table. Do you think she is the best running mate, though?

She's the vice president of the United States. So when people say to me, well, why isn't she doing this or that? I said, because she's the vice president. That's the job description. You don't do that much. You know, you, you know, you, you, you're a source of strength, inspiration, intellectual resource, and the rest. And you, and she, I think she's represented a country very well at home and abroad. Woo, all right. There were a lot of layers to that. You don't do that much. True, by the way.

Shouldn't be true, but it is true. Wow, I mean, I don't even know what to say about that. I mean, that's one of the most blatant. I mean, she had every opportunity, it was the biggest layup in the world. Like, how do you, what's happening here? She won't endorse it. I mean, we were talking about this before.

What's the, I mean, what is it? Is it some weird California stuff possible? Is it just that, I mean, look, Pelosi, you know, no fan over here, but got herself reelected a bunch of times. She's a huge democratic fundraiser. She's probably hearing it from every billionaire on the planet. What have you done to us? Why have you saddled us with this woman?

Maybe she's speaking on behalf of the constituent, but I mean, I guarantee you in the East wing or wherever the hell her office is, then you can take a notice of that. I have a guess of what's going on here. Could be some weird California beef from 20 years ago, but that's very possible. My suspicion is this is representing the donor class because there's no constituency that Nancy Pelosi is closer to or who she depends on for her power more than the donor class. That's the whole reason why she's had so much power

in Washington for so long, because she can raise boatloads of money at the drop of a hat and still can. And, you know, obviously she represents San Francisco. So all of those Silicon Valley type donors, not to mention the Wall Street donor, I mean, she's just plugged in

with the donor set. That is her constituency. And so I think the reason why she is so reluctant to just, you know, Nancy Pelosi lies all the time. Like, why not just tell this particular lie that you think Kamala Harris is the best choice here? I think it's because she's trying to represent the donor angst over the fact that Kamala Harris is, you know, the vice president and is going to be Joe Biden's running mate once again. And, you know, part of why this Kamala Harris question is so critical when Nancy Pelosi in her very like passive aggressive way is like, well, the vice president doesn't actually do that much. Why it's so matters so much is obvious because Joe Biden is super old and there is a really uncomfortably high chance that he doesn't make it through another term.

So it stands to reason that people are going to be evaluating that vice presidential selection and, you know, who the number two on the ticket is a lot more carefully than they might be if you had someone who was younger and, you know, in the prime of their life. So that's why this question is so critical. And it's really, I can't imagine how Kamala Harris felt watching that. I'm sure she was absolutely apoplectic that Nancy Pelosi, when asked three times, cannot bring herself to say, yes, I think Kamala Harris is the best choice for vice president. I also don't have a lot of sympathy. She's terrible at her job. People deserve to be called out when they're terrible. I would personally like to see more of this. It's a slavish dedication. People are like, yeah, I don't think so. I think she's bad. And the fact that they're willing to get away with it shows you how little power that she really has. Pelosi,

I don't think, will be offering an apology or any of that. But it's one of those where, yeah, if we read it in terms of the donors, which of course there's got to be some serious angst about this. Well, clearly there's discussions going on behind the scenes, but what a clip. I still can't get over it. Truly shocking. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And so, you know, part of the backdrop here for the tied polls and the democratic angst is the fact that the economic reality for Americans is terrible. I mean, there's just no two ways around it. Over the course of the Biden administration, you have had two phenomenon that have been really tragic, honestly, for regular people. One is inflation and the other is the fact that all the pandemic social safety net programs went away.

And so the things that were previously helping people and get into a little bit more of this in a moment, are gone, leaving them racking up credit card debt and struggling to pay the bills at a time when prices keep going higher and higher. So in spite of that actual reality, you've had lots of pundits and mainstream economists coming out to say, I just don't understand why the American people aren't in love with this economy and giving Joe Biden all the credit in the world. I don't get why they don't love Bidenomics. And we had a perfect example of this from The New York Times economist Paul Krugman going on and on about how great the economy is literally the day before we got inflation numbers that showed it had spiked once again. Let's take a listen to what he was saying. The striking thing, if you look at it, it's not just the economic data have been so really good.

I mean, even optimists are just stunned by how quickly and how painlessly inflation has come down. No hint of a recession, at least so far. Never know, but so far, inflation not too far from the target of 2% and under 3% by most measures. And all of that just achieved painlessly. So this is great. This is a Goldilocks economy. People say it's a terrible economy. But what's really odd is that people don't behave as if it's a terrible economy.

We can talk about surveys in which people seem to be relatively happy with their own financial situation, or we can just look at behavior. People are out there with a lot of discretionary consumer spending, travel, hotels, restaurants, all of that is booming. So people are acting as if they're in good shape financially, and yet they say, wow, this is a disastrous economy. Somebody, must be disastrous for somebody, but not for me. And, you know, we don't really understand why this is happening. But, you know, and I can come up with multiple stories, but it is,

I think, important to point out that there is a really profound and peculiar disconnect going on. Goldilocks economy is really good. This man has a Nobel Prize in economics. And he can't figure out. Let's help explain why people are not feeling the love on Bidenomics. Well, we just got some numbers in. Let's put this up on the screen that inflation actually ticked back up again. And the primary reason is one that's kind of important to ordinary people, gas. Gas is the biggest factor, accounting for over half the increase. Shelter, especially rent, also a big factor. Now, there were a million stories, Sagar, that, listen, I am as nerdy about this stuff as anyone.

I like to get it, okay, what things are going up and what's not and what's driving it, et cetera. There was a lot of spin about how, well, actually, these numbers are not that bad because it's just gas and it's just rent. Just gas, just rent. And it's like, what do you think that most people are spending their money on?

Like, what is hitting their pocketbook the hardest? And obviously, those are two of the biggest factors in terms of people being able to make it month to month. Crystal, the price of gas as of this morning, national average is $3.85, which is very high. In California, the average state price is $5.50. All across the West, it is well over $4 and remains $5 in some very, very populous states. Some of the cheapest gas in the country is down south in Georgia and in Texas, where it's still only $3.40 a gallon. That's very high, especially when you compare it to where things were pre-pandemic levels. There's no getting around it. There's a lot of conversation around why and what and how

and energy production. Some of it usually doesn't keep in mind the Ukraine element to it, which unfortunately, we don't discuss nearly enough. But the point is, is that, guess what? It's not good right now. Also, his whole point about I'm doing well, but other people are, that's not even true. Put this up there. Real incomes fell last year. Everyone keeps saying, oh, real wages rose, and they're talking about a quarter. Look at the overall dip in the real income for most people from 2020 up until now. I mean, whenever you have American real income overall fell in 2022 from the previous year, and then maybe have some slight increase in 2023, you're still down by almost 2.3% for the average real income on Americans' actual salary.

That's almost all entirely because of inflation. And so when you have that, you have a record amount of people who either drop out of the labor force or who are finding underemployment. So they're technically employed, but they're not employed to like the highest degree. And the, you know, I mean, what? If you go to the grocery store, try walking out of there with less

than a hundred dollars in a single bag or sorry, in a, in a single trip, it's almost impossible for the vast majority of people. So it's just so obvious what's happening, but White House won't learn. And people like Krugman and all that just keep scolding them. It's really like the Obama era. They're like, you're doing well, you're doing well, you're doing well. Yeah, but I don't have a house anymore. It's like, you know, it's like, we're not talking about the last quarter. We're talking about, I had a house and now I don't have one. And I probably never will have one. Oh, and now I'm 67 and inflation is nuking my entire salary. Yeah. There's the real disconnect is between pundits like Paul Krugman and the reality

that people are actually facing. Put B7 up on the screen. This is a Jacobin article from our friend Bronco Marcetich, who broke down. Hey, guys, here is why people are not feeling the love when it comes to, quote unquote, Bidenomics. He writes, inflation is slowing down, but working class life in the U.S. is still hard to afford. And he goes through the numbers. This is not hard to do, guys. This is not hard to do. The spike in child care costs far outpaced the general inflation rate, forcing parents to fork over thousands of dollars a month or to drop out of the workforce to take care of their kids. And by the way, there is more funding that is drying up that was put in place during the pandemic to help make child care more affordable. So that situation is only set to get worse.

Prescription drugs, which 66 percent of all U.S. adults use often as a condition of staying alive and healthy, have likewise blown past overall inflation with a whopping 31.6 percent year to year increase. And the very moderate reforms that were put into the Inflation Reduction Act, that only applies to seniors, and it only applies to like 10 drugs, and it only applies in like three years' time. So don't hold your breath on that really changing the dynamic with prescription drug costs. He also talks about how housing is wildly expensive. And obviously, the measures that the Federal Reserve took to hike interest rates to try to get inflation under control has made housing perhaps the most expensive that it has ever been in history.

And he also points to insurance premiums on homes, something we talked a lot about here, cars, and health care. are most critical to Americans just being able to afford to live and have a basic standard of living, something approaching or approximating a middle-class lifestyle. All of those things have gone up and up and up, really in a lot of ways predates even this current surge of inflation. But it's not hard to see why people would be financially strapped. And we have tracked these numbers. I mean, every week I feel like there's a new indication of how much people are struggling because of two things. Because number one, you had all of the pandemic social safety net, which genuinely helped people go away. And number two, you had inflation spike at the very time when people were losing the support that they previously had. Yes. And unfortunately, the White House wants to keep telling us about how good

things are. Their top economic advisor, Jared Bernstein, took the podium yesterday. Here's his case for why you're doing better than you actually are. Take a listen. Turning to Bidenomics, we start from a position of strength. The U.S. economy is in solid shape with real GDP growth supported by strong consumer spending that is itself supported by a strong labor market delivering wage gains accounting for inflation. I have a next figure showing that the extent to which you see inflation coming down and wages actually beating prices there, both for all workers and for middle wage workers. Oh, well, once again, we come back to that canard. As we just showed you, it's not even true if you look on the actual timescale. They're trying to shrink it so that they're like, oh,

well, only in the last quarter, everything's good. Oh, unemployment is so great. Look, vast majority of people, you can't tell them. You can't spin them away from the facts. It's obvious. It's true. And it's their own fault where they find themselves right now. It is interesting. The one group that has actually seen their real incomes increase is Americans with no high school diploma. Yeah. They saw their incomes increase by six point four percent over and above inflation. And that is a testament to the one number that, you know, they really want to point to, which is the very low unemployment rate, which is part of what has enabled the labor actions that we've been covering and all of that going on. But there's a lot more to the economy

than just what is the unemployment rate. There's also, does your job pay enough that you can live? How much are the costs of things that are critical to the thriving and basic survival of yourself and your family? And there seems to be just a total, I don't know if it's intentional blind spot or what, but complete blind spot over those pieces. And so let's move on to this next part. I mean, this is so predictable and so stunning. So we had during the early days of the Biden administration, they passed some pandemic recovery programs that included a child tax credit that was fully refundable that, you know, really dramatically reduced child poverty. And the assumption was that, all right, we're just going to do this for a short term, but it's going to be so popular that Republicans are going to be forced to join us and Joe Manchin is going to get over himself and also get on board. And we're going to be able to make this thing permanent.

Well, that didn't happen for a variety of reasons that I'll just get into. And the long and short of it is that we've now had child poverty spike the largest amount that we've ever had in history. Put this up on the screen. Child poverty in the U.S. more than doubled in median household income decline last year when COVID era government benefits expired and inflation kept rising. This is according to new census bureau numbers. Let's go and put this next piece up on the screen because you can just visualize it so clearly. So the child poverty rate in 2022 was 12.4%. Now, this individual, Zach Parolin, points out that from 1967 to 2021, previously, the largest year-over-year increase

in the child poverty rate was 10.7%. Now, we had a record increase, a 139% increase in child poverty from 2021 to 2022. This is a policy choice. You can see it right there. When politicians in Washington decided that it was important to have a child tax credit and put it in place, child poverty fell off a cliff. And when they decided they didn't care about it that much anymore, and I want to say, listen, it was mostly Democrats who supported this thing. Joe Manchin kind of tanked it, and none of the Republicans supported it. So let's be clear about who stands where on this. But when the politicians in this town

decided it was no longer a priority, it jumped up by record numbers. I did a whole thing last week about my view of Bidenomics. I think there are some genuine, genuinely good things that have been put in place for the long term.

Industrial policy, important. Something we would never have seen under Obama, Bush, Clinton. Corporate antitrust, like trust busting, a rethinking of corporate power, also really important. You see the Google antitrust lawsuit going on right now. I talk ad nauseum about labor power and this Biden National Labor Relations Board and how that could be changing the game for union density and labor power in this country. Those are all long-term trends that isn't helping anyone out right now in the current reality where they are trying to pay their bills, trying to keep their kids fed, trying to keep a roof over

their house, trying to keep the lights on. All of those things have become more difficult during the Biden administration. And then you have these people turning around like, I just don't get it. I don't get why these people don't love us. I don't get why they don't love Bidenomics. I don't understand why they're not flocking to the polls and enthusiastically ready to support us. It's very clear, guys. It's not complicated. It's really not complicated at all. And you can just watch how it all continues to drop structurally as well. Not even when we're just talking about child poverty, because that just feeds into so many things about how people feel insecure and it has a lot of developmental problems and impacts on

children. It puts people behind because they have to go into debt because they want to provide for their kids. And then that makes it so that they can't reach even further milestones, you know, further on down the line. But the story of the Biden presidency is just pretty obvious. It's like, and also why people, and this is why it's so stupid. I saw recently, they're like, well, we're gonna define Bidenomics and Manganomics. I'm like, well, actually, if you look back, most people feel like they're doing pretty well

under Trump, unambiguously. It maybe not even had anything to do with Trump. Low interest rate environment and no COVID and low inflation, but it was better then and it's not now. So if the story is that you're getting worse, worse, worse, worse, well, things aren't looking up for you. Here's the other thing where they do themselves no favors by completely denying any sort of Democratic primary process is part of why Biden was forced into promising anything on economics in 2020 was because he had to be on stage with primarily Bernie Sanders, but also, you know,

Elizabeth Warren was pressing him on certain things, whatever. And so he had to have at least somewhat of an affirmative economic vision. It was, you know, one of the lowest common denominator in terms of the people on the stage, but he had to say and promise something. And some of those things he went ahead and, you know, went forward with, you know, we had checks at the beginning of the administration. We had this child tax credit at the beginning of the administration that now has expired with student loan debt cancellation. So the fact that he isn't being pressed in any sort of a democratic primary process means he hasn't promised anything for our next term. So if people aren't feeling the Bidenomics love now, and again, long-term, I think there are some really good

things. I personally think that supporting the Bidenomics love now, and again, long term, I think there are some really good things. I personally think that, you know, supporting the Biden National Labor Relations Board versus the union busting Trump National Labor Relations Board is really important. But these are long term things. This is not a I'm going to benefit materially right now today. And that matters. So if people aren't feeling the love, you got to make a case for them. What are you going to do that's going to help them out? Like, it's not enough just to, you gotta make a case for them. What are you gonna do that's gonna help them out? Like, it's not enough just to, you know, point at Trump.

I don't think it's enough, even though it has been a very potent issue to just say, hey, we're not gonna make things worse on abortion. I genuinely believe that if they wanna get out of this slump, they need to persuade people that they're gonna actually deliver for them, make things better for them, or else they are in a world of trouble

and no, you know, additional Trump charges are going to save them. We'll find out. I'm excited to see that test case. Who knows? They've gotten away with it on abortion once, which means they're just going to play that all over again. Let's go to Mitt Romney. Stunning. I guess not all that stunning. He was slated to decide on whether he's going to run for reelection in the state of Utah, where he's currently the junior senator. He obviously would face a brutal primary in the GOP. He already has multiple people who had announced against him. He is well into his 70s, and he had decided, am I going to step down, or am I going to actually run for reelection? And look, there's a

lot of disagreement here on this show with Senator Romney on a variety of different topics. But this one part of his retirement video, I deeply respect and I want people, I want to hold up anybody who is willing to actually say the honorable part out loud. Let's take a listen. I've spent my last 25 years in public service of one kind or another. At the end of another term, I'd be in my mid-80s. Frankly, it's time for a new generation of leaders. They're the ones that need to make the decisions that will shape the world they will be living in. Now, we face critical challenges, mounting national debt, climate change, and the ambitious authoritarians of Russia and China. Neither President Biden nor former President Trump are leading their party to confront those issues. On deficits and debt, both men refuse to address entitlements, even though

they know that this represents two-thirds of federal spending. Donald Trump calls global warming a hoax, and President Biden offers feel-good solutions that make no difference to the global climate. On China, President Biden under-invests in the military, and President Trump under-invests in our alliances. Political motivations too often impede the solutions that these challenges demand. The next generation of leaders must take America to the next stage of global leadership. So look, he listed a lot of different things. Not even going to get into the issue. Number one problem is the national debt. Okay.

But he said, I would be in my mid-80s. It's time for somebody else to step in. I cannot help but celebrate that. And there's a new profile of Senator Romney coming from a fourth-ranked book about him written by the McKay Coppins over at The Atlantic. And he actually has a great section that Romney describes about why the Senate is such an old folks. Let's put this up there on the screen. The average age in the Senate was 63 years old. Several members, Romney included, were in their 70s or even 80s.

He sensed many of his colleagues attached enormous psychic currency to their position, that they would do almost anything to keep it. He talks about it this way, Crystal, further. There are free meals, on-site barbers, doctors within 100 feet at all times. There is an edge to that it. He talks about it this way, Crystal, further. There are free meals, on-site barbers, doctors within 100 feet at all times. There is an edge to that observation. And he also says, most of us have gone out, tried playing golf for a week, and it was like, okay, I'm going to kill myself. He told me job preservation in this context became almost existential. Retirement

was death, which tells us what? It's all ego. It's 100% ego. They don't care about you. They care about themselves. They care about the feeling of being important, which is why the Capitol, tried to describe it before, but it's difficult for people who've never been in the inner sanctum.

It is the greatest old folks home of all time. You never open a door. You got reams of people around you at all times who either care about what you think in the form of the reporters, or you got all these lades whose salaries that you pay, you're literally a Titan. You can force your interns and others to go get your dry cleaning for you. You don't do anything. It's like being a billionaire without having to be a billionaire. And why would you give that up? And the taxpayer, they fund everything you do. You get to have important votes.

You get to go on the news. That's the thing you always find about really old people. They always want to relive their glory days. They don't want to give up the glory day at all. And there's no forcing mechanism to make them get out. I thought this was a very insightful comment about why they hang on. I mean, Dianne Feinstein. They're so old.

Come on, Lee. Mitch McConnell. You don't think anyone else could fill your shoes? hang on. I mean, Dianne Feinstein. They're so old. Come on, Lee. Mitch McConnell. Yeah. You don't think anyone else could fill your shoes? Come on. You're not that special. Joe Biden, same thing. You're not that special.

I mean, I think he's deluded himself into thinking he's the one and only guy that can beat Trump. I mean, you've got to have a titanic ego to be president. Titanic. Yeah, absolutely. But, you know, they're they're actually they're basically addicts to this kind of, you know, sense that their rush that they get from feeling like they're going to kill themselves. They just can't, they can't get off the sauce. It really is like a drug to them and they can't let go of it. So as you said, lots of issues with Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is not a moderate, right? This is a very hard line, economic conservative, very culturally conservative, like I have very few agreements with Mitt Romney in terms of policy, but the fact that he is able to, as a billionaire, however much money

he has, it shouldn't be that hard to do. He's got a quarter billion. He's going to have a very nice life. But apparently for many of these other individuals who are also very wealthy, they just can't give it up. So kudos to him for being able to take a step back and step away from all of this. And I also think, Sagar, what comes through in this McKay-Coppins piece too, is he talks about the way Romney thought about how his Senate term was going to go and what kind of role he could serve. And he thought because Utah has been culturally the most skeptical of Trump, like it's one of the Mormons. Yeah, it's one of the least sort of Trumpy Republican states, although I think it has shifted some now over time. But he felt like coming in representing Utah, he might be

able and being the former presidential candidate and one of the leaders of the party, whatever, he could maybe serve as the leader of a coalition of people who were able to be critical of Trump from within the Republican Party. And that just didn't work out. You know, to the extent whenever he would pipe up and say something critical of Trump or vote against him on different things, he would get all of these pats on the back behind the scenes of people saying like, oh, I appreciate you saying that. I appreciate you doing that. I wish that I could do that too. But in terms of giving anyone else the courage to like stand up and say what they actually thought about Donald Trump, it just didn't happen. And so I think he also realized, you know, whatever his list of priorities were, they weren't getting done. His vision of being the

leader of this kind of like anti-Trump resistance within the Republican Party, that was not coming to fruition whatsoever. And so you can see how he's like, well, gee, why would I stay when the core things that I came here to try to accomplish are clearly not happening and I have no hope that they're going to happen. He's right. I mean, so look, if you want to if you want to be a legislator, actually do something, then you're in the wrong job, which sounds ridiculous. But that's basically how it's been for a really long time, especially if you've got no seniority. So look, I want to commend the man. I'm glad he's leaving. I hope somebody, and look, I hope that the people of Utah have a rigorous primary democratic process and can select somebody who best fulfills what they want. That's what they deserve. And I think we should see a hell of a lot more of this. Okay, let's move on to Hunter Biden. So there's a lot going on with Hunter Biden.

CounterPoints did a great job yesterday of covering the impeachment inquiry that the Republicans are opening over on the House side and to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and the business dealings. But on the Hunter side itself, the Biden White House has just found itself contorting in every different direction as to what level of legitimacy they can grant the idea that Hunter Biden, A, did something bad, and to what level that Biden was involved. Because recall, first, Joe Biden had never spoken with Hunter about his business dealings. Then he had never met with any of Hunter's business partners. Then, and now the current line is he did do that, but they didn't talk about business. And now the latest line from the White House is that he did these business meetings because just

he loved his son as any other father. Let's take a listen. The president was present at some of the meetings between Hunter Biden and his business associates. Why was the president at those meetings on those phone calls? Well, again, I think this is part of the right wing's misinformation machine to try to confuse people about what the truth is. The truth is that the president, as he has said publicly for years, calls his family every day to check in. He calls his son every day to check in. He calls his other family members to check in to see how they're doing. He loves them. They're a tight-knit family. And what the GOP's own witness testified in this case is that that's exactly what the president was doing. He was checking in with Hunter during a

particularly hard time, I might add, a time where the family was going through Hunter's brother Beau's illness. And of course, the president checks in with his son and talks to him. But again, that witness testified no business dealings of Hunter Biden's or anyone's was discussed in these conversations. And so again, they're trying to make this sort of strange connection when their own investigation has disproven these claims. That is actually not what Devin Archer said at all. If you recall, Crystal, we had Archer, I almost respect his disgusting level of cynicism in that interview that he had with Tucker. He's like, look, this is how Washington works. You got a guy on the phone, you got a bunch of Ukrainians in the room, and they're like, wow, man, he's got the vice president there on the phone. It doesn't matter. Hunter was using it, even if he was just checking in. Biden knew that he was

being called into business meetings. He said it happened dozens of times. That had a direct monetary benefit to Hunter. And then there's the question of, well, Hunter said 10% for the big buy. I don't know. I mean, listen, that's part of the reason I think the impeachment inquiry is fine. I actually would love to know whether he got any of that money or not. We do know his brother got some, Joe Biden's brother, and that the Biden family was getting all – it was basically a slush fund for what they were using to buy – use all these foreign corrupt monies in order to fund lavish lifestyles that all these guys are doing. And then you've got all these crazy things going on since with art and all this other nonsense. And it's like, guys, having love for your son is obviously something that people can relate with. But what people, you know, and I think we've talked about this before too, whenever it comes to Hunter and the previous, you know, element where Biden would refuse to acknowledge his like Hunter's love child

until she signed away, the mother signed away the right for them to use the Biden family name. It was one of those where, you know, a lot of people can forgive, like supporting your son. But what a lot of people can't forgive is that said son, when your son is going through a hard time, if you're a normal American, they go to jail or they face consequences. And that actually he's gotten special treatment at every single area of this. And it's been writing off of your name with no consequence to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. And you obviously knew about it and do and do anything.

There's also an infantilization element that really bothers me around this whole thing. You're like, he's just a dad. He loves his boy. I'm like, Hunter could be my dad. What is he, like 50? Okay, let's look it up. All right, let's look it up.

But I completely agree with you. He's 53. He could be my father. He literally could be my father. Yeah. Yeah. As a parent, I can say part of loving your children and being a good parent is also saying no. Yeah.

Right? Seriously. When your son is like, hey, Dad, will you just, like, hang out on speakerphone on this, like, shady-ass business call? No. No. The answer is no. It's really not that hard to do. Just say no. I got a lot of thoughts on this. I mean, because everybody is just sort of shameless on this issue. Number one, I am perfectly happy and comfortable with Republicans

setting a precedent of we're actually going to care about presidential question. Please apply this across the board. Please, if Donald Trump gets back in there, let's have that precedent. Let's actually care about the disgusting, outrageous, like brazen levels of family corruption going on. It's better than the perfect phone call. Inside the Trump White House. Like, let's talk about Jared Kushner.

Let's talk about Ivanka. Let's talk about the way that they, you know, cashed in even during the presidency and post-presidency and Trump himself with Live Golf and all this crap. Let's actually care about corruption. 100% here for that particular precedent to be set. So that's number one. Number two, on the Biden side, it has always been absurd for them to pretend like, oh, he's just, you know, it's fine. He's just doing business. And of course, Joe had no idea about it. They've changed their line on that a number of times. So obviously they're not being straightforward here either. Republicans have wildly overplayed their hands. You know, they've

claimed, they've claimed all this evidence of like, you know, having direct evidence of money being exchanged directly to Joe Biden, et cetera. They have not produced that proof. And so they've wildly overplayed their hand on the politics of it. The impeachment inquiry from Kevin McCarthy feels like an attempt to placate people in his caucus who want an actual, you know, actual impeachment because an impeachment inquiry, it's kind of meaningless. It's just an investigation, right? So he's trying to placate them. It's mostly like a kind of conservative virtue signal is the idea here from McCarthy. It's not even appeasing the people he's trying to appease. But I think just like Democrats were punished when they spent so much time doing impeachment, actual impeachments with

Donald Trump, I think for Republicans politically be a disaster if they tied up the nation's capital in endless impeachment hearings and actually went forward with that. I think the American people would be very frustrated. There's a lesson from the perfect phone call impeachment, which is that the American people turned on the Democrats. A lot of people forget there's January, 2020 GOP identification had never been higher because people didn't give a shit about the Ukraine funding and all that other stuff, which is a real precursor to a lot of debates now, but that's beside the point. So my thing is, is do not impeach him unless you actually have the goods. As you said, I, listen, let's set the precedent. I love it. You know, this is far more legitimate in my opinion

than the idiot phone call impeachment. This is one of those where we should have this. And now that it's been broken, like you said, you're sure do it against Trump, do it against anybody. I don't care who the president is, if they have bad business dealings or any of this other stuff. Everyone likes to look back at what was the Hillary one that was happening? Benghazi. Whitewater. Whitewater. Oh.

No, this is deep cut. Oh, okay. We're going way back. Whitewater, which is 1994. I want to say they're like, oh, it was a witch hunt and all that. If you actually go read the details, they're totally nuts about the Clinton family and how Hillary was profiting even at that time off of the governorship of Arkansas. Anyway, I think those are legitimate and I think they are good. I don't care if they are partisan right now because it just sets a better precedent. So that's great. The point though that you said is very important.

Do not go forward on this unless you have smoking gun proof. The issue is, I don't know if it exists. That said, if it does, I mean, it's one of those where at this problem, we've had four years. The president obviously is subject to some level of scrutiny on IRS and all that. They have to go and uncover the actual 10% payment or the actual exchange of money. That's very difficult to prove, unfortunately,

because people who do this stuff usually are very good at hiding their tracks. So we'll see. I mean, I would really like to see whether they actually did financially profit or not. And there is a basic point, though, where their lifestyle absolutely does not match, you know, how much money they make.

He was actually quite poor before he became vice president. So it's like, well, how are you buying all these houses? But what percentage of D.C. politicians do you think is guilty of that same type of corruption? 100%, maybe 150%. Right, which is why they never take it seriously, which is why Ted Lieu can come on with us on Rising and be like, what, people sit on boards, they earn salaries, what's the big deal?

Because that's how all of these people operate. Right. And so that's the problem for the Republicans, is proving something beyond the shit that they're all doing, too. And so far, they have not been able to produce that evidence. And Lord knows they've been looking. I mean, they've been looking for certainly years now trying to find some smoking gun proof that there was actual money that went into Joe Biden's hands and Joe Biden's bank account. So that's what they're you know, that's what they're trying to find.

And listen, more power to like I said, I would love for DC to take corruption seriously in a bipartisan manner where both sides apply the same set of rules. Do I have a lot of hope that that's going to happen? Absolutely not. Well, we will see. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, at midnight tonight, the negotiating deadline for big three automakers and the United Auto Workers expires. As it stands right now, looks very much like these workers are headed into a historic and possibly transformational strike. And a sign that they're on the brink. UAW's new president, Sean Fain, took to Facebook Live last night to reveal the strike plan that they have devised in order to exert maximum pressure on these auto executives. Let's take a listen. For the first time in our history, we may strike all three of the big three

at once. Our message to the companies was clear. If we don't have a fair contract by midnight on Thursday night, we will strike. The second big difference is the way we're going to strike is going to be very different. In fact, we're inventing a whole new way to strike. And we're calling it the stand-up strike. The name stand-up strike, of course, recalls the movement that built our great union, the sit-down strikes of 1937. Just as in the 1930s, we're living in a time of stunning inequality throughout our society. We're living in a time where our industry is undergoing massive transformations, and we're living in a time where our labor movement is redefining itself. In the spirit of the sit-down strike, the stand-up strike will keep the companies guessing.

It's going to rely on discipline, organization, and creativity. The stand-up strike begins with all of our locals, from parts distribution centers to assembly plants, maintaining a constant strike readiness. It's really important that we're clear on this point. We will not strike all of our facilities at once. We will strike all three companies, a historic first, initially at a limited number of targeted locations that we will be announcing. Then, based on what's happening in bargaining, we're going to announce more locals

that are going to be called to stand up and strike. These locals will join those that are already on strike so that our strike at each company will continue to grow over time. So we will see, but it sounds to me like they are going out. And tonight at 10 p.m., Fain's going to do another Facebook Live to announce striking locals

if indeed those negotiations fail. So prepare yourself to see a thousand panicked headlines about workers tanking the economy. But the economy that they are really worried about isn't the one that determines whether you can earn enough money to feed your family because workers flexing power can only be good for that economy. The economy they're worried about is the one that funnels all profits constantly to the top. If there is one thing you should know about the dynamics of this potential strike, it's that the big three can easily afford to pay their workers a lot more, and it's only sheer corporate greed that prevents them from doing so. How do we know that? Well, first of all, these companies are so flush with cash that they have authorized $5 billion in stock buybacks in the past year alone. Now, stock buybacks amount to a giant shareholder giveaway in which companies use

their cash not for research or investment or worker pay, but simply to buy their own stock, artificially pumping up the price. So they got plenty enough money for giveaways to themselves and their wealthy shareholders, but are suddenly crying poor when it comes to people who are responsible for generating all that money. And the cash, by the way, continues to pour in. In the first six months of 2023, the big three reported $21 billion in profits. Now, the history of these companies is also critical to remember, too. It wasn't just taxpayers that bailed out Detroit in the financial crash. Workers took a huge hit at the time to bail these companies out. Per the lever, the UAW agreed to $11 billion in labor cuts, 21,000 layoffs, a wage freeze for workers, a tiered wage system for new workers, a no-strike agreement until 2015, and the transfer of retirees' health care and pension benefit costs from GM to the UAW in order to save GM $3 billion. Workers have never made up for the losses that they shouldered to float these abusive companies,

even as these companies reach extraordinary new levels of profitability. So now, armed with a new militant UAW president, the energy of a union renaissance, the backing of an actually pro-worker NLRB, and a massive $825 million strike fund that's expected to last for nearly three months, these workers are coming for what they have long been due.

Now, what exactly are the workers' demands? Well, under the slogan, record profits mean record contracts, the UAW is demanding significant gains. They are asking for, among other things, 40% pay hikes over the course of four years to match the pay hikes that the big three CEOs have enjoyed. They're also pushing for bold quality of life improvements, like a shift to a 32-hour work week. They want to restore the cost of living and pension benefits that they had prior to the auto bailout, and they want to make sure their workers are protected in the event of plant closures. Now, according to Fain, none of the big three have come close to meeting these demands.

But you can also see they've definitely gotten these companies' attention. All three companies have offered close to a 20% pay hike over the next four or so years and some level of cost of living adjustment. Just behold the awesome power of the union. Imagine being able to scoff at a 20% pay hike and be like, screw you, I deserve more. And you know what? They do deserve more, and so do you. Now, in terms of the larger effects here, they have the potential to be massive. Obviously, there will be a direct impact in the short term on the auto market, but in some ways, that's the least of the potential impact. There's perhaps no industry in America more iconic or more synonymous with the American middle class than the big three automakers. Henry Ford famously was very little anti-union,

but he did believe his workers should be paid well enough that they can afford the product that they're building. And his imposition of a 40-hour workweek, along with massive union pressure and organizing, helped to invent something we all take for granted now. That's the weekend. So it is no stretch to say that autoworkers could single-handedly redefine what workers should expect from their employers in times of record profits, especially coming on the heels of the successful UPS contract negotiations, which saw their drivers land significant wage and safety gains. Few things are more pivotal for the future of the working class in America right now

than the ability for unions to grow their membership after years of decline. And nothing could be more compelling for workers considering unionizing than witnessing the massive gains that union workers are able to secure. Now, there's also a big old political fight tangled up directly in this negotiation. The automakers of their own accord, but also spurred by investments from the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act, they're working to shift away from gas-powered cars to electric vehicles. Now, typically, when these industry shifts occur, they're used as an excuse to hasten a race to the bottom, shipping jobs overseas, or at least to the most low-wage,

anti-union parts of the country. Thanks to Joe Manchin being the literal worst, the Biden administration half-assed the incentives for automakers to keep these new EV jobs union, frustration that has led to the UAW withholding their endorsement from Biden's reelection. So this contract negotiation is also designed to try to secure a just transition to EVs that make sure workers are in on the big industry of the future, which is absolutely critical. So when you put all of this together, this looming strike with a midnight deadline tonight could serve as a wake-up call to the boss class and their political allies, and it could serve as an awakening for workers that they do not have to continue to accept a smaller and smaller piece of the pie year after year after year. And that shift in consciousness and the balance of

power could be a whole revolution. So I'm watching this one very closely. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. All right, Sagar, tell us what you're looking at. I'm actually not doing a monologue today, or at least a written one, because in a few minutes from now, the NASA UFO report will come out and I'll be doing a live reaction, either in the show or probably later on on our channel, depending how long it takes to digest.

But I did think it would be fun to preview that with a little bit of skepticism so people do know that I don't accept everything around the UFO topic. You might have seen the internet dominated recently with these images after the so-called unveiling of alien bodies before the Mexican Congress. Let's go ahead and play the video for everybody up there on the screen. Crystal, as you can see, these are basically

almost like ET level bodies that have been compiled, have been put together. People who are watching, this literally was a video taken directly from the feed that was there. And I've actually got a lot of messages about this. Like, oh my God, is this real? Is this what's actually happening? The bodies, how come nobody is paying attention to this? And listen, guys, this is just a massive red flag for me on every level, aside from the fact that the bodies quite literally look like E.T. Let's just give a little bit of a background about the person who is behind this. And I don't want to besmirch anybody's character. I'm just giving you somebody's record here.

Let's go ahead and put this up there. All of this has really been pushed by a guy named Jaime Muson. He's a Mexican UFOlogist. He's got a big YouTube channel. And just off the bat, I can't help but think of one of the most legendary incidents that has happened in the UFO alien world where he had something called the Roswell Slides,

which purported to show a dead alien. And as you could see there, this was back in 2015, he actually had to apologize, admitting that the picture actually showed the mummified body of a child. I would also note that Ryan Graves, one of the pilots who has come forward and talked about his experiences and also the experiences of others about the UFO phenomenon and encounters by U.S. military pilots, was present and has now denounced the said incident. Let's put this up there on the screen. He says, quote, after the U.S. congressional UFO hearing, I accepted an invitation to testify

before the Mexican Congress, hoping to keep up the momentum of the government interest in the pilots. Unfortunately, yesterday's demonstration was a huge step backwards for the issue. My testimony centered on sharing my experience and the UAP reports I hear from commercial and military

aircrew through the ASA Witness Program. I will continue to raise awareness as an urgent matter of aerospace safety, national security, and science, but I am deeply disappointed by this unsubstantiated stunt. I also, unfortunately, have to flag for everybody that, Crystal, this is not even the first time that Jaime Muson has passed some of this stuff off. In 2017, he had actually published videos called Special Report Unearthing Nazca, as in the Nazca lines in Peru, where these supposed bodies come from. And in 2018, he gave another presentation actually to the Peruvian Congress during a four-hour meeting, again called the Mummies of Nazca. He has did it in a 2019

documentary. So this is not even the first time that these bodies or mummies or whatever have been presented. I guess it's only the first time that they've been presented to the Mexican Congress. The other thing is everyone was like, oh, well, he's testifying under oath. Actually, that was a pro forma thing. It's not the same actual under oath as if before the US Congress. I guess what everybody focused on was that one of the people who spoke, his name is Jose Sanchez. He was the director of the Mexican Navy's

Forensic Medical Service, said, quote, I can affirm these bodies have no relation to human beings and said how its bones, muscles, and ligaments were put together and said that they have three fingers in a wrapping manner to hold things. I would point out the DNA analysis compared with more than one million species. We found there's significant difference

between what is known and these bodies, but has not had any peer review of those claims or any of that. Red flags everywhere. We got a guy who already got fooled once with a dead body to say that it was an alien. We got bodies which have been passing around. He's been passing these things around for four or five years.

And then we have no substantiation on the DNA claim. We have no real under oath. All we've really got is a hilarious video and some fantastic memes, by the way. There's some great memes that are out there. But I gotta tell you, I'm calling BS at least on this. And very, very respected people in the UFO community too. I reached out to them privately.

All warned me about this guy's reputation. They're like, look, I basically just don't believe a word that the man says. So I think it's unfortunate. I actually think it's a step back for the issue because it's just like, come on. You think alien bodies just materialized out of nasca and been lying there for a thousand years and you know if it was real then obviously a lot of people will be paying attention so listen it's uh there's a lot of reason to be skeptical yeah there's a lot of reason the visual alone is sort of hilarious come on guys i mean it it just i mean i won't be the

first it literally just looks like et yeah like they just were like you know cartoonish image of what an alien would look like from some like 1950s movie or whatever and like let's do that and then the dust why is it like dusty and that i showed it to my kids because we were talking about it was funny yeah and they just started laughing yeah like even to a child this seemed absurd and ridiculous so there you go it's unfortunate that's all i have to add i think the thing is is that the reason it went viral is because of the video and the whole like oh It seemed absurd and ridiculous, so there you go. It's unfortunate. That's all I have to add. I think it's very unfortunate. The thing is, is that the reason it went viral is because of the video and the whole like, oh, they're testifying under oath. It's just like it falls apart. The Mexican government part was the part that – and also who – you know, there was some news.

I don't know if it was like Daily Mail or somebody like that that writes this up kind of like credulously. New York Post, a bunch of others, yeah. They say that there are eggs in the body and, you know, and the whole, the DNA doesn't match anyone. They don't mention any of the parts of like, oh, by the way, they're not under oath. By the way, this guy has been caught like pushing things that were complete hoaxes before. By the way, you know, there was no peer review of the supposed DNA evidence or whatever. By the way, there's no evidence of these alleged eggs inside the bodies. Somehow that all got left out of the report. And so people read it and take it at face value when

they should not. Here's the thing, dealing with this topic, you meet a lot of people and a lot of people really believe a lot of the things that they tell you. So I'm not going to say the guy's a liar. I think he probably believes it. That said, sometimes we believe things a little bit too hard. I want to believe, okay? I want to believe. I want to see it. I want to be like, oh my God, it's real. But you got to, you got to, if you do believe actually, and if you're somebody who thinks there's something, there's a real truth out there, well, you actually, it's incumbent on you and especially me in this case, in order to tell people, be like, guys, I'm not seeing this one even a tiny little bit. Could be proven wrong, but until some serious stuff goes through peer

review and we see a hell of a lot more evidence and our people get involved and all that, then I'm going to be having my skeptic hat on. Now, what I don't have my skeptic hat on is that hopefully soon we'll be able to bring on this channel is that NASA, by congressional mandate, has had to put out a actual full report with 16 independent people, astronauts and others, as well as a NASA administrator, to tell us a little bit about what they know based upon the technology that we have in space as mandated and pushed by Congress that they have fought against at every turn. That I'm actually very interested in and we'll be doing some analysis. But this one, just hold your horses, folks. Sorry to burst your bubble, but no way. Yeah. Just no way. When you want to believe,

you actually have to be even more skeptical to check your own biases. So thank you for that presentation, Sagar. You're welcome. We appreciate it. I'm excited for the NASA UFO report though. Look out for that on the show. Yeah, definitely stay tuned for that. Okay. We had one that we wanted to, we had to add this into the show. So Drew Barrymore had already decided she wanted to break the writer's strike and bring her daily talk show back on, which I sort of barely knew existed anyway. But she was the first to break the seal and become a scab. Now we have another individual, another real scab here in Bill Maher. Put this back up on the screen real time

coming back unfortunately sans writers are writing has been five months and it is time to bring people back to work the writers have important issues that i sympathize with and hope they are addressed to their satisfaction but they are not the only people with issues problems and concerns despite some assistance from me much of the staff is struggling mightily we all were hopeful this would come to an end after labor day but that day has come and gone, and there still seems to be nothing happening. I love my writers. I'm one of them. But I'm not prepared to lose an entire year and see so many below-the-line people suffer so much.

I will honor the spirit of the strike by not doing a monologue, dust piece, new rules, or editorial, the written pieces that I am so proud of on real time. And I'll say it up front to the audience. The show I'll be doing without my writers will not be as good as our normal show, full stop. But at the heart of the show is an off-the-cuff panel discussion that aims to cut through the bullshit, predictable partisanship, and that will continue. The show will not disappoint. Very similar to some of the comments that he made recently that we covered, what he was with Jim Gaffigan, I think, and he was talking to him about the writer's strike. And it sounded very similar to what this justification is here. But ultimately, I mean, this is a devastating blow to writers because he is so prominent. And the more shows

that you have and the more prominent, famous, wealthy personalities you have that are willing to cross the picket line and become scabs and break the strike, the easier it is for other shows to follow suit. So, you know, I see this as truly devastating. And he seems to place what really bothers me about this statement is he seems to place the onus of the burden of the fact that there's been a shutdown for so long on the writers rather than saying a word about the studios who explicitly at the start of the fact that there's been a shutdown for so long on the writers, rather than saying a word about the studios, who explicitly at the start of this said, hey, we're going to starve these people out. We're going to make sure they're losing their homes and getting kicked out of their apartments. That's our strategy. And you don't have a word of

criticism for them. You're putting all the blame on the writers who are trying to just be able to like eke out a living now and into the future. Just disgraceful. Another thing I thought, which was weird, is that he says at the heart of the show is an off-the-cuff panel discussion that aims to cut through the bullshit predictable partisanship. You have a podcast. It's called Club Random. You've been doing it. Right. You actually have panels.

They had Tarantino. I actually watched one of that one. The one with Tarantino and I forget. I think it was Judd Apatow. The three of them like talking over whiskey. I loved it. Judd Apatow, the three of them like talking over whiskey. I loved it. That was really interesting. That said, it's like, well,

if the heart of the show is that, you already have it. And you don't have to do that by crossing the picket line or any of that. Now, look, I think it's clear that he feels bad for let's say the camera guys or any of the other people who are impacted by this. I also feel very bad for them too. But I haven't seen any of those people come out and demand an end to the strike.

A lot of those people are union. They're in a different union. So they're, I mean, from what I understand, very much in solidarity with what's happening with the writers. So overall, very puzzling. Let's also see if they do what the Drew Barrymore show has been doing where they're like searching people's bags for pro WGA buttons. Taking people out who are wearing pro-union merch. What? What are we doing here?

The whole thing is not. And also Drew Barrymore. You don't have enough. You're a child star. You're an ET. We're just talking about aliens. You don't have enough money? I know.

What are we doing here? Listen, I also have a lot of sympathy for, as he says, the other below the line people who depend on this work and it's important. Like huge sympathy for them. And I'm not going to pretend that there's no cost there whatsoever. But again, whose fault is it that they're still out on strike? It's the fault of the studios that will not come to the table and give them a decent deal that they could then say, OK, we're good with this. Let's move forward.

It's not the writer's fault. They are just trying to secure the basics of a living. And remember what Bill said, which was even worse than my irritation with this statement, is he said something like these writers, they think they are owed a living and they're not. I mean, to me, that really gave away the game of, you know, a level of contempt,

a level of being disconnected from what the reality of your regular. There's a lot of regular like paycheck to paycheck working folk in Hollywood. And so for you to say, oh, they just don't even deserve to make a living. You know, you put it at the time. So you're like, listen, if you're like turning your first script and you've never done this before. OK, that's what we're talking about. Union members are talking about people who this is their job and their career. and they've been putting in the time and doing the work for a long, yes, of course they deserve a living. So it's very, it's just very disappointing to see because I genuinely think it is a big blow

to the leverage and ability of writers to be able to strike a deal. And remember part of what they're fighting is there's a huge technological revolution that we are right now on the brink of where these studios want to be able to use chat GPT or other AI to generate first scripts and then bring writers on after the fact to just do polish work at a much lower rate and for many fewer hours and be a lot less integral and just basically like strip as much of the humanity and creativity out of these shows and movies and out of film production overall. So this is something that we all have a stake in. And it's to me, it's just really disgraceful to to scab like this and have such an impact in terms of trying to break this strike.

I think I just I think it's really going to have an impact, and that's unfortunate. The real question is how many guests are you going to get who are willing to— I'm wondering about that, too. Who are actually willing to go ahead and participate in this. I would be very curious to see how that goes. Yeah, he won't have any trouble getting his conservative guests who don't really support unions to start with. But if you're a Democratic politician and you're thinking of going on Bill Maher right now, uh-uh, uh-uh. If you are anyone who considers yourself to be, you know, at all supportive of unions or left of center or liberal

or whatever, and you're thinking of going on that show, mm-mm. Yes. Nope. Agreed. We'll be watching carefully. Okay. Thank you guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it. Like I said, the UFO report is out. I've got it in front of me. I'll be doing a reaction just in a little bit, but thank you all so much to the premium subscribers who enable the focus group. It was a really fun week, big week for us to be able to do that. And you guys mean the world to all of us. And so breakingpoints.com, we'll have that full focus group special out for all of you later today. And then tomorrow for everybody else on the public feed. We'll see you all on Monday.

I've seen a lot of stuff over 30 years, you know, some very despicable crime and things that are kind of tough to wrap your head around. And this ranks right up there in the pantheon of Rhode Island fraudsters. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I was lying. amplifying voices and digging into the culture that shaped the soundtrack of our lives like that's what's really important and that's what stands out is that our music changes people's lives for the better let's talk about the music that moves us to hear this and more on how music and culture collide listen to we need to talk from the black effect podcast network on the iheart radio app apple podcast or wherever you get your podcast over the years of making my true

crime podcast hell and gone I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.