Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - Mini Show #20: SCOTUS, Kamala's Fall, Amazon Lobbying, CNN Streaming, & More!

Episode Date: January 29, 2022

Krystal and Saagar talk SCOTUS Justice Breyer, Kamala Harris' unpopularity, Amazon corruption, CNN's streaming service, and more!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Daily Poster: https://www.dailyposter.com/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? and subscribe today. his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024.

You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it.

Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar. We're gonna be totally upfront with you. We took a big risk going independent. To make this work, we need your support to beat the corporate media.

CNN, Fox, MSNBC, they are ripping this country apart. They are making millions of dollars doing it. To help support our mission of making all of us hate each other less, hate the corrupt ruling class more, support the show. Become a Breaking Points premium member today where you get to watch and listen to the entire show,

ad-free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to breakingpoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the show, guys. Joining us now for our weekly partnership segment with The Daily Poster is founder of that outlet, the man himself, David Sirota. Great to see you, sir. Good to see you, man. Good to see you. Absolutely. So big news this week, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court Justice, is retiring,

allowing Biden and Senate Democrats to fill his shoes. And you have a piece up at the Daily Post. Let's go ahead and throw this up on the screen where you say another Supreme Court corporatist would be a disaster. Now, I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn, because all they've heard from the media is O'Briar is a liberal and he's a consistent, reliable vote on the liberal side of things, that he's been pretty bad where it comes to corporate power. First, lay out his legacy, and then we can talk about the moving forward. Sure. Over the course of his career, Stephen Breyer has been a fairly reliable vote for the

agenda of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the biggest and most powerful corporate lobby group in America. So the chamber files amicus briefs, which urge the court to rule this way or that way. And that's the best way to know what large corporations in America really want. And over the course of his career, according to the data, he has voted with the Chamber of Commerce a majority of times that the Chamber of Commerce has weighed in on cases. So he has been a reliable vote against stronger antitrust enforcement. He has been a vote against various environmental issues when it comes, for instance, he was against a state mining ban. He voted to help empower

energy companies to build pipelines through public lands. So the point being, we could go through the list here, but the point being is that Stephen Breyer, even though he was appointed by Bill Clinton, or maybe perhaps because he was appointed by Bill Clinton, he has been a reliable vote for big business. And the problem is, is that we live in an era where the Supreme Court has become very extremist, even in compared to recent courts. The Roberts Court has become very extremist when it comes to siding with big business. That essentially the Roberts Court, and let's remember John Roberts used to represent the Chamber of Commerce as a lawyer – that the Roberts Court has become a reliable, probably one of history's most reliable blockades of policy for big business. So I'm just really glad that you're focusing on this. Nobody ever seems to understand that the law has immense implications for how big business operates. Can you just describe

what it means exactly to side with the chamber and court? Like, what does that look like for people? Sure. I mean, look, Stephen Breyer didn't support all of the chambers, Amicus Priest. But broadly speaking, the Chamber of Commerce is not only putting forward judicial nominee names. I mean, that's one of the things that it has been doing. But these amicus briefs push the court on everything from union rights to federal agencies' regulatory power to the ability of, for instance, the SEC to crack down on Wall Street banks. Breyer, by the way, was a vote for a ruling that essentially limited the SEC's ability to punish corporate criminals. So the point being is that the

Chamber of Commerce is in these divisive cases where there are questions about the law. Can the SEC, for instance, seriously punish a Wall Street bank? The Chamber of Commerce is filing detailed amicus briefs to try to essentially influence those rulings to make sure the court comes down on the side of corporate power. And David, I mean, this is kind of a layup for you, but I want to go ahead and ask it. Why is it that the media doesn't explain this well? I mean, we've all heard a lot, and I don't want to downplay these decisions are important. Obergefell, you know, the right for gay people to get married, the right of women to choose for themselves, Roe versus Wade. These are important things, but we hear a lot about those cases, and most people have never heard anything about these other instances where,

you know, their work lives and their economic reality are impacted by what the court does. Why is that, David Sirota? Well, corporate media is corporate. So corporate media isn't all that interested in telling the story of how the corporate America's most powerful lobby group is winning case after case after case at the high court. So there's essentially, it's kind of a baked-in bias, I would argue, that corporate media is not interested in this. Now, I would also say that a lot of these cases that deal with corporate power are esoteric. They deal with seemingly small, very detailed issues. There was a ruling, for instance, can pensioners sue their retirement fund if their retirement fund is mismanaging their money. And it deals with very arcane parts of the law.

So in some ways, writing about that can seem very detailed, very in the weeds. But again, it is sort of the machine thrumming in the background, that the Congress will pass something or an agency will try to do something. And then a few years later, an esoteric case will come to the court. The Chamber of Commerce will put forward an amicus brief and bam, the agency is limited. The law is gutted or overturned. And that keeps happening over and over and over again. And what you end up with at the end of the day is a legal system that has, in many cases, closed the courthouse doors to plaintiffs who are trying to hold big corporations accountable. You have a legal architecture that is rigged against the American worker, that is rigged against the environment. And by the way, one last thing on Stephen Breyer. Back in 2010, months after the Citizens United decision, I mean, he had the nerve to go out and say that the Roberts court is not actually pro-business, which is so ridiculous. And I think we've seen these justices go out lately trying to defend

the legitimacy of the court? Because I think they sense that more and more people have caught on to how rigged this court is. But the problem is, is that in a Supreme Court nomination fight, my guess is we're not going to hear very much about economic issues, even though that is mostly what the court is doing on a day-to-day basis, that we're going to hear a lot about these, definitely, I agree with you, important hot-button social issues, but we will not hear almost anything when it comes to what the court is doing on a day-to-day basis for big business. And I would posit one other reason, which is that those hot-button social issues,

they break down along convenient lines. Republicans are on this side, and the liberals are on that side, and that makes it easy. And these economic issues, as you're pointing out, a lot of times, you know, RBG was on the wrong side of some of those issues, liberal icons, Stephen Breyer is on the wrong side of those issues, Justice Hagan. So it complicates this narrative of, you know, if you're at Fox News, Republicans good and Democrats bad. And if you're at CNN or MSNBC, the reverse. It makes it a lot more complicated and exposes, actually, there's a lot of treachery to go around here.

And my fear, honestly, about this nomination fight, truly, is that another Stephen Breyer would just lock in almost a guarantee that the Supreme Court remains a corporate court. Even the discourse, the debate, how this nomination is discussed already, you haven't seen nearly any discussion about what could be done to make the court more on the side of workers. There's been discussions about what demographic groups may be represented in the nomination pick. You've seen questions about the politics of the nomination. But there's been almost no discourse, no discussion about the economic implications. I remember back in the Neil Gorsuch nomination, for like one minute, economic issues and corporate power issues came up in a very big way about that discussion about his ruling with the trucker

who was freezing on the side of the road. And it came up for one second and it was a big story for like one second. And I remember being like, wow, this is the first time I can remember an economic or corporate power issue actually being at the center of a Supreme Court nomination fight. And then, boom, it was gone. And so what I worry about is that without that kind of discussion, without that kind of focus on the nominee's record and what kind of nominee Biden is going to put forward, that you get another Stephen Breyer and it almost guarantees to lock in this corporate court, which has been putting its boot on the neck of the American worker for 16 years plus. And by the way,

according to the chart that you have in your piece, Justice Gorsuch, the most reliable vote for the Chamber of Commerce of all of the justices who are currently sitting. There you go. This is why everybody should subscribe to your work,

by the way, because you're talking about these issues in a way that you won't find anywhere else and we're always grateful for your time, David.

Thank you. Thanks, David. Thanks to both of you. Our pleasure. Always. Thank you guys so much for watching. Have a great day.

We'll have more for you later. Alright, bunch of stuff out in this new NBC News poll, but one particular stat kind of caught our eye here that we wanted to highlight for you.

Let's go ahead and throw this tweet up on the screen. All right. The quote here from Harry Edson is, No doubt Biden's unpopularity is playing a role here. However, Kamala Harris has the lowest net popularity rating one year in for a vice president since at least Dan Quayle. This for the NBC News poll that is out this morning and NBC polling since 1990.

And you can see here, all right, let's first stipulate that this Dick Cheney plus 51 number comes right after 9-11. So of course he and Bush had crazy popularity numbers that quickly fell off a cliff. So let's stipulate that. But however, you've got Al Gore, plus 25. Joe Biden, plus nine. Mike Pence, minus six. Not good. Dan Quayle, minus nine. Worse. Kamala Harris, minus 17. Oh my God. And here's the thing is, you know,

always with regards to the vice president, you're thinking in terms of, okay, who might be the next nominee for the major party. I mean, that's kind of what it is, you're thinking in terms of, OK, who might be the next nominee for the major party? I mean, that's kind of what it is, sort of an audition for that. And you can see how Joe Biden is now president of the United States. And that's a major part of why is because he served as vice president of the United States under Barack Obama for eight years. But with Kamala Harris, that calculation was even more overt because, you know, that is very possible Joe Biden will only serve one term. So you really need to have in mind, OK, this is the next person that we're going to put forward. And as we've said many times here, if you had just surveyed the scene of who have the American people thoroughly rejected,

Kamala Harris, obviously they had had a chance to vote for and said, thank you. No, I would say she has in office been even worse than what I anticipated. She's just unable to give a single interview without embarrassing herself. You know, all they do is leak how it's not her fault. This or that of the other hasn't gone her way. Sexism, racism. Of course. And this just, I mean, people just aren't having it. She has no political skill. She's unlikable. She hasn't been able to sort of assert herself on any major issue. When they do put an issue in her hand, she complains through her staffers, the press, that this is too hard to deal with.

And so you end up with a minus 17 approval rating and a dire situation facing Dems. Oh, that's right. Think about this. She is almost doubly less popular than the guy who couldn't spell frickin' potato, okay? That's how bad this is. Granted, things are a little different in 1990 than 2022, but I think it's very, very bad sign for Kamala Harris. But even worse sign for the

institutional Democratic Party, Crystal, this goes to the monologue you did this week about Mark Cuban, which is that these people really have no institutional credibility or bench in order to fill the wants and the desires of the American people. Joe Biden is dramatically unpopular. You know who's even more unpopular? Kamala. And yet the institutional Democratic Party is held hostage by her and identity politics and accusations of sexism and racism that they cannot jettison one of the most obvious political losers of a century. I mean, I cannot think of one of the worst politicians to be on the national stage in the modern age. And yet they can't do a damn thing. It's amazing to me, actually. It shows you both how weak they are, but

how strong the hold of identity politics is on all of them. And corporate politics, too, because they love her. We'll see. I mean, because at this point, they realize this is a disaster. They realize this is a total and utter disaster, but I'm not sure that they can figure out their way out of it. And then, even if they

get their wish, I mean, what they really want is to be able to replace her with Amy or ideally, I think, Pete. Pete is really the choice of like the Democratic donor class and billionaire class. So even if they get their wish and they replace her with Pete, it's not like he's dramatically on policy. He's not better at all. In fact, in certain ways, he's worse because he's more calculated. He's more committed to this idea of like you just crunch the McKinsey spreadsheet. Yes. And that's going to fill in your values for you somehow.

More sort of mercenary and I would say effective in that way. But ideology-wise, they're basically both committed to their own advancement and that's about it. But in terms of popularity, I mean, Pete did better in the presidential primary, actually made it to the starting line, did well in Iowa, but there was zero interest in him from what is supposedly the core of the Democratic base, which is voters of color. I mean, he got like three people in South Carolina, three black people in South Carolina to vote for him, despite many efforts.

I mean, they really tried, but there was just, they, people just weren't interested. They weren't having it. They saw through this guy. So even the savior that they think is waiting for them in the wings is going to be a total disaster. No, I think that's correct. And this is the very interesting part of all of this, which is watching and seeing them try to handle it. They don't have any good options, which is why I do think they'll stick with Kamala in the end. Look, Biden said she will be my nominee, running mate in 2024. Even if he doesn't run, he has to give it to her. She is the vice president. And I do think there are enough people who are in the Democratic base who would follow what Biden has to say. Also, you know Obama and them would come in possibly on her side. I don't see how they could

cast her aside. Well, that's the big question, isn't it and them would come in possibly on her side. I don't see how they could cast her aside. Well, that's the big question, isn't it? What would Obama do? He's the guy. I mean, only Michelle could beat her, but I don't think she wants to run, so I don't know. Yeah, I think, but if Obama backed someone else, that would create a permission structure for people to move away from Kamala. That's true. Now, he and Kamala have history.

They sort of came up at the same time in politics. So they had an affinity. I mean, that was like the first fundraiser he did outside of Washington was for Kamala Harris. So I do think that there's kind of like a relationship affinity there. However, I mean, Obama was right about Biden. You know, his famous like never underestimate. Never underestimate his ability to screw things up.

Yeah. That's a nice... Sanitized. Yeah, it's a nice way of saying it. Yeah, and obviously did not back his vice president. And, of course, Joe said, oh, I asked him not to.

Yeah, I asked him not to. Okay, sure. Which is kind of a clever move on his part, but obviously, like, everyone saw through that. Obama liked Beto more. i think he liked pete more although he said pete was like too short or something like that true i recently saw pete on

the street here he's a short guy i don't trust that i mean sorry sorry short people you have to be six three president i'm not thinking against short people but it is true that it's great apparently is a political problem anyway that's the least of Pete's issues. Let's just say that. Obama is hardly the political genius that he's been sold as, but he does have some instincts, and I

think he probably is clever enough to see that Kamala would be a disaster. So I guess that would be one outlet. He endorsed Hillary, Crystal. I don't know. Yeah, but that was about protecting his own legacy. True. Because Bernie, you know, if Bernie does single payer health care, well, what is that makes Obamacare look pretty small and pathetic and like the giant health insurance giveaway that it ultimately was. But yeah, to your point,

I mean, he's no political genius here, but I think he could probably see that Kamala Harris is a disaster. So if he were to back someone else or stay sort of studiously above the fray or make moves behind the scenes, he would be the one that I think could cause them to go in another direction. So we'll see. There you go. We'll see. All right. All right, guys. Thanks for watching. We'll have more for you later. Always keep a very close eye on the people who are around Joe Biden, who's lobbying them, and the dollars that are being spent. Now, we've been warning here, both even here and on our past show, about Steve Reschetti, who is the deputy White House chief of staff under Joe Biden, and whose brother, who he co-founded a lobbying firm with, remains one of the highest paid lobbyists here in D.C., miraculously, around the same time that Biden becomes president.

Well, who's paying, Mr. Reschetti, to lobby on issues related to the regulation of online marketplaces and consumer privacy, amongst other things. Now, that is pretty revealing, don't you think? Which is, you have a small lobbying firm, as described by Ken Vogel here at the New York Times, who is pulling 90K, so 30K a month, in order to lobby on behalf of Amazon, who is the brother of a senior White House official. Reschetti does not get nearly the amount of view and public consciousness that he deserves, but he and his brother had one of the top lobby shops here in Washington, and now all sorts of tech firms and others are paying his brother in one of the most clear pay-to-play schemes that could possibly exist here. And Biden simply doesn't seem to care, Crystal.

I mean, he said that his White House would not be corrupt. He said he wouldn't have undue influence in all this. You know, Steve Ruschetti has said, oh, well, my brother doesn't lobby me. He lobbies the people around me. Yeah, OK. So if somebody works for you and you're like, hey, the boss's brother wants a meeting, you're not going to take it? They want you to defy your lying eyes and human nature. Everything that we know about familial networks in order to say that this isn't outright corruption, which it is.

Well, and there's a few things to say here, too, which is that now is right now a very critical time for Amazon and other tech giants. We talked to Stoller last week about the markup of an antitrust bill that was going on in the Senate passed out of the Judiciary Committee. So they're going to be spending lots of money trying to push back on some of the things that are coming out right now with new antitrust energy on both the right and the left. So that's one thing to say here. Another thing is Biden, even though he has some new faces around him, he has relied on the same sort of core group of guys for a long time. And Reschetti is one of them. So this is someone who, even though you don't see him in the public eye as much as Ron Klain or Jen Psaki or some of the other high profile names, this is someone who has very direct access to the president. And that's ultimately what they're paying for here. The other thing to say about it is I shouldn't have,

but I looked at like the replies and the quote tweets to this and they're so depressing. I mean, it's all these Democratic partisans who were like, this isn't even that much money or who were like, everybody does this, lobbying's common. I mean, all of these total, like, rationalizations of what is pure corruption. And yeah, everybody does do it. That doesn't make it okay. That makes it worse. That doesn't make it better. And Joe Biden said he was going to restore the soul of the nation and that it was, you know,

turning the page from the corrupt era of the Trump administration, which was wildly corrupt. And they just operate in the same way that everybody else does. So, yeah, it's important to know where the money is going, who is going to and how the game is ultimately being played, which is what Ken Vogel is exposing here. And, you know, we had a second one here. Tony Podesta, John Podesta's brother, very, very close to the White House and some of the top Biden aides. One million dollars over the past six months by the U.S. arm of Chinese telecom giant Huawei to lobby the executive office of the president. Huawei is, of course, banned by the

Trump administration, upheld that ban by the Biden administration to sell their devices, clearly riddled with spyware here in the US by the Chinese Communist Party and very directly linked to their top government officials. And we have Tony Podesta netting a million bucks from those people. It just, they know our system better than we do. I always say that.

You know, I love that quote, which we played here on the show of that Chinese professor who was like, how do you think it works in the US? And he holds up his hands like this. He's like, you've got to pay the right people. Biden's son, the Podestas, they know that you can just buy off these people and try to get the job done.

So outright in the open, a million bucks over six months. Sounds nice. You know, honest work if you can get it. And it's just outright corruption, which is right here in the open. As you said, most Democrats don't care or they say, but Trump, yeah, Trump was bad too. I don't know what to tell you. It doesn't justify your bad actions. Is that where your bar is set? Trump?

That's your standard now? Congratulations. The richest people here and in the surrounding counties are the people who are willing to work with the sleaziest governments or the sleilesias companies. Those are the ones who really get paid.

The more you're willing to compromise your morals, the more money you're going to make in this town. Lobbying for like apartheid South Africa or like Uganda or something, that's where like the real cash money is, which is disgusting, but there we go. Yep, indeed. All right, guys, thanks for watching.

We'll have more for you later. New York Times is asking what to us was a little bit of a hilarious question. Let's go ahead and throw this tear sheet up on the screen. Can CNN's hiring spree get people to pay for streaming news? Sagar, will people pay for streaming news? I just don't know the answer. Our show proves that they will. The problem is that the people who want to pay for that don't want to watch CNN.

The amount of trash, and I know we're trashing them, but this is very, you know, it shows you a lot about how these idiots think about the business. Because, you know, they hired Chris Wallace and this NPR All Things Considered co-host and Casey Hunt. They're signing these people to multi-million dollar deals. It was bought together. They're going to do Eva Longoria. Alison Roman is getting a cooking show. But my personal favorite, Crystal, is down below about existing CNN talent. Here's what they want to charge you for.

Charge you for. Anderson Cooper will have a show focused on parenting. Fareed Zakaria will do historical events. Jake Tapper will host Jake Tapper's book club in which he interviews authors. This is B-minus content at best that they're trying to charge people

for. Isn't this kind of what Fox News did? Yeah, and by the way, Fox Nation's a total disaster. Yeah, they had like Ainsley does like a Bible study or something. It's the same. Somebody has a cooking show. i can't remember who it is like greg gutfeld has a cooking show or something like that i don't know yeah um but it was the same sort of concept of like let's take these hosts that by the way no one cares about and they only get views because they're part of this thing of this existing on in the background. No one is choosing

affirmatively to watch these people. Let's imagine that there's a desperate hunger so much for these individuals like Anderson Cooper that they would watch content, you know, of him on parenting or whatever. It's just, it's hilariously bad. And the amount of money they must be spending on this is completely insane to have a less good product. The only one that I could see, maybe the Alison Roman cooking show could do well. Why would anybody pay for that? You know how many good cooking shows are out on YouTube? You can get that sort of stuff for free on YouTube. There's a whole bunch like a bunch of different

cooking channels. So it's hard for me to see people being like, I'm going to pay for a CNN service to get a cooking show. I don't know. And they didn't, they didn't pick anyone that I know of who has succeeded in alternative media. Exactly. You know, wouldn't you get someone who has like a track record of like, oh, people will actually show up for this person. They have their own individual audience. They don't understand that that's different from like the cable news model that they have. It's like, you know, Joe, they Spotify bought Joe Rogan for a reason or paid Joe Rogan for a reason because he had a different audience out there that they wanted to bring onto their platform.

This is literally not what's happening here. And it's just amazing, and I always emphasize this. These people are subsidized by their cable carrier fees because people like live news. That's the only reason any of this is valuable. But a lot of these people have become egomaniacs, and they think that because they're on TV, people actually want to watch them. No, no, no, no.

It's just rigged that way. TV, people actually want to watch them. No, no, no, no. It's just rigged that way. People don't actually want to watch you. There's a reason why none of you are actually doing well on social media or would do well out here in the independent environment. And they're about to find that out real quick. They can't even offer you live news legally online. So all they can give you is this B-minus talk show BS. Good luck. All right?

Have fun. Yeah. B- Talk Show BS. Good luck. All right? Have fun. Yeah, and post-Trump, even the rigged model isn't working for them. People aren't even watching them now in the spaces where they are and where the thing has been rigged to get people to watch them. So I don't know.

It just shows you how not genius our supposed genius leaders are and how little they understand what people actually want. And so, listen, I hope it will be interesting to watch how it does. The other pieces that we'll never know because they'll never actually tell you what the streaming numbers are. Oh, for sure. It'll be totally hidden, totally faked, and all of that. I can't wait to watch this thing go down.

I am actively rooting against it. It'll be quietly shelved in a few years, and they just won't say anything about it. All right, guys. Thanks for watching. We'll have more for you later. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie.

Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John.

Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily, it's You're Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in- Not the Father week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that

exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.