Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 9/19/23: F-35 Crash Debris Found, Zelensky Caught Lying On 60 Minutes, Trump Ditches Debate For Union, CNBC Freaks At CEO Pay, Biden Home Prices, Maher Delays Real Time Return, MSNBC Defends Kamala, Obama Dem Blocks Billionaire Tax, Senate Dress Code

Episode Date: September 19, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss the missing F-35 found in a debris crash in the Carolinas, Zelensky caught in a 60 minutes interview lying about drone strikes on Russia, will Republicans shut down the government over Ukraine Aid?, Trump ditches the GOP debates to give a Union worker speech, CNBC freaks at CEO pay debate, Americans turning on Biden over Home Prices, Bill Maher caves to the backlash and delays the return of Real Time, an MSNBC host gives a laughable defense of Kamala Harris, Krystal looks into an Obama Democrats working to block a billionaire tax regulation at the Supreme Court, and Saagar looks into the Senate ditching dress code for members and what it means for our country.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. I went through while I was down in prison for two years. Through that process, learn, learn from. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. 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 aboutsend. 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. Without you there, no, it can happen. One in four hot car deaths happen when a kid gets into an unlocked car and can't get out. Never happens. Before you leave the car, always stop, look, lock. Brought to you by NHTSA and the Ad Council. Hey, guys.

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

What do we have, Crystal? Indeed we do. Lots of interesting things happening this morning. First of all, they managed to locate that F-35. We've got an update for you there. We found it. We found it. Congratulations, everybody. Also, we have Vladimir Zelensky in town today. We'll update you on what's going on with him and also some doings in the Republican caucus, kind of civil war breaking into the open, which is also very interesting. We also have an update about where Trump is going to be for the next Republican debate. Spoiler alert, it is not at that debate. He is actually headed to Detroit, going to give a speech to workers there and try to signal his

support in some way for the auto workers. So we'll break that down for you. We also have some updates on the housing market and just how that is factoring into 2024 in a big way, very much undercovered. Bill Maher has backed down. He will not be restarting his show. So we'll give you his reasons. And we also have an incredible clip of MSNBC trying to cover for Kamala Harris. That is truly extraordinary. There's a lot going on. Yes, indeed. But as you said, Crystal, well, actually, before we even get to that, we just want to say once again, thank you to all the premium subscribers who've been signing up and helping support

our work. We were really proud yesterday to be able to bring voices from the striking workers themselves by our partnership with Jordan Cheriton over at Status Quo. That's what your hard-earned money is helping support, not just the focus groups, the studio, and all of that, but continuing to look for opportunities like that where we can fill in. One of the things I'm most proud of, I think, being able to do this show with you is yesterday we had a tremendous amount of interest on our block about the UAW. You know, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of views, things that were listened to, people wrote in, actual striking workers themselves. is there that can claim that their highest ratings come from covering real structural

economic issues and that they use their money to support journalism specifically to try and highlight that. So that's what you guys are helping us build. And I just want to say thank you once again. So breakingpoints.com if you are able. Yes, absolutely. And one other little tease, we have an interview with Andrew Yang today. Yeah. Oh, I forgot. That's right. We'll be posting later. So make sure to look for that as well. And it was really neat talking to Neil deGrasse Tyson. Oh yeah, that was fun. Yesterday. I know you enjoyed talking to him. I really did. I couldn't help but smile. It's fun. It's a little, it's a change up and already the UFO people are responding. Yes. As you said, Andrew Yang, we're going to be interviewing him. That will be dropping on our podcast feed later. Of course,

it will drop immediately after we're done for our premium subscribers. It will drop later on in the day, depending on when we decide to post it publicly. So another reason to go ahead and to sign up. So let's get to the missing jet, the F-35. So after a lot of consternation and nearly almost 12 hours, they did end up finding the jet. And you'll be shocked to learn they found it very close to where the pilot ejected. So why did we have to all look so hard? Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. It was found in Williamsburg County, South Carolina. There was no actual official declaration from the Pentagon, which makes the entire thing even more interesting. So basically what came out is that very, very near

to where the pilot was safely ejected over North Charleston, it turns out that the jet had gone down. However, the flight path for the South Carolina wing of Civil Air Patrol showed that air search had been going on all over the entire state. And that despite they had to search, quote, nearly 90 percent of search and rescue missions in the United States for the Civil Air Patrol. So it took them hours to be able to find this thing, Crystal, even though it ended up being very close to where the actual ejection took place. There were a lot of amateur sleuths posting the flight pattern of how this thing was flying around in strange circles. Oh, really? Yeah, at least until the transponder went off and they ended up asking people for information. But I think what's really terrifying about this thing is that there is no

official explanation. There's been multiple, like, here's may what have happened from avionics experts. But just to underscore how bad things are, the Marine Corps has now issued a two-day, quote, stand down for all aviation units, both inside and outside the United States, after the disappearance of this F-35. And this actually follows a really terrible accident that just happened a couple of days ago, where three US Marines were killed in Australia and were retrieved from a crash site in Darwin, Australia. And same thing, it was a Marine V-22B Osprey. There were 23 Marines that were on board and they crashed in the middle of a tropical forest on an island while taking part in an exercise. So this is the second in basically in the span of what, like almost 20 days of a terrible aviation accident within the U.S. Marine Corps.

And stand down, I mean, it's not unprecedented, but it's certainly like a major safety event. And the entire purpose of the stand down is to tell troops like to underscore safety procedures. But I have to be honest. I think something else is going on here. I mean, this entire thing. What do you mean by something else? I don't know. I mean, there could be some like a software glitch. I mean,

one thing that I was reading from an avionics expert is that the F-35 specifically, the Marine, I think it's like the F-35B, the one that they were flying has a program inside of it that automatically ejects the pilot. So it may not have been one where he had actually hit ejection, but for a safety procedure, it's automatically ejection. But then they're like, you know, under circumstances of which that would happen, he'd have to be flying in a different way than normal over where we are right now. So, look, I mean, don't forget, remember those Boeing crashes that happened back to back? That was a software issue and a training issue that wasn't properly presented. So I think there's actually a lot going on here.

$80 million aircraft aren't just supposed to fall out of the sky, eject pilots, and then not be able to be found. Well, there's big questions about what happened with the transponder because that's why this was so apparently difficult to locate. You would normally be able to track this thing all the way. And so one of the question marks is, okay, well, was that functioning properly? Because you and I both kind of assumed it must have crashed into the ocean for them to be having so much difficulty locating the debris. But lo and behold, it's there close to where the pilot was ejected. So, yeah, a lot of question marks here.

They said the stand down is needed to ensure the service is maintaining operational standardization of combat-ready aircraft with well-prepared pilots and crews, whatever that means. So was it an aircraft issue? Was it a pilot issue? Was it a training issue? Was it a software issue? Still a lot training issue? Was it a software issue? Still a lot of questions. Absolutely lots of questions. We really shouldn't take our eye off the ball.

As we all just said, we spent $1.7 trillion on the F-35 program, all to be able to not be able to find the jet after the pilot is ejected. And especially not find it when it turns out it was right near the ejection site the whole time. So I guess just thank God it didn't kill anybody, you know, whenever it crashed or destroyed anybody's property. The pilot's safe. With the debris. Yeah the whole time. So I guess just thank God it didn't kill anybody, you know, whenever it crashed or destroyed anybody's property. The pilot's safe. We got hit with the debris. Yeah, very fortunate. We lucked out real, you know, we lucked out hardcore, the fact that this wasn't way worse. So there's still a lot of questions the Marine Corps has

to answer. Don't think they're going to be all that forthcoming though. Okay, Ukraine. So there's a lot going on today here in Washington. President Zelensky of Ukraine is in New York City for the UN General Assembly and will be visiting here in Washington. He'll be meeting with all 100 senators and with some members of the House leadership team. We're going to get to that in a little bit. But as a part of his visit, lo and behold, he only seems to come here whenever he wants more money. So let's go and put this up there on the screen. In typical fashion, the New York Times got a preview of his remarks that he will be delivering to Congress after he addressed that joint session last time. Quote, in the US, Zelensky will make the case for more aid and to offer thanks. But this time around, he is meeting a very different

Washington and a much more skeptical Washington as to whether they want to provide him that money as we're going to get to. Part of it comes to concerns over the way that Ukraine is not only using our aid, but to the best effect, are they actually able in order to accomplish any of the goals from their counteroffensive? And then second, are they going to use our weapons to strike Russia? And that is a very important question, considering that while President Zelensky was here he sat for an interview with 60 minutes in which he blatantly lied about striking Russian territory and didn't even get called out in the interview and he was also pressed about what the parameters of peace may look like. Let's take a listen to some of that.

The drone strikes in Russia are being done on your orders. Me? No, not on your orders. Well, you know, how is this happening? You know we don't shoot at the territory of the Russian Federation. We decided to try the question another way. What message is being sent with these drone strikes in Russia? You do know that we use our partners' weapons on the territory of Ukraine only, and this is true. But these are not punitive operations,

such as they carry out, killing civilians. But Russia needs to know that wherever it is, whichever place they use for launching missiles to strike Ukraine, Ukraine has every moral right to send a response to those places. We are responding to them, saying, your sky is not as well protected as you think. Can you give up any part of Ukraine for peace? No. This is our territory.

You must have it all, including Crimea. Today, you and I, you said it to me, you saw me awarding people medals. Well, today is a day like that. A week ago, I gave awards to parents of soldiers who have been killed. It's a difficult job. You understand me, right? Giving awards to people whose faces show their whole world has collapsed, and all I can give them, all I can give them is victory. And so that's a declarative line from President Zelensky here in Washington, Crystal. But I think the most galling part of it is at the very beginning when he's basically smirking. He's like, you know that we don't use those and we would never use our partner's weapons.

I'm like, well, if you're going to lie in the one part, why would we believe you on the second part? It's always a consistent question that we have for the president. And also, there's a lot of performative anti-corruption stuff happening right now in Ukraine, because Ukraine, I think, can read and knows that people in America and across the world are getting concerned about the vast amount of graft and corruption in what was previously acknowledged as one of the most corrupt nations literally in the entire Western world. And so a new purge is happening inside of the defense ministry. Let's put this up there on the screen right before the visit without explanation. Seven ministers in the U.S. defense ministry, or sorry, in the Ukrainian defense ministry

were fired right ahead of the trip to the U.N. General Assembly. That came after the actual state secretary for the defense ministry had previously been let go. And then all of us were allowed to at least for once acknowledge graft and corruption inside Ukraine. My personal favorite line from that was that prior to the war that was happening, that corruption and oligarchs would focus on grifting off of the state. But now that so much money is flowing in from the West, that is now the primary source of revenue. The number is probably in the untold billions, if not tens of billions, that have been siphoned off from Western aid. Of course, no curiosity here in Washington about that. But he's trying to make a show of this crystal while actively asking for $25 billion more before the Congress. But he's trying to make a show of this, Crystal, while actively asking for $25 billion

more before the Congress. But this time around, as I said, the political dynamics are very different. And listen, Zelensky is not a stupid person. He can read the polls here. He can see the public support ebbing away from providing additional support to Ukraine. He can see the political tea leaves as well, that certainly, especially within the Republican caucus, there's increasing skepticism towards the direction of just sort of sending endless aid. And so while he's still coming here to make his ask, he is changing his tone, both from feedback, you know, from the U.S. and irritation from politicians here, but also from the Europeans, the fact that it was always like, you need to do more. In fact, one of the Ukrainian excuses for why the counteroffensive hasn't gone better is they claim it's our fault because we didn't provide them with weapons, everything that they wanted

as quickly as possible. So he's changed his tone. He's trying to lead with, thank you, we're so grateful, but also here's our needs going forward. And I think also another thing that he's reading here is even though it's kind of extraordinary that he's caught in a lie directly when this question gets asked about like, hey, these strikes are happening under your orders. And he's like, no, we don't do that. And then one minute later, he's admitting that they do do strikes in Russia, but it's only, you know, to show them that their skies are not as well protected as they think. And it's definitely not with any of our partners weaponry. So he's immediately caught in this lie. But even the fact that that question was even asked is a shift in terms of the media's tone.

There's at least like one iota of skepticism. And so, you know, the the display of I'm going to fire all these deputy defense ministers. I'm going to change my tone as I come here. I think it's all a sign that he realizes the political landscape has really significantly shifted. Absolutely. And another way that it has shifted, in my opinion, is that the Biden administration is actually trying to manage being a giving Ukraine everything that it wants without also getting the headlines while he's here. So let's put this up there on the screen. This was surreptitiously leaked that the US is planning not to announce the long range missiles decision during the Zelensky visit, even though the

decision has basically been made. As again, these are the army tactical missile systems, surface to surface guided missile systems with a range of 190 miles that the Biden administration reportedly has said that they are willing to provide to Ukraine. And the reason why we have not been doing that up until this point is for the exact reason that Zelensky himself is lying about not striking Russian territory. We're afraid that they're going to do it and they're going to escalate the war even further by striking very strategic Russian assets directly with provided U.S. long-range missile systems with the Russians, too, have been warning about. The most important thing to remember all of this is why should we trust you? Why should we trust

that you're not going to be using this? And also, why should we trust that this is going to make some critical difference, Crystal, in the counteroffensive? If you look at any map of reclaimed Ukrainian territory, if you zoom out for the entire country, it is effectively negligible. You can't see anything. Every day they try and justify the tens of billions of dollars that we're providing them with. Oh, we took this small village or we took, you know, this, there's no major breakthrough. It's like, oh, we've pierced the first line of defense. It's like going back to the first world war and being like, well, we took one out of 30 of the lines of defense. So the battle of the Somme was a victory. It's like

a hundred years later, what do we all acknowledge? It was a senseless waste of bloodshed and not a single thing was accomplished on the battlefield. It's like the same PSYOP that's being run again and again to justify not only propaganda, but in this case, it's not even their money or weapons that they're spending here. It's ours that they're trying to take from our, you know, from taxpayers and convince lawmakers. I mean, I can't blame him. That comes directly from us. That comes directly from our enabling and not laying any sort of a realistic or practical direction in terms of ending this conflict. I mean, that's the piece that I just keep coming back to.

Like, I support the Ukrainians. I think that this war from Russia was illegal and unjustified. I think that it has created untold amounts of suffering, death, et cetera. But what is the end game? How do we get from here to there? Especially when so much, I know now they're sort of downplaying it, but so much was really pinned on this counteroffensive. We just do these packages now and we support them here. They'll be able to strengthen their position and then maybe they can come to the negotiating table. Well, that didn't happen. So what now? What is the next plan? I think we've gotten a preview of that with, you know, there was that op-ed in the Financial Times of a general saying basically, well, they can't win now, maybe in 2025. They're really laying the

groundwork for a sort of endless status quo of continuing to send this aid with no real end in sight. I think for Biden politically, he's just hoping that kind of the status quo maintains and this remains a backburner issue in terms of the perception of the American public through Election Day. We'll see if that happens or not. But they really owe at this point, given the failure of the counteroffensive, they really owe the American people an explanation of how this is all going to come to a close. And I would point back to, you know, our interview with Ro Khanna. I said, look, you know, you're going to vote for 25 billion. I said, nine months from now, when we have the same situation, you and I are going to

be sitting here. And what are you going to say to me? And he's like, well, we can't be providing endless war. And I said, OK, well, then what should it look like? And he's like, well, we can't be providing endless war. And I said, okay, well then what should it look like? And he's like, well, Russia needs to pull out. And I'm like, well, they're not going to do that. Why, why do you think they're going to do that nine months from now after fighting? And he's like, well, when they need to pull out, I'm like, well, it's like, we're in a tautology here. It's like, there's, it's like an endless circle of, uh, of reasoning. And as you said, look, I don't take any glee in this. I think it's horrible what's happened to Ukraine. I feel terrible for them, but that again, does not mean that the entire burden should fall

on us and that we should continue to compromise our national security for defense stores and weapons, even with these missiles I mentioned. Previously, one of the reasons the Pentagon had ruled it out is they're like, we don't have enough of these. And if we need them in a future conflict, you know, we would compromise our own national security. There's no reason to think that that hasn't changed. We have major production timelines. So anyway, all of this is also happening on the heels of some pretty major machinations inside of Congress that directly concern Ukraine aid and whether we're going to have a government shutdown.

Let's go and put this up there on the screen. This was reported by Playbook yesterday, kind of the internal D.C. newsletter for the inside Congress. And here's what they said, quote, one senior GOP lawmaker told Playbook, that it will not be a one-on-one meeting and it will be with multiple other leaders from the House of Representatives, including chairmen and ranking members with no one-on-one. Also noteworthy, on the Senate side, all 100 senators are attending a meeting with President Zelensky, but on the House side, that is not happening. There also is a pretty major push coming from MAGA influencers and other conservative influencers to lead a charge against funding for Ukraine in Congress. One reason I think that's significant is we did a whole story here yesterday about how

Ken Paxton was effectively saved by a MAGA influence campaign. So you can't underestimate how powerful some of these people are. One of them is Charlie Kirk from Turning Point USA, just giving people a taste of some of the stuff that's out there. He writes, Zelensky's coming to DC next week to bully the American public into writing another 24 billion check to a quagmire. He's coming here days after his transgender English spokesperson threatened to hunt down and kill anti-Ukraine critics and propagandists. He's doing this after threatening his European allies and millions of refugees across the EU will start terrorizing their nations if he doesn't receive perpetual financing of the war. The American

public must stop being extorted by a foreign gangster, not one more dime. So whether you agree or disagree, that is a flavor of what is coming from one of the activist parts of the GOP. You see it definitely represented in the voices of people like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene and several others. But you also see it, Representative Dan Bishop and others from the Freedom Caucus, who are refusing to include in any continuing resolution to fund the government any of this Ukraine aid and the disaster aid also that President Biden tried to put together, setting us up for a major showdown with the Senate and the president, who both say that it's not negotiable. Any increased funding of the government has to come

with Ukraine aid, especially to have this fight. It's an insult to Zelensky to do it while he was here in Washington. That's why we have to pass it right now. And I just don't think that's very likely right now, Crystal, with all the fights that are happening. The reason that the Ukraine aid and the so-called continuing resolution, which is just basically like a budget patch so that the government doesn't shut down, the idea had been to attach those things together. This was sort of McCarthy's idea, too, and pass them both through simultaneously to try to keep everyone together on these things. And we're days away at this point from a possible shutdown. It's an October 1 deadline. There had been a tentative deal just among the House Republican caucus. We're not even talking about the Senate. We're not even talking about what the president wants. But just to get

it through the House with Republican votes, there had been a tentative deal between the, you know, House Freedom Caucus, some members of the House Freedom Caucus, and some of the more moderate members of that caucus. But that deal instantly, when it was announced, was completely obliterated and shot down, primarily by other members of the House Freedom Caucus who did not agree with the person who had been negotiating it. So even the original idea was, okay, well that might be able to get through the House, but it's probably not gonna get through the Senate, which is still controlled by Democrats. Even the idea that was gonna get through the House

has now fallen apart. And so that's how these things are tied together because the idea had been to put the aid along with the continuing resolution and pass them as one. Well, now there is really no sort of clear endgame in sight in terms of getting this government funding through. So another government shutdown game of chicken here looms. Kevin McCarthy, his speakership potentially in danger. Matt Gaetz in particular making a lot of noise.

I would say that those are kind of empty threats because they still don't have a real alternative to McCarthy. But you'll remember as part of his speakership deal, it made it very easy for this vote to be brought up to remove him from the speakership. So he's running scared. There's a lot going on. It's very ugly. I mean, he was like cursing at the caucus and yelling at them and Gates is coming back at him. So it's a total mess over there. And this Ukraine aid funding is caught up in the whole situation. You know, and McCarthy won't even commit to passing any Ukraine aid. So he was asked about this late last night. They said, will you expect this aid to eventually pass? He says, quote, I think we will look through it. But the one thing I think the House is very concerned about

is what's happening right now in America. He was also asked why the entire House Republican conference is not meeting with Zelensky, unlike the Senate. He said, well, they can run things their way. We run it our way. If he wants to meet with other people, he can meet with them if he wants to. So, I mean, all signs point to no confidence within the GOP confidence that any of this Ukraine aid will be able to pass. It also raises the question, will the Senate and the president shut the government down over Ukraine aid and disaster relief? Because there's two ways it could go. If the GOP puts through a continuing resolution which includes Ukraine aid but then is about federal spending, I think that the Democrats and the president would win because it would be like, they're trying to cut food stamps or something like that.

But if the government is shut down over not funding Ukraine and then the cynical ploy of pairing it with funding for Maui and for Hawaii and disaster relief, I think that's a whole other conversation as to whether you're literally going to shut down the United States government over not funding Ukraine. But those aren't the contours right now because even the proposed deal that has now fallen apart with the Republican caucus called for like 8% cuts to everything except, of course, defense spending, because we can't touch that, Lord, God forbid. So it was going after things like food stamps and other programs that are really critical to people, given how tough the economy is for a lot of ordinary Americans. So anyway, there's a lot of pieces here. I have no predictions about how this is all going to work out, but it's hard to see how they're going to navigate through these next few days without some sort of a shutdown situation, given, again, that even the House Republican caucus cannot agree on what they want to do with this situation.

Last thing I'll say on the Ukraine aid is if you just polled, if you just asked members of the House, Democrats and Republicans, do they support the aid, you'd have an overwhelming majority. Yeah, absolutely. The issue comes in because it's still a minority. You have a majority of regular Republicans in the country who are against additional aid, but it's still a minority, even in the House Republican caucus, that want to block all aid going forward. The problem is when you tie these things together and you get it into these sort of negotiations, Democrats are not going to help House Republicans pass like this deal that they're trying to come to together within themselves. So that's where this all gets really complicated and very dicey. Yeah, very well said. Okay, at the same time, of course, we've been tracking very closely here the ongoing United Auto Workers strike of the big three, as we've been discussing very closely here the ongoing United Auto Workers strike of the big

three. As we've been discussing, this happened last week. They actually went out on strike after they were unable to reach a deal with the big three. They are targeting all three automakers with what they're calling a stand-up strike. That means they're not all going out at once. They announced three plants that are on strike right now. I think that's about 13,000 of the roughly 150,000 UAW auto workers who are working at these big three. So that's the direction that they're going in. We've had yesterday, we covered the political response. We had Biden very clearly on the side of the workers using their framing, saying record profits should mean record contracts. You had Trump unable to say whose side he was on

when he was asked directly by Kristen Welker, are you on the side of the bosses or are you on the side of the autoworkers? However, he wants to use this moment to try to resignify his working class solidarity, even though, in my opinion, this has been nothing but empty words. And he also wants to use it as a cudgel against some of the push towards electric vehicles. So let's put this up on the screen for The New York Times. This broke just yesterday. There is a second Republican debate scheduled for next week. So this is coming very soon. And instead of going to that debate, Trump is instead going to travel to Detroit and give a speech to a lot of workers and potentially union workers, again, in an attempt to sort of tacitly signal his support

for auto workers, even as he hasn't explicitly backed their wage and other demands. According to the New York Times, it also says the campaign is considering the possibility of having Mr. Trump make an appearance at the picket line, although the adviser said such a visit is unlikely. So this is the play that he is making. And part of it, Sager, is trying to signal his support for workers without actually taking a explicit stance in favor of their demands. Part of it is trying to hit Biden over EVs and the electric vehicle transition. And part of it is also to signal to Republicans that, listen, this whole primary situation that you all are playing at, this is over. I'm focused on the next one.

That's actually the one that I take it most. He's like, I'm playing for the general. I'm playing for Michigan. I'm playing to win. And it's actually a smart play on literally all sides. As you said, I mean, Trump won a decent portion of the union vote in 2016 and in 2020. Not an outright majority, but enough in order to make some Democrats scared. Obviously, a lot of auto workers in particular backed him in 2016 because of some of the claims he made. Some of them didn't end up being true whenever it came to GM plants and all of that.

I wonder, though- Ask people in Lordstown how that went. I wonder, Crystal, though, if he will reverse and actually would come out of the side. Because outright joining a picket line, I mean, you tell me, I mean, that seems like an outright declaration of support. Like if you were going to, he hasn't done that. We'll see what the actual thing comes down to. I would just take note that politically savvy is Trump. Like right yesterday, Tim Scott was on Capitol Hill. He was asked about the auto strike. He says, quote, I think Ronald Reagan gave us a great example when federal employees

decided they were going to strike. He said, you strike, you're fired. Pretty simple concept to me. So I mean, that is what the other side of the GOP looks like. And it is just funny because Pence has said the same thing. So did Nikki Haley as well. Really? I don't actually really understand.

Is South Carolina like that? I feel like there's a lot of working class- They're very right to work there. They're very anti-union there. At the high levels of government, sure. And they have a number of, they've got a big non-union BMW plant there, et cetera. So it's kind of baked in. Makes sense.

But the point, my thing was, is I'm looking at that and then you see Trump and you're like, oh, well, that's why he even was able to win, you know, off rhetoric alone in 2016. So I think there's a very politically savvy move, as you said. And the other thing that I think is smart is this time, it's a primetime speech. It's an actual speech where the networks are going to have to choose which one they're going to have to cover as opposed to the Tucker interview that dropped on Twitter where the clips, let's be honest, they just weren't widely circulated. What they wanted did not occur, which is that for it to upstage in terms of viewership. Now you can say all you want about numbers and all that, maybe some of it in terms of

regular viewers, but I think what Trump cares about and has always cared about the most is the ability to dominate the actual conversation. And he did not do that. He did not do that. There's no doubt about it. There's no question. I mean, we even saw it. We saw a tremendous interest from a general purpose audience on our show for the GOP primary. And I've spoken to people in media.

It surpassed all expectations across several outlets. So there's no ambiguity here as that people were interested. And if he wants to continue to not show up to the debates, then he wants to have to try and dominate some of these airwaves. And I think this actually is a smarter play by actually forcing them to choose what they're going to cover and not, and then possibly even getting them to ask questions about it, whatever he's saying in said speech, like tonight President Trump is at the UAW or is talking to UAW workers. Where do you stay? So in a reactive sense to get the moderators to ask about it.

I mean, I would certainly think and hope that the autoworker strike is a topic of conversation in the debate. I think it would be, with Trump or no Trump, I think it would be a real shame for that to not be brought up and see what these candidates have to say. Even as I mean, yeah, the writing is kind of on the wall at this point. Trump has really pulled away. The first debate didn't do much in terms of moving the needle. If anything, in some ways, it strengthened his position because you had Nikki Haley coming up a little bit, taking a little bit down around DeSantis, kind of eating into his position. No one else broke out of the pack to really consolidate like one potential Trump alternative candidate. That just benefits him. I'm a little skeptical that he'll really be able to successfully

counter-program any of these debates just because they are such a big seminal event and they contain so much, you know, theater and spectacle that people really enjoy that combat and to, you know, see these candidates head to head, et cetera. So I'm not sure how much he'll be able to break through in terms of forcing this choice. And it's not like the media is like super excited about covering strikes and economic issues anyway. One piece on his writer, I mean, we debated the EV piece yesterday, so you guys can go back and watch that. But one thing about his rhetoric that really bugs the hell out of me and that I also think is totally off base with the actual workers who are involved in this strike is he keeps attacking Sean Fain without seemingly realizing that this guy is brand new, that he was just elected by these members, that they are very wholeheartedly behind him. I mean, we have Jordan Sheridan on the ground there

from status quo talking to the workers. They are very much with him and with his approach and all on board with this strike. So all of his crap that's really typical, like Republican union busting kind of language about like the union bosses and you should quit the union and form a new union and all of this kind of nonsense,

I think it's very off base and displays a lack of understanding about what has actually been going on for these workers inside of the auto workers. I don't think anyone has ever accused Trump of being the details guy. So I think he's probably, yeah, I mean, as you said, I think he's probably stuck in the previous frame of mind, which was correct, is that, you know, these union, the previous leader, didn't he get fined? I think he might've gone to jail or he was charged or something like that. There was previous leadership, not the president, but there were leaders of the union who, yes, had charges against them. And the message that Fain ran on was not only being more militant with regard to these big three, but the idea that the previous

leadership was too cozy with the bosses. And that won out. And it was extraordinary. They also just changed the way that those elections even happened so that it was a much more democratic vote and actually represented the desires of the rank and file. So this part he either doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand or whatever. But I continue to think because his message on this is kind of convoluted. It's all like he'll dodge when asked, like, whose side are you actually on? But then has this lengthy thing about EVs and China and Biden and inflation and the union leadership, et cetera. I do think Biden's message on this is much more clear cut. About wages.

Yeah, just, yes, I stand with the workers. They deserve a better way. I mean, that's just much easier to understand. And there's a much more direct line between like, oh, these companies are making record profits. They're extremely greedy. They're screwing their workers. I'm on the side of the workers. That's it. End of story. Whereas Trump and the Republicans thing is this like attempted jujitsu to not really take a side, but then use it to bash Biden, et cetera. And I just don't think it's as clear cut of a direct message from them. I don't disagree. And that's actually how I wonder whether he's going to change tactics and whether he, especially a picket line appearance and all that, if he's asked about

the wages and in this. I mean, if he showed up at the picket line, that would really be something extraordinary. Yeah. I mean, it'd be a great thing to have two presidents, both opponents in the in the race endorsing like wage demands. I can't. That's bipartisanship. Yeah. We've always desired here. Right. And then but I mean, and then you see like his National Labor Relations Board in the way that he just chalked it full of I mean, he's been a union buster his entire even in his business career. So it's also dissonant with what his record was. But even the symbology of him and Biden, if he were to show up at the picket line, if he were to change his rhetoric, these are all big ifs at this point, you know, that would be a lot of pressure on these auto execs. Oh, we got to be watching. Yeah, let's watch it closely.

I mean, I think it would be an extraordinary moment if something like that happened. I mean, don't forget, you know, we've had a couple of moments like this, which have showed us like how corrupt the system is. Trump and Biden have endorsed the J.D. Vance, Sherrod Brown rail safety bill. It's one of the only bills in all in the entire modern Congress that has ever been endorsed by the two sitting leaders of their party. And it still has been unable to pass because of railway interests on the GOP side, which I think tells you a lot about some of those senators and some of those House of Representatives people are. But the point is that's very rare for stuff like that to happen. Now, look, it hasn't passed, but it's like one or two votes, I think, away from passage. So if they

were, as you said, if Trump were to join the picket line, and again, it's a big if, if you were to declare some sort of support, the auto workers can't be, or the bosses can't be like, man, maybe we should wait this out. Because that could very much be on their minds too about a change in Washington, change in regulatory regimes. So it could definitely actually put even more pressure on them if it were to happen. It would be interesting. Yeah. You know, the thing with Trump is he'll do all of the symbolic stuff, you know, especially if you go back to 2016, like the things he was saying. Carrier.

Yeah, carrier versus how he governed. You know, I did a thing on like what happened with Lordstown. He went there and was like, don't sell your homes, you know, in Youngstown, like don't sell your homes. We're bringing it back. Of course, that all fell apart. So he'll do all the symbolic stuff. However, I will say in a moment like this, when you have a strike, and this is why I was heartened by Biden's rhetoric, that sort of rhetoric coming from very prominent officials or the president of the United States, you're talking about a handful of auto executives who are making these decisions about how this is going to go forward. And so in that instance, the bully pulpit actually really does matter. And the other place where it has mattered is we've never in my lifetime had higher public support

for unions and striking workers. And so even though Trump was a union buster as a business person and as a president, the fact that his rhetoric was different on unions, I think, opened up a possibility for the public, including Republicans, to be at least tacitly in support of union power. Because, you know, they didn't see the sleight of hand that like, oh, he's saying this, but then really what he's doing is union busting. So anyway, it will be fascinating to watch how all of this unfolds. It'll be fun. It'll be fun. Always is. At the same time, we continue to have a lot going on over at CNBC, which I'm enjoying watching very much. Jim Cramer has long been freaking out about Sean Fain and the auto workers, et cetera, et cetera, which I've been eating up.

But CNBC hosted a very interesting debate between a former National Labor Relations Board official who was backing the workers and their demands and a Chamber of Commerce official who is very much on the other side of this. Let's take a listen to some of that. But you point out about the booming profits. And my question is, you know, past performance is no guarantee of the future. Do you think the outlook is bright for the big three for booming profits to continue from here on? Well, I certainly think that the outlook will be brighter if the companies treat their workers in a way that's fair. And there are a lot of variables that will determine the future of the auto sector. You know, let's remember that labor costs are actually a very small part of these companies' costs. When, as you recounted, the union did make great concessions to save this industry. The companies have increased CEO pay at a very rapid rate.

They have given out billions of dollars in stock buybacks. It would be one thing if the focus were talking about how we share in the future growth and profit of the automakers. But listen, the UAW is looking for a 40% pay raise. They want workers to be paid for five days when they only work for four. They want to return to defined benefit pension systems. That is a recipe to put these companies into bankruptcy, and that serves no one interest. I think the question we have to ask is, why do they feel so emboldened? This actually isn't the first time we've seen demands like this. It's been the summer of strikes, and this is a bit of a pattern. And unfortunately, I think it's being fueled in part by the Biden administration and

this push for unionization at all costs. I'm not hearing a lot of concern about increasing CEO pay, increasing stock buybacks. But that's just optics. If you take 20 or 25 or 30 million, that's the minimum for what we're talking about, the success of the company. Maybe optically, it looks bad. And it's a politics of envy and everything else. But you take a defined benefit, put that back in 32 hour work week, a 40 percent pay raise. I mean, the CEO issue, that's that's just a talking point. Why is it a talking point? I mean, he got paid that amount of money. Is it yet? Is it true or is it not? The entire thing is just absolutely ridiculous. I also like the way the Chamber of Commerce guy is accidentally making the Biden administration sound really great. It's like, why is the summer of strikes? I think Joe Biden has a lot to do with it. Like he's encouraging unionization at all

costs. I mean, listen, I support some of what's been done by this administration, but I would not frame it in quite that way. But, but yeah, I love that he's, cause you have to even, I mean, CNBC's audience is a different kind of animal, but in terms of the general public, 75% of people support this strike. Record-breaking numbers of people support unions. So when they hear like, oh, the summer of strikes and it's Joe Biden, it's because of Joe Biden and his policies, I don't think that that's landing quite the way that he wants it to

outside of the CNBC audience and the anchor there. It's also a very unfair thing that people do. I mean, you and I know this whenever we host a debate or something like that. You can't just rule out some of the ground that somebody is arguing on, especially if it's legit. I mean, if you bring up a totally irrelevant point, you could be like, OK, well, but he's lit.

I mean, it's a very basic point. It's like your pay has gone up by X amount. You have paid out Y amount in shareholders, effectively the exact same cost of what this raise would be. So instead of producing a dividend or paying out and buying stock buybacks to artificially juice the price, why don't you use that to pay the workers more and we can make better cars and have a happier workforce and we don't have any shutdown or strike? I mean, that's not a talking point.

That's a very basic line of argumentation. It's why even investors and even people like Mark Cuban have been come out against stock buybacks because they're like, it's an irrelevant action that doesn't have anything to do with the actual productive capacity of the company. It's why they were even illegal for so many years in the US. It's just financial engineering. And it's just like a kickback to yourself and to the executives who, thanks to a Clinton-era loophole, like their compensation is largely in stock. So that they don't have to pay taxes on it, again, thanks to a Clinton-era loophole. So that's how all of that works.

But he also, the anchor, made this point at the beginning. Like, oh, what, you think the big three are going to do fine with profits and you think past performance is indicative of future performance? And it's like you could always use that. You could use that as an excuse also to not pay the CEO. Like, oh, what? You think that because things have been going well, you think things are just going to continue to go well? These workers have a track record that they can point to of when things were bad for the automakers. Guess what? They took a huge haircut.

They took layoffs. They took a big hit to their pensions. They got rid of cost of living increases. And that's why these demands now seem so large. It's because they have been so screwed and set back over years. And of course, at the time, the thought was, all right, you guys bail us out now.

And that's what it was. It was a worker-funded bailout of these auto companies and their executives. You guys bail us out now. And that's what it was. It was a worker funded bailout of these auto companies and their executives. You guys bail us out now. And we got you in the future when we return to profitability. That never happened. And so for them to then turn around and say, oh, what, you think now that they're profitable, they're just always going to be profitable forever is such incredible garbage. But yeah, I love to see the Chamber of Commerce guy trying to spin this. And I mean, even on CNBC, his points look pretty weak. Yeah, absolutely. It was a very foolish

moment, I think, for all of them. Indeed. All right. Let's talk about housing. This is always so important and one that we're always trying to keep an eye on. And it's one of the chief reasons why, despite the fact that people like Paul Krugman are always like, oh, the economy, we're making one of the most stunning recoveries ever. And then inflation numbers come out literally the next day showing that gas is reaching nearly completely unaffordable heights, that grocery prices and all of that remain flat and very high over the last couple of years. Well, this is probably the core. It all comes back to cost of living and housing and housing

and shelter with being a key driver of inflation over the last couple of years. Let's put this up there on the screen where even the financial papers are beginning to take notice. They say Americans can barely afford homes and that's a problem for Biden. Quote, housing affordability has declined to the lowest level on record. But what I thought that they did a great job of was not just talking about it on the macro number, but zooming in on a state like Wisconsin, where as they accurately point out, they can show you very clearly that in the city of Milwaukee, in the swing state of Wisconsin, you have a huge drop in overall housing affordability, which is making it nearly

impossible to argue to the general population there that things are going well. Their deterioration in the rental market is, quote, more than almost any U.S. metro area in the year, ending in July, according to the National Association of Realtors, and one of the largest increases in mortgage burdens amongst the biggest 50 markets, Crystal. That's just the city of Milwaukee. And it actually completely makes sense, and it tracks with a lot of what we talked about, about how industrial Midwestern cities, which have seen, in some cases, a slight net migration inflow,

and people coming from the east and the west coast, either moving back home or moving to more rural, not rural, but second-tier cities, I guess, as opposed to like the bigger global cosmopolitan cities, are driving up the overall market. You're seeing a major drop in supply, largely because interest rates are so high, nobody wants to sell, a major lockup. And in a city like Milwaukee, there's a lot of poor people who live in Milwaukee. And there's a lot of people who have to work also in the service sector as well. And they're being pushed out of the overall rental and housing economy. And whenever you find your lease expiring and then you're going out and you're looking, people are just finding complete sticker shock at both of the options that they have and

having to make plans of like, yeah, maybe I got a 4% raise. My rent is up by 25% that's coming up. And the landlord wants like first and last month's rent or something like that. So you got to cough up like huge portions of cash on top of moving costs and all that. And you're looking at a multi-thousand dollar transaction that a normal single family is having to deal with. That's the issue. I mean, this issue is so central and it is hanging out there as an obvious place for a politician who was savvy and wanted to actually gain some ground because this pain is at every level of the income spectrum outside of the wealthy who are just fine. Because they have houses. Right.

Because they have houses. Right, because they have houses. But when you poll Gen Z, the inability to buy a home, they cited that as the second largest source of their unhappiness. This is a massive issue in community after community across the country. And you can understand why. I thought there was a really good quote in here from a political science professor who said, listen, this contributes to a general sense that the American dream is out of reach. And if the Democratic Party promises a middle class American dream and it's failing, I think those voters are more likely to listen to the Republican Party. And it's not that Republicans have offered any answers on this. They haven't. But if you're supposed to be the party as the Democrats who are representing working class and middle class interests and under your watch as Joe Biden, that ability to even

aspire to the classic American dream feels like it's falling away as it does for many, many people. Guess who's going to get the blame? I mean, it's really not rocket science. So there was a proposal in way back when they were talking about Build Back Better to, you know, help to surge housing and help to try to improve the situation. But you really need an aggressive top to bottom approach to deal with this because, you know, this level of housing unaffordability is just an absolute crisis and really eats at the core of our own self-conception as a nation, let alone anybody's ability to feel like they can ever have some sort of stable situation, stable middle-class

prosperity that they can pass forward to their kids. We covered the fact, you know, for young people, for millennials trying to buy a house who are not that young at this point, they have to basically have mom and dad to write the down payment. The vast majority of them that are able to do so, at least in an affordable market, in a supermarket like DC, New York and others are going to their parents with a down payment. And so you need help for first time buyers in terms of that down payment. You need to do something about permanent capital coming in and swooping in and buying up these neighborhoods. This has become even why it's just looking at the numbers. It's become even more of an issue in the high interest rate landscape because they're the ones who can, they can pay all cash. Yeah. So if you're coming in with an all cash offer,

and you've got someone else trying to scrape together, figure out their mortgage situation, and it's wildly unaffordable, et cetera, like guess who's going to end up with those homes. This is a deliberate strategy at this point. So you've got to help first time home buyers. You've got to do something about permanent capital. You've got to make sure you're surging housing supply and not just leaving it to whatever the developers want to build. Because guess what, guys? Guess what they want to build? Luxury high-rises. And that is not going to benefit the broad population that's looking for more affordable housing. So I think that this issue is so incredibly central and so wildly underestimated and under-discussed in terms of our political and media system. 100%. You can even see it a lot in the data. Let's put this up there, for example. This is

one of the latest polls on the economy. It's like voters feel a little bit better about the economy, but very few credit Biden. Most Americans disapprove of the president's economic policy posing a challenge to his reelection. And I think it just over and over comes back to structural factors that our media, CPI, and all of that, they don't measure properly. They don't understand how disheartening it can be for people who are in that time in their lives where they feel as if they've done everything right. They follow all the right steps, and they still are unable to.

They quote, and they look at several people here in the Milwaukee area who are like, yeah, the only reason I got a house is because half of the house is not even finished. Now I got to pay more for that house and I have to spend the next several years modeling this when previously I could have bought something which wasn't like that. And then over and over again, it's happening to people, even with families, people who thought that they were right on the cusp of being able to, you know,, if you're an elder millennial now, you're looking at your late 30s and early 40s, and to not have the ability to buy a house is a major determination of generational wealth. So overall, yeah, I think this is going to be one of the biggest drags. You think about car prices, you've got an average car, new car costs $50,000, and you're financing it at what, 7%, 8% interest rate. We know that several

states have average car payments of over $1,000, largely people who are buying trucks and some such. I mean, all of that is just not going to keep up with where the wages are right now in this country. Yeah, no, that's exactly right. And so there's all this political class confusion of like, oh, some of the numbers are better and why aren't people feeling it? It's really not complicated. And I do genuinely think that housing affordability is such a key part of why people do not feel like this economy is working for them whatsoever. All right, we've got an update for you coming out of Hollywood. So we'd previously announced, based on his announcement, that Biltmore was bringing real time back in spite of the fact that the writer's strike and the actor's strike, but with this one, the writer's strike is what's pertinent, is still ongoing. He said, I want to do the monologue.

I want to do the other scripted segments. But we are going to bring it back at this point. Well, after a lot of what I can only presume is a lot of public pressure and probably a lot of guests who didn't really want to join him for the panel, he has backtracked. Put this up on the screen. Here is his announcement. He says, my decision to return to work was made when it seemed nothing was happening and there was no end in sight to the strike. Now that both sides have agreed to go back to the negotiating table, I'm going to delay the return of real time for now and hope that they can finally get this done. Sagar, what do you think about this about face? I'm asking you, what is he talking about? What do you mean they've agreed?

What has actually changed in the last week? I think the only thing that's changed is backlash and Drew Barrymore. And look, you and I track this stuff pretty closely. I haven't seen any major shift in the negotiating posture. I mean, there have been continuing talks throughout this entire thing. It's not like there's been nothing. There hasn't been substantive movement. So there's a lot of speculation. I'm curious what you think. If I had to guess,

I think it's because he couldn't book very many guests. Yeah. Or because he received some sort of ultimatum from the people who do work for him. He said he loved his writers previously. We'll play the clip in a little bit. And they were like, hey, if you do this, I'm never gonna come work for you again.

The justification he gives here, I don never gonna come work for you again. Yeah. The justification he gives here, I don't think has anything to do with it. I mean, I think it's very, I honestly think it's very Weasley. Like, oh, it just happens that there was some untold breakthrough that now has completely changed my mind.

I think closer to his actual feelings about this whole situation were revealed when he was talking on his podcast to Jim Gaffigan. Let's recall what he said before all of this unfolded. I feel for my writers. I love my writers. I'm one of my writers. But there's a big other side to it,

and a lot of people are being hurt besides them. A lot of people who don't make as much money as them. In this bipartisan world we have where you're just in one camp or the other, there's no in-between, you're either for the strike like it like they're shay guevera out there you know like this is caesar chavez lettuce picking strike or you're with trump you know like there's no different there's there's only two

camps and it's much more complicated than that what what i find objectionable about the philosophy of the strike, it seems to be they have really morphed a long way from 2007 strike, where they kind of believe that you're owed a living as a writer, and you're not. This is show business. This is a make or miss league. They kind of believe you're owed a living as a writer and you're not. And so the original, his original justification for why he was going back to the show was all framed

very altruistically like, oh, I'm looking out for the other members of the show staff, et cetera, et cetera. But I think this is truer to his real thoughts

on the situation. It's absolutely truer to his thoughts. And we talked about this previously about what he means. I mean, look, yes, if you're an aspiring writer, sure, you're not,

you know, owed a living. But if you're a professional writer in the game who is attached to a show that is making money, well, yeah, I think that you are owed a living as a writer. And I think that's what the entire strike is about. It's also about preserving said ability to continue to make a living in the future to make sure that that doesn't go away. But I don't really know, you know, at this point how it's going to end. I mean, look, I think it's a good sure that that doesn't go away. But I don't really know, you know, at this point, how it's going to end. I mean, look, I think it's a good thing that he didn't do it,

especially, as I said at the time, his entire justification, he's like, the essence of the show is discussion. I'm like, well, dude, you're still doing a podcast. Like, you got Tarantino on, you got Jim Gaffigan on. It's like, you can still do everything that you wanna do. As I understand it, HBO even pays him to do Club Random. So like, I don't think he's losing any money.

Or at least he's not going completely broke as a result of this. Maybe hire him on your Club Random podcast. There's a lot of cameras in there for some reason. My point is just that you can continue to make things work and have your voice out there. At the time, I speculated. I was like, maybe he really wants his voice heard in the middle of the election season, which I guess I could understand. But again, when you have the ability to continue to go on podcasts and do all this tour, he could probably do standup and so many of these other things. I just don't see why, like, there's no point to coming back to the show other than

just directly, you know, disregarding some of those claims. Another reason why is he's actually a member of the Writers Guild. So it's one of those where it's like, unlike Drew Barrymore, he literally is a member of the WGA. Right. So for him to go back is a totally violation of his own membership of the union. It certainly would seem that way. It certainly would seem that way. Yeah. If I had to guess what happened here, I do think that there was probably like elite level pushback that got through to him where they probably started the process of like reaching out to guests and seeing who they were going to get on the panel. And I'm sure there are plenty

of, you know, Republicans who don't support unions who are willing to come on, but they try to balance out the panel and have a diversity of viewpoints every single show. And I guarantee you every, probably every Democrat or liberal that they were reaching out to was like, no, I'm not going to be the one who goes out there and takes this heat from crossing a picket line. So I don't doubt that that's the case. I'm sure he has other friends that are in the WGA that were probably like, dude, what the hell? I don't know what his own staff was saying to him or how they felt about it. So that could have been a factor as well. But then I also think watching what happened with Drew Barrymore and then the level of pushback he himself was getting directly

from the public. When again, you know, we looked at the numbers yesterday. I think it's 72% of the public supports the writers and only 19% are on the side of the studio execs. And you basically, by bringing your show back, you're, you are taking the side of the studio execs. Like whether you, however you want to frame it in your head, that's the reality of what you're doing. And so I also think, you know, this is an instance where like like, online, public, bullying, shame, pressure, et cetera, work down in the correct direction. I've never done the show you have. Who are the audience members? Are they from L.A.?

Are they not? Like, who are they exactly? I don't know. Okay, because that's another thing that I was thinking because it's a very more show. She was searching people's bags for WGAP. I'm like maybe they weren't even able to get audience or they were afraid that they were going to get audience pushback. I mean I do think – my assumption is that the audience is just, yeah, drawn from people locally who are probably waiting in some line to get a ticket or whatever. But I don't really know the details of how that all works out.

But, yeah, that could have been an issue as well. I think probably just the public heat and public pressure was too overwhelming. And we saw some other shows, like I think that showed The Talk. They had originally announced they're coming back. And I think they also caved and backed down because they, none of these people wanted to, you know, end up like Drew Barrymore weeping and panicking and whatever was going on with her. So I think that's probably the bottom line. Okay. All right. We've got an extraordinary clip here we wanted to share with you from MSNBC. A lot of elite conversation right now about like, we want Joe Biden to drop out, or at the very least, you should switch out the ticket and put somebody else in there for Kamala

Harris, which by the way, is not happening. But nevertheless, host Jonathan Capehart over there at MSNBC asked if really there was something else going on here with the criticism of Kamala Harris, not the fact that she has extraordinarily low approval rating and is an even worse candidate than Joe Biden for the general election. No, there must be something else going on here. Take a listen to his explanation. To your point, the criticisms of the vice president have been coming at her since she was picked by Joe Biden to be his running mate. My question is, are they doing it not because they think she's incompetent, but because they know her potential and they're afraid of her? Well, you know, I think, you know,

because the vice president is in a historic role, a lot of times you have a political press that is frankly white and male and that is used to covering politicians that don't look like Vice President Harris. And so this is leadership that is kind of hard for them to necessarily understand. The vice president's role is not something that traditionally we have paid a lot of attention to.

And yet because she is somebody that is doing this for the first time as somebody who is a black woman, that just increased scrutiny, I think, to the role. And frankly, even, you know, black voters have told me they wanted to see more of her. They wanted to see what she was doing, no matter what that was. And so I think you've increasingly seen her showing up and doing the job. She's been more visible. You've seen her kind of honing her message. And and so I think that is drawing more attention to her, especially as we head into 2024.

I think her response there is funny. Of course. Because even she can't be like, yeah, that's totally it. She just pulls out the race card instead, because obviously that's always- But it was a tacit admission of like, no, I don't think that's a problem. I don't think the issue is that they're like,

actually secretly afraid of her. That's, I don't think that's- We. I don't think the issue is that they're like actually secretly afraid of her. I don't think that's it. We have the data. She's the least popular vice president in modern history, more so than Dan Quayle. That actually takes scale. And yeah, my guess is it's not because she's black. I think she's a terrible politician. It's very simple.

Especially because we know that if you want to just play it purely on race, all of that would have applied to Barack Hussein Obama whenever he was the president of the United States. He got reelected, folks. Sorry. Especially also, we're talking about Democratic voters, too, who don't want her to run, and they prefer Joe Biden. So it's facetious and ridiculous on its face, the entire criticism. But it is also the most ridiculous excuse to say, oh, it's because they are afraid of her. No, she is not talented. I mean, it's not just us who are saying that. The Democratic leadership themselves won't even endorse her. We played that clip of Nancy Pelosi. You know, I don't know if

you saw this, Crystal. Immediately after that, Jamie Raskin was asked three separate times on MSNBC, will you support Vice President Harris for vice president? He's like, well, that's what the president's decision is. And he's like, no, no, no, no. Do you think this is a good choice? He's like, well, this is the president has decided. Elizabeth Warren said something similar. Elizabeth Warren says, these people aren't dumb. You know, I mean, and also there's a thing in Washington where if you can say it and get away with it, then you have no power. Like if she had any power here and political power or even electoral power. Her chief of staff calls up that chief and be like, who the do you think you are? Like talking this way, you're going to issue

a public apology and all of that right now. And if they have any juice, they will whenever you step out of line. So that the fact that everyone can get away with it and then Gavin Newsom can upstage her consistently and then again, not face any real pushback in the actual coalition where it matters, only shows us once again that she has such limited power as a result of her own lack of skills. She's got nobody to blame but herself for making a fool out of herself for the last couple of years. So Gavin actually just did an interview, I was looking for the specific quote, where he was asked directly about Kamala Harris. And he was on the talking points. He was like, absolutely, she's the best. And he was also asked about Bidenala Harris. And he was on the talking points. He was like, absolutely, she's the best.

And he was also asked about Biden's age. And he was like, I want a seasoned pro in there. He's on the talking points, man. He knows exactly what he's doing and all of this. Because he also is like, you know, wants to make sure that they don't continue. Well, he actually loves these articles that are like, oh, actually Gavin Newsom is angling for 2024 for a future presidential run.

But he can't give any sort of actual nod to that because, you know, it will endanger his political position within the Democratic Party. So he was on the messaging, you know, for what it's worth. But yeah, lots of Democratic politicians, including Nancy Pelosi, fellow Californian who cannot just come out and say, yes, I think Kamala Harris would be a great president and is the best person to be vice president because it's difficult to argue that. And I also would just remind Kamala Harris was in the Democratic primary last time around. She didn't do well. She didn't do well with any type of voter, no matter what demographic you looked at. She didn't do well. She had to drop out before the voting even began in her home state because there was so much concern about how she would fare. Her approval rating is lower, consistently

lower than Biden's. She fares in terms of head-to-head matchups. She consistently fares more poorly against Trump or any other Republican than Joe Biden does. So I don't think the issue is that they're actually secretly afraid of her. Yeah, that's right. They are not. Just throwing that out there. It's also not the press's fault that you're bad at your job. But, of course, that's a very convenient explanation. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, when a recent trove of documents called the Pandora Papers was released revealing how the world's elite hid their many millions,

the countrymen of one nation were oddly missing. Among all the documents showing offshore accounts, secret bank accounts, shady shell companies, few rich Americans had their secrets exposed. Because, as it turns out, if you're wealthy in America, you don't really have to illegally hide your riches. Our bought-off political class has already provided ample loopholes and legally sanctioned tricks to keep the rich from having to pay much in taxes or, in some instances, really anything at all. This situation was made worse under the Trump administration when his tax cuts for the rich opened up new opportunities for the wealthy to

skate with low or no taxes. But the preservation of low taxes for the rich has truly been a bipartisan affair. And now a former Obama solicitor General is behind a new push to guarantee that the ultra-wealthy never have to pay their fair share. That is according to reporting from our friends over at Lever News. Neil Katyal has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of an anti-tax organization attempting to use an obscure corporate taxation case as a vehicle for permanently banning wealth taxes. Now, this effort would block one of the most promising ideas put forward in recent years to make sure billionaires are taxed at anything approaching the rates of ordinary Americans. Katyal has gained prominence

in the Trump years as a resistance liberal mainstay of MSNBC, of course, in spite of the fact, or perhaps because of the fact, that his work has frequently entailed carrying water for large corporations in some of the most indefensible cases. This is the man, for example, who defended Nestle after they were caught knowingly using products obtained through child slavery. He also backed Johnson & Johnson's efforts to avoid liability when their baby powder was chock full of cancer-causing asbestos. Katyal's also got some Supreme Court favors that he can trade in now. During the Trump administration, he explicitly used his Obama-era liberal cred

to slather praise on every one of Trump's Supreme Court nominees, providing them with critical Democratic cover to aid their confirmation process. Katyal can be seen here at Burning Man, healthfully providing us all with an avatar of soulless elitism for our enjoyment as festival goers became mired in a pit of mud, which left them stranded for days. Sorry, I had to include that. But he is not alone

in his anti-wall tax crusade. He is also joined in the amicus brief by a former Clinton-era Democratic Senator, John Breaux. Since leaving the Senate, Breaux has become a highly paid lobbyist for companies like ExxonMobil, Boeing, and billionaire Democratic megadonor James Simons. Every one of these companies, and certainly the billionaire megadonor, clearly have an interest in the future of this corporate tax case and whether it can successfully be used to rule a wealth tax unconstitutional. You can see how slimy all of this is on its face. Katyal with his cozy political relationships, mainstream media credibility, and willingness to just shamelessly suck up to the justices in hopes that he can favor trade down the road. Bro taking money from whoever, wherever, and then coincidentally

arguing their financial interests as part of a dark money group that frames itself as a social welfare organization in order to avoid any scrutiny or any transparency. Now, the constitutional questions here center around whether a wealth tax can count as income under the 16th Amendment. Can unrealized gains count as quote-unquote income? Now, I'm not going to bore you with a lot of technical analysis, especially since the Supreme Court mostly just uses legal analysis as a cover for doing whatever the hell they want to do based on their ideology, personal corruption, and financial interests. But it is worth noting that the very first income tax that passed after ratification of the 16th Amendment actually included unrealized corporate

earnings as part of income. So at least at the time, they certainly thought income included unrealized gains. In other words, to put this in plain English, based on the definition and implementation of the 16th Amendment at that time, a wealth tax should pose no constitutional problem whatsoever. Now, the need for a billionaire tax is obvious. It's a matter of revenue generation, basic fairness, and also to try to coax our society back from the brink of literal madness. Let's just say that wild inequality, with billionaires building new cities from scratch, while most Americans can't even make the rent, not exactly great for the health of a nation.

Currently, the wealthiest Americans pay far less in taxes than you are likely paying right now. One report found that on average, the 400 wealthiest Americans pay an effective tax rate of 8.2%. And that's the average. That means there are plenty who are paying even less than this paltry sum. Now, the wealth tax has come a long

way from lefty fringe idea to more mainstream acceptance. Even Joe Biden, hardly a class revolutionary, embraced it as a means to potentially pay for the now tabled Build Back Better. Currently seems a complete impossibility so long as Republicans hold the House and Joe Manchin holds the Senate. But listen, few elections could potentially change everything, which is exactly why an unholy alliance of corporate interests and bipartisan ghouls are doing all that they can to make sure that when it comes to taxing the rich, nothing ever changes. And it is remarkable to me the way that these- And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com.

All right, Sagar, what are you looking at? Well, as anyone who watches this show knows, I care a lot about dress code, much to the chagrin probably of most of you. Now, most of society also is on your side at this point. And often I hear some version of, why do you even care? We have bigger problems to worry about. Or is it somehow elitist to think that dress codes should be in place for the most powerful people in America? That's an interesting one. In this monologue, I'm going to try to answer those questions and make a case for why you should care.

Or at the very least, why you should think a little bit harder about the clear trend away by elites to dress down. The brouhaha all started this week after the news broke that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has instructed the Sergeant of Arms to no longer enforce the dress code on the floor of the United States Senate. The new directive says that business attire for members is no longer required in the chamber, in a nod to Senator John Fetterman and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who have both repeatedly violated the longstanding policy. The details of the policy hit home to something I have always tried to underscore, that when politicians dress down

in an official capacity, they're not trying to relate to you. They think they're better than you. The detail missing from the analysis is that it only applies to senators on the floor. In other words, if you're one of the clerks or one of the aides or a member of the press or a visitor, you will still be required to wear a suit and a tie. Or if you're a woman, you will need closed-toed shoes and you have to cover your shoulders. The elites can wear whatever they want and dress like slobs. The staff must abide by the precedent. So okay, you could say then, well who cares, then just let the staff wear whatever they

want. Why is the Senate floor so special anyways? To that I have a very simple answer. The Senate floor, the House of Representatives, the Oval Office, they are symbols not of an individual but of representative democracy itself. It is not a boardroom. It is not just a mere corporation. It is, at its best, the place in which the will of the people are supposed to be expressed. The point of dress code on the Capitol or the White House has always been an enduring idea. Those who serve us must not do so for themselves, but must know the work that they are doing is on our behalf. Now, of course, so much of that already has been stripped away in policy. But

shall we take away even the symbol? A symbol endures through time and through history as a matter of seriousness, to understand that when they walk on the floor to make laws on our behalf, it is a form of service rather than one just for their own benefit. Even in a much lesser role, like my job here, the idea still applies. Yes, I have come to enjoy wearing a suit daily. I don't just do it, though, for myself. When I put it on in the morning, I think about the people who watch this show all over the country, who I've met, who say that they feel as if it's a source that speaks to their interests and their needs, that its respectability is one of the things that validates their lives and helps them share the show with other people. In time, I've come to think of it too out of respect, that if you give us the grace of your time, which is your most precious resource,

it's the very least that I can do for you. You might have seen a recent trend on TikTok where women have been asking men in their lives, how often do you think about the Roman Empire? Apparently, many think of it daily, with most citing their thoughts about the empire as how it relates to the origins of our democratic system and as a cautionary tale for how a Western empire can fall prey to its worst instincts and degenerate over time. Funnily enough, Roman history never was really my bag, which we can still talk about at another time. But apparently, since so many people are interested, here's something to think about. The Senate chamber itself was modeled by the founders off of the Roman Senate. The original Senate, as designed by the founders, did not feature directly elected senators.

Instead, those appointed by state legislatures. The idea was that these representatives with longer-term appointments would not always get caught up in a mob movement and could coolly deliberate whether laws from the house deserved passage. What would you know, though? The Roman Senate was actually governed by a very strict dress code. You may have heard or have seen the Roman toga, but the senatorial toga itself was taken very, very seriously. Roman senators had the right and the duty to wear the lattice clavis, a toga with Tyrian purple stripe. The toga had to be worn during all ceremonial activity with strict fines in place for not attending major social backlash within Rome for those who did not hew to this dress code. In fact, Cicero, one of the heroes to the American

founders and the ideal of a good senator, actually wrote extensively about how important it was to hew to dress code and would lambast his enemies as un-Roman slobs that did not dress appropriately. Contrary to what many people think, the toga was not the everyday wear of the Roman citizen. In private, they would don tunics or more comfortable clothing as we all do today. The standards, though, were in place for the senator and other Romans of high standing to mark their civic identity as a Roman citizen. It was the embodiment of the individual and their service to a larger community. And funnily enough, it was right around the time of Emperor Augustus, the founder of the Roman Empire, who succeeded the Roman Republic,

that dress standards of senators had fallen apart. So much so, Augustus himself decreed that sloppy dress would no longer be tolerated, that the reclaiming Rome's glory, they must all return to the toga. So there you have it, an example from history itself, of the Senate even. When people start to dress like bums in representative chambers, it is a sign of civilizational decline. Maybe it's not that serious, but maybe they were onto something. That a high standard of dress in the Senate chamber was set to remind people of their duty to their citizens. When you lose symbols, you lose yourself.

When you lose yourself, you lose your government, just as the Romans did. So what do you think, Crystal? And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagar's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. We have a great guest standing by. It's Andrew Yang. We're going to do a long interview actually with him. So we'll post a little bit later. We'll see you later. what up y'all this your main man memphis bleak right here host the rock solid podcast june is black music month so what better way to celebrate than listening to my exclusive conversation with my bro, Ja Rule.

The one thing that can't stop you or take away from you is knowledge. So whatever I went through while I was down in prison for two years, through that process, learn, learn from. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. 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. You say you'd never give in to a meltdown and never fill your feed with kid photos. You say you'd never put a pacifier in your mouth to clean it and never let them run wild through the grocery store. So when you say you'd never let them get into a car without you there, know it can happen.

One in four hot car deaths happen when a kid gets into an unlocked car and can't get out. Never happens. Before you leave the car, always stop, look, lock. Brought to you by NHTSA and the Ad Council. This is an iHeart Podcast.